Tuesday, October 1, 2013

Republicans Aren't Insane

On the surface it seems crazy.  Suppose Democrats in the Senate decided they didn't like some past bill that was made law.  Maybe the tax cuts for the rich that Bush passed.  Imagine if they just said their going to shut down the government if the Republican controlled house didn't agree to go along on a repeal of all the Bush tax cuts.  And what if they further threatened to refuse to raise the debt ceiling and put the entire world's economic system in crisis.  Well, that seems pretty crazy.  It doesn't matter if you don't like certain laws that were passed, you don't put a gun to your own head and everybody elses and overturn duly passed laws.

I mean, let's think about what we're dealing with here.  This is a law passed two years ago.  Not only was it passed, it was challenged in the Supreme Court and upheld.  Then we had a subsequent election where the party that ran on their record of passing this health care package and they won.  They won the Presidency, the Senate, and more people voted for Democratic Congressmen than Republican Congressmen.  The only reason Republicans control Congress is because they gerrymander their way into a majority.  Obviously there's no mandate for Republicans to undo this.  And yet they are taking the most drastic of measures.  Not to end spying, end droning, end wars started without the consent of congress.  No, on the fear of overspending.  This despite the fact that our deficit is falling faster than it has fallen in 60 years.  Overspending supposedly would harm the economy (despite the lack of evidence for this claim) so we're going to pull the rug out from under currently employed government workers and risk stalling the economic recovery.  Because we're concerned about the economy.  And even though repealing Obama Care would increase the deficit.

They've voted to repeal Obama Care something like 43 times.  Apparently it costs $1.5 million to have a single vote in Congress.  This is a complete waste of time.  Though it passes in the House it's a certainty the Senate won't likewise pass it, and even if they did Obama would veto it.  This is going nowhere, but this is what they've been doing.

So what's up?  My theory is that their worst fear is that it will actually work.  Cut the deficit and improve people's lives?  That's a catastrophe.  If it works those that benefit from it will be very grateful, and they will clearly see that the Republicans are just not interested in helping them or serving them.  In fact Republicans have been lying like crazy.  They can't be trusted to tell the truth or to do what is best, both for our deficit and our people.  Let's remember that right now 45,000 people die every year because they don't have access to health care.  If terrorism is a real concern, and it has killed far fewer Americans comparatively, then what about this health care system?  There's a lot to not like about it.  But is the alternative so much better that it's worth going nuclear?  For them maybe it is, because the real issue is their credibility.  They fear they may come out of this with none.

I frankly wonder what rank and file Republicans think.  OK, I know they don't like Obama Care.  But they can't be too thrilled with the prior system either, the system their leadership is fighting tooth and nail for.  Maybe the people think the prior system is better, but how much better?  So much better that it's worth shutting the government down?  Don't pay military personnel?  Don't go to the national parks?  Risk having people that can't pay their mortgages?  I have to think Republican leadership is losing their own supporters on this one, except for the most extremist tea party types that think NASA and the EPA are bad things.


Jonathan said...

Don't have time to look it up, but this morning on NPR they interviewed a Republican congressman from the House to Rep? who tried to explain the rationality of shutting down the government due to this issue.

I thought he sounded like a real idiot and is an example with what is wrong with congress on both sides of the aisle.

You might wanna track down the audio to hear his rational, it's interesting - in a sad way.

Sheldon said...

Read your whole post and missed the part about the reason why "Republicans Aren't Crazy"

Jon said...

My thinking is that if you believe the ostensible reasons for doing this (they want to bring the deficit down, prevent the economy from being harmed, etc) then it would seem that what they are doing is crazy.

But when you consider the real reason (they lose credibility) then actually their behavior is logical. It is what they must do to save themselves. Because politically success is a catastrophe.

Examinator said...

I thought you were attempting sarcasm but apparently not.
So who ever you are please give us back the real Jon the one without the convoluted psychotic logic?
I agree that "insane" is a legal term not a medical one but
Understanding the logic of a psychotic loon(s) is still "deeply troubled thinking in need of extensive therapy and pharmacological intervention"

Or Jon ...I've should have warned you standing too close to college students so you can smell them can cause drug psychoses. ;-)

Such egocentric single minded self justification for a behaviour that is demonstrably 4 Std deviations from the social mean for that which is also demonstrably social good is well.... proof positive of my assertion that those best qualified to be politicians are simultaneously the least appropriate for the said task of representation and or reasoned public service.... In Chad speak (by he way where is he? I miss his
input) .... simply antisocial Bull Shit.

Jon said...

Ha! All I'm saying is that the behavior is logical, in the sense that it's maybe the only hope they have of achieving their goals. Not the stated goals. The real goals.

Kind of like saying it's logical for a person who's goal it is to kill lots of people to drive on the sidewalk. Insanity would be saying your goal is to kill so to achieve that you'll read a book quietly in the corner. That's not rational.

In a sense both are insane, so I can see what you mean. I just think Republicans are desperate to preserve credibility and this is their real reason for doing everything they can to block implementation of a potentially successful program. This may be the only thing that can allow them to save face. Go nuclear and stop a good thing from happening.

Jonathan said...


I got Jon's point - however, anyone from any party trying to justify the benefits of a government shutdown as a net positive for the nation is an idiot.

I mean, argue that the other side is being unreasonable, that they've forced your hand, etc. etc. but when you argue that it is an acceptable and useful tool to utilize a government shutdown to further the nation is completely wrongheaded.

Examinator said...

I understood your point and was just being pedantic to be mischievous... I have a torn muscle in my back/ hip, no activity allowed...so I'm bored ;-)

I understand their logic and it's consistent with their false premises,... that Obamacare is going to break the country or all that is significant to them yarder ,yarder the concept is a bit corrupted Bushido warrior; line in the sand (irrationality) ... a more extreme example would be believing the air is life threateningly dangerous so no breathing on principal. As Jonathan implied is all a bit nationally counter productive (a.k.a. antisocial "destroy the country to save it")

This is the logical trap with absolute opinions (lines in the sand [BS])

Frankly I'm with the famous physicist who after stating his conviction he was asked " what will you do if you're proven wrong"

" change my mind ... why? what do you do? " Implying that when faced width reality change your POV. To do anything else is denying reality, One of the tests of legal insanity... knowing the difference between reality and fantasy.

The final arbiter is as I said earlier that which the 2-3 standard deviations from the mean of the judging culture. Beyond that you are then into the medical definitions of psychotic behaviour.
I recently visited Number 2 at work (uni) and was surprised by the strength of the blend of BO and Weed odour in their common room.
Our son commented that after a while you don't notice it any more. Weeeeeeeeeeeeeee :-o

HispanicPundit said...

It's not that complicated. They are taking something (ObamaCare) that most Republicans dont like, the general public is ify about at best, Democrats will want to keep and using it as a bargaining chip to get more of the GOP agenda (Oil Pipeline? etc) in a Democrat controlled world.

And who does the slimdown harm? A bunch of union loving government workers, mostly. People who the GOP doesn't rely much on anyway...

Nothing really more complicated. Nobody expects the GOP to actually prevent ObamaCare, nor to truly shutdown the government. Just a bargaining chip that polls well...

Examinator said...

["the general public is ify about at best"]

Really? your source please?

Examinator said...

Sorry about the length,I lost the URL
Guardian US I think
A perfectly normal looking couple come to sit opposite you on the train. They seem pleasant enough and you fall into conversation, but you soon note that the man is not making a lot of sense and foam is showing at the corners of his mouth. At every turn, he contradicts his partner or, more weirdly, himself, and you realise that inside he is seething with violent and paranoid fears. You conclude that this character is going to do serious harm to himself, and may hurt other passengers in the process, so you leave and find a seat in another carriage.
That's our experience of living with the American right – the Tea Party activists who have brought the world's largest economy to the brink of catastrophe to make one last stand against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The world is powerless to persuade or intervene and we are at the mercy of what seems truly irrational behaviour.
This is certainly some kind of high point in the Tea Party's mission to disrupt, but it cannot simply be written off as delinquency. The movement presents the symptoms of a prolonged infantile spasm, at the same time as a coherent belief that central government and especially Obamacare are inimical to the liberty of the individual and the freedom of individual states to determine their future.
Liberals will describe this as a failure of consensus politics that has been driven by the lowest suspicion and prejudice available in American society, manipulated by big business, pandered to by lax or demagogic media companies, such as Fox News, and ridden by ambitious politicians who promise a fantasy land that they cannot deliver.
That's mostly my view, yet I have to concede that it ignores the deep suspicion of centralised power in America that goes back to the founding fathers and is an essential part of national culture. The checks and balances designed by the authors of the constitution seem archaic in a world that demands swift executive action, but we shouldn't forget that even though Obamacare has been democratically scrutinised and passed by Congress, the restraints are being applied by the Tea Party or TPers – in the name of liberty.
There is still a minority – 18-20 – of Republicans in the Senate who oppose the government shutdown and recoil from a default, which would mean the government would stop paying its bills when it reaches its debt limit on or after 17 October, and so cause a greater international crisis than anything we have seen in the last five years. It's obviously suicidal, but, for the moment, Tea Party representatives, such as Ted Cruz, the junior Republican senator for Texas who made a 21-hour filibustering speech attacking everything about the White House except Mrs Obama's vegetable garden, are calling the shots.
But the strategy, if that is the word, is bound to fail, because President Obama cannot resile on the key reform of his administration and, at some point, the Tea Party has to swerve or risk the anger of the majority of the American people and so jeopardise the Republican party's chances at the next presidential election.
The movement has placed itself in a position where it cannot win and that is going to be very damaging to its Republican host, which has already been greatly distorted by the invasive Tper micro-organism. As the Economist points out, Republican members of Congress have become more fearful of being challenged by their own extremists than losing at a general election. "Many pander to extremists on their own side rather than forging sensible alliances with the other," says the magazine's leader.

Examinator said...

A couple of weeks ago, writing about gun control in the US, I applied the ironic technique of treating America with the same condescension that America speaks about other nations. But those tropes would be pointless for the Tea Party, for there are few movements anywhere in the world that are so unrealistic or have such a startling lack of rigour. Satire and irony are useless when it comes to a movement that is pro-life on abortion but pro-death in the matter of executing people or the 32,000 yearly toll caused by privately owned firearms. Tea Party Republicans pepper their speeches with the words "freedom" and "liberty", but do nothing to oppose the government surveillance programmes that infringe the rights of all Americans. They rail against the power of big government, but never the malignancy of big business.
They are all over the map. Their policies are like the diet of high fructose corn syrup that Tpers often favour – appetising, temporarily satisfying but ultimately a health hazard.
We have our own political boobies, in Ukip and the Conservative party, (Jacob Rees-Mogg applauded the US government shutdown) but we are rarely exposed to the dazzling fanaticism of a man such as Cruz. He was elected last November but has already become a national figure and is being touted as a possible presidential candidate in 2016. Princeton and Harvard educated, with a Cuban father, he looks quite a bit like a young version of Senator Joe McCarthy. And indeed, shortly after arriving in Washington, his prosecutorial line of questioning of Chuck Hagel, Obama's nominee for defence secretary, with its references to possible ties to foreign enemies, reminded people of McCarthy. "Are you or have you ever been…"
I recommend his filmed interviews, especially with Evan Smith of the Texas Tribune, because you will not see a more polished zealot. This is a man who agreed that social security was a Ponzi scheme on the grounds that it paid investors from their own money or the money invested by others. He regards many of his colleagues as "squishy Republicans" and repeats this refrain: "The federal government is engaged on a war on jobs and what is at stake is individual liberty and the constitution", which makes absolutely no sense, given the hundreds of thousands of government employees now on unpaid leave because of the shutdown.
If you found yourself on a train with Cruz, you would be struck by his intelligence and confident manner, and initially you might buy his line that the constitution needs to be redrafted to beef up the 9th and 10th amendments, which he says would enhance individual liberties and the states' powers. But very soon you'd see none of it adds up and that his suspicion of government is far greater than his love of liberty.
The constitution may need to be rewritten, but only to give the executive the power to govern the modern American state and bring order to the country's finances. For in all this no one mentions the elephantine figure in the room – America's debt, last estimated to be $16,699tn.

Chad said...

Working hard Ex - someone is going to have to pay for all of the "free" health care being handed out. As per the norm - the burden to pay for these programs, to buy things to keep the economy working and then to create jobs falls on the few in the private sector responsible to care for the many. Thankfully - we have a very 'aggressive accountant' who helps in these matters so we don't feel raped when every paycheck hits the bank account.

This has been a very enjoyable few days/weeks watching this unfold - forget about the fact that Reid and the Dumbocrats have not passed an appropriations bill in years which would have also stopped a 'shut down' which is not a shut down. The best point made - the absolute to the heart of the point that makes progressives cower in the corner is this fact - if it is a great, wonderful and fair thing then why are there exemptions? If the idea is sound enough then it should be able to stand on its own in the market and survive, but it can not like all Progressive ideas.

Ideas so great they require 100% participation and cost shifting to WORK!

Examinator said...

Jon, chad
A little off the topic but germane to the who's insane?

Chad read this article THEN Dispute the FACTS!

NB the relationship with road deaths then consider.... not everyone owns or uses a firearms but everyone uses vehicles.

Chad said...

There is no link that I can see Ex.

Chad said...

And JC .... Keep in mind that these Tea Party Patriots were in many ways were elected to do exactly what they are doing right this minute. We elected these folks to defund/dismantle Obama Care and to change this unsustainable path the gov't is plotting us on heading for destruction or even worse - socialism.

Even you can not argue that the Founders of this country and this style of government did everything they possibly could to limit the power of gov't. When you read the Constitution and the Federalist Papers you can actually see sentences and dialog outlining their fears of what gov't could do - they constructed the Constitution as a document to limit the gov't as best they could while giving the people to allow their representatives to change (amend) the Constitution through a process in case change needed to occur. The undeniable fact - it can not be argued - is that the Gov't has absolutely no Constitutional Right to be involved in Health Care. It has no right to be in Education and it has no Constitutional foundation to have started the Social Security Scam.

So for me - these Tea Party folks are Patriots of the highest order and I hope they continue to stand their ground using the Constitution as their anchor - and by all hope they take us to the brink of disaster before the Dems and Rhino's agree to shelf this unconstitutional program for dismantling if necessary. The Tea Party folks have already agreed to funding the entire gov't less one thing which by the way the Constitution allows them to do. Funding starts in the House - once again brilliance on the part of the Founders to put these types of checks and balances in.

My only wish here is that states like Texas (and other Bright Red States) would take advantage of this 'shut down' to go ahead and Secede from the US while they have the chance to do so.

My only hope and prayer is that they take this all the way out to the ceiling talks and beyond. Then my hope is that the 50+ some Tea Party backed candidates running for office win their races in 2014 which many are projected to do - could be fun!

Jon said...

HP, we're both speculating a bit when we talk about the real purpose of all this is. You say bargaining chip. I say it is what they say it is. A real effort to stop Obama Care. Sure, they will probably fail and may get concessions in the end, but they really are taking these desperate measures as a last ditch effort to kill Obama Care, and they need to do it for reasons I explained.

One piece of evidence that justifies my claim is the fact that this whole strategy was initiated almost a year ago for the express purpose of stopping Obama Care. In their private meetings it wasn't presented as a bargaining chip. Obama Care needs to be stopped, and this method, though radical, could get it done.

The government shut down doesn't harm much you say. But I would suggest you expand your reading list beyond economists locked in broom closets that have no contact with the real world. There's more to life than maximizing share holder value. So for instance, what of the brain drain of scientists? Maybe it doesn't affect profits today, but it does affect us down the road. Estimates of NASA's return on investment are as high as 14:1. That is, for every dollar invested we've reaped a $14 return. That's shut down. Asteroids that could potentially harm our planet are no longer being tracked. That's not something that affects GDP and exports today so maybe the economists you read didn't notice, but there's more to life than stock prices. The earlier threats can be detected the better chance we have of provisioning for it.

Maybe you don't notice threats to WIC. Maybe if a child goes to bed hungry there's no impact to GDP. No impact to your personal life. But it affects parents. It affects crime. It affects people in their real lives. I think the economists you rely on might not notice. Maybe they don't think social workers are highly esteemed enough that we should listen to them when they tell us about how families are crumbling. But that's where you and I differ. I think we should listen to them even if they lack an MBA from Chicago, because the effect on people's lives matters too.

Jon said...

Here's one way the Tea Party was not elected to do this. Republicans did not win the popular vote in the most recent vote for Congress. They gerrymandered the districts into absurd shapes so as to deliver victory despite the fact that the majority of the population doesn't want them.

Now, you say Obama Care is unconstitutional. Our constitution says that if both houses of Congress vote for it, and the president signs it, it's the law. If the law violates the Constitution it is challenged in Court and the Supreme Court decides if that is true or not. So this is exactly what has happened. In what sense is this unconstitutional?

Now, do you think it's wise that when a law is passed and regarded as Constitutional the House can now say they just won't implement it and they'll continue to damage the country, the economy, and people's lives until the laws they don't like are overturned?

Just as an example, let's take the Bush tax cuts. What if Congress decided they would refuse to fund the government, causing a lot of damage, and they would just continue to cause damage until Bush agreed to not enact the laws he had duly passed. Do you think that's a good way to govern.

By the way, that reminds me of more damage that is happening. The EPA is shut down. These are the people that try and make sure that companies in their pursuit of profits don't destroy our environment. Drinking water, that sort of thing. HP doesn't see a problem, but his thinking is very short term. As companies dump toxins into our rivers we won't notice today or tomorrow. It's down the road pain. So for instance, check this article.


I think the Republican idea is they'll just let the government get wrecked, and they'll watch it happen with glee until Obama can no longer stomach the damage and agree to end his signature policy achievement. Kind of like the guy who takes a child as ransom and with his hand on the throat squeezing more and more he says "This is all the parent's fault, because this would all end immediately if they would send ransom." Rewarding this is dangerous for our democracy, but yeah, they're doing real damage right now.

Examinator said...

The possibilities are endless


Examinator said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Examinator said...

I see this clip as a metaphor
The jihadies are the TP all ideology, largely ignorant of or lacking the real connection which the wider reality... shooting down all that is good about the GOP.

the child Chad's son, and Chad of course ......


Examinator said...

Oops The link is


Chad said...

Point of clarification Jon - missing the truth again I see - the Unconstitutional decision by the Supreme Court did not tell us that Obama Care was Constitutional by way it was designed and sold to America. What they determined and based their decision on was that Obama Care is quite simply a TAX! It's a damn tax and that is how it got through even though the ruling was wrong. The Constitution never ever gave the Supreme Court ruling power to determine and set Social Issues - no where in that document does it give the Supreme Court that power. Men have twisted the Constitution and have given that power incorrectly to the Supreme Court and to Gov't.

So to be clear - the Supreme Court was forced to allow Obama Care because it is a TAX which was passed by a single party controlled Congress and signed by the most inept President in History who was also part of the same party.

Another excuse from Jon why the Tea Party won seats when the followed the Democrats playbook they have been using for decades. I am more concerned about zero liability voters who are capable of voting themselves other people's money - 50% of the Democrats voting lock consist of people with little to know skin in the game or minorities who are promised by Democrats that they will be taken care of by Gov't. in the overall scheme of things - re-districting is a small problem compared to that.

My sister was on WIC Jon - a total phrase. #1 she decided - repeat decided - to have both babies out of wedlock and with little to no means to actually have a child. #2 she purposely stayed under employed to make sure she collected WIC and other assistance to make sure she didn't have to pay hospital bills and for food. Why did she do this? Because several of her friends had already done it. This is what you've created bud - your ideas have created my friend - a entire Nation full of undisciplined people who have no Individual and Personal responsibility. She stayed un-married specifically to keep assistance because her significant made too much money if they got married. That is the norm - that is the average pal.

Let's take care of those really in need and cut off the loafers. You have to have a license for nearly everything, must take a drivers test to get on the road, you have to establish credit to get a loan, you have to have a background check to by a gun, you have to be 21 to drink, but by God any idiot with Jack and Jill parts can pop out a baby - then will turn and hand the bill to their neighbor.

Jon said...

Well, by your logic Chad pretty much everything is unconstitutional. Not just laws that help the poor, but also those that help the rich. Farm subsidies, undeclared wars, banker bail outs. Aren't these all unconstitutional as well?

Notice which unconstitutional behavior that the tea party really goes nuts over. When Obama invaded Libya there's another clear case of unconstitutional behavior. Makes rich people rich as well. No government shut down for that. You might murmer about it, but your reps do nothing. What about mass surveillance? Seems pretty clear that it violates the 4th ammendment. Where's our government shut down for that? No, they only get extreme when it comes to behavior that gives the poor and break and is opposed by wealthy donors. They rely on people like you to fail to notice or if you notice not focus too much on it, that way they can continue the unconstitutional behavior that helps the rich and resist the stuff that helps the poor. The rich want constant surveillance because they don't like activism. Activism upsets the status quo, a status quo that has them in a rich position. This is why they didn't like Martin Luther King and monitored him as well, doing what they could to undermine his work.

You keep repeating the zero liability voter even though the poor pay a higher % of their income in federal taxes than the super rich do.

Your sister may have made some decisions, but her children didn't. Her children may end up sleeping hungry and HP will regard it as no big deal because he doesn't feel the pain, nor do the economists he reads. And he doesn't notice a change in GDP. I think the issue is a lack of empathy. Some people have what I consider to be an unusual lack of empathy. If you want to prevent her from having kids in the future, fine, but her children are alive now and it bothers me that they must do without when there isn't a good reason for it.

Chad said...

Yes sir - your catching on - it is all Unconstitutional - all of it sir. As per the Constitution these decisions should be happening at the Individual State Levels. Illinois and their citizens could vote for and need to pay for a State ran health care plan - Indiana may opt not too and that is how it was supposed to work, but you know that sir. Each State responsible for their own budgets and financial/social issues. And as the Constitution outlines - no state can tax the other states unjustly and that is a function of the Federal Gov't to police right there. Let Cali/New York and Illinois turn into a sess pool of debt - lets see them survive on their own ideas - it would be laughable, but fun to see.

As far as war and those illegal acts (also unconstitutional) I am on your side there and so are the Tea Party guys for the most part and to a degree. I think your extremely naïve to think that no covert operations or war will happen, but I could give two shits less what happens in Syria to be honest. Until someone invades Mississippi then I say send them zero and I mean zero dollars and leave them all alone over there.

In regards to my sister - I love my nephew and niece to death, but your missing the dag gone point yet again. We (Tea Party/Right) are not set on killing children like the Left is (abortion) - what we stand for is personal responsibility and holding people accountable. My sister should have been and still should be held accountable for the first child she had - she should not have been able to transfer her financial burden onto the next person simply because she could and she most certainly should not have been able to do the same damn thing a second time. There was no consequence for her action - her financial situation improved by being pregnant and having a child when she could not afford one to begin with. Now 13 - I am actually beginning to see the horrible path my Nephew is heading down right now - no ambition for college, no passion to work and earn money, he has a Liberal mind set already to everything - he's waiting at the mailbox for the gov't money so they can run to the store and buy a new video game. The house is a wreck, there is barely any quality food around, but they have a 55" HDTV flat screen, every cable channel available to mankind, every game unit known to man, plenty of cigarettes, booze and beer around though. Yee haw.

Hell the moment she got F'ing pregnant Jon she ran to the gov't office, signed up for all her freebies then immediately (or maybe after the baby was born - can't remember) signed up and got $10,000 in dental work done and paid NOTHING. That is your America right there buddy - that is the norm okay and that is more than 50% of your voting membership sir. My sister actually has said (and her worthless significant other as well) they vote Democrat every time and so does all their friends because they will give them free stuff.

Personal Responsibility - that is what we stand for.

Jon said...

As far as war and those illegal acts (also unconstitutional) I am on your side there and so are the Tea Party guys for the most part and to a degree.

Why should I think they are on my side? They got the farm bill they wanted. Massive give away to the corporate mega farms, pulling back the food stamps for the poor. Oh sure, I hear a few comments of outrage, but for some reason they just never do anything to stop it. Same with surveillance. Same with war. If they can shut the government down to prevent poor people from getting access to health care, unconstitutional in your view, why can't they do the same when Obama starts another war, or he reads all our emails, records our Skype calls, and monotors where we are and if we are involved in protests?

This is a continued pattern. But you're right along side them, cheering wildly as the pretend to suddenly care about the Constitution in this brief instance, caring not a whit when we are surveilled or wars are initiated.

I think your extremely naïve to think that no covert operations or war will happen

Where in the hell did I ever say that wars won't happen?

Your sister's dental work is nothing compared to the war machine. You say you don't care about Syria. Yeah, I can see that. You don't care that our government wastes VASTLY more money on violence overseas. You're obviously more upset that your sister didn't have to pay for her dental work. But that did somebody good instead of harm and it actually costs less than the waste involved in war. Why are you so focused on the much smaller welfare that gives poor people, even so called deadbeats, a few breaks and you're uninterested in the much larger welfare that does actual harm and funnels money into the pockets of the already rich? The answer is that the tea party is corporate funded, so they know to keep the corporate welfare flowing they need to distract you from their much more immoral waste and get you to blame poor, immigrants, whatever other weak and defenseless target you can find. Their propaganda is clearly very effective.

Examinator said...

Well? where is your refutation of the numbers (facts) in the article(s)?

Chad, your problem is and always has been that you selectively choose your 'facts'(sic) (usually spin, hyperbole) to suit what ever bee is in your bonnet at the time.
Where did I ever say that that the affordability act was free? Since when is Obama going to administer or don a stethoscope and hand out health care?
a. The bureaucracy does the administration
b. Businesses and Dr.s 'hand out' the medical services.
c. You and your corporation are paying MORE now anyway you lot just cant put it on your balance sheet as a separate item.

Who the hell do you think is paying for the hospitals the ER s etc. health insurance premiums? Give over, that's like saying that when you purchase a news paper you're paying for the media organization , the paper the printing etc..... the paper subscriptions wouldn't pay the executive wage bill.

Now consider the savings, impact on the Health budget, if the 32000 per year firearm Deaths let alone the 10 Times that more injuries didn't happen! What about the preventable intensive care (and more expensive) admissions brought about by not being able to afford GP visits. The tax payer (YOU pay for that). You think your 'aggressive' accountant helps you 'from feeling like you're being raped (sic)' (that my friend is both insulting … you have NO IDEA what rape feels like or even metaphorically financially (Come back to me when you've really experienced either)... is delusional... you pay in other ways.

Look at it like this, each productive employee in your company must generate more than 5+ times their cost to employ (depending on your business model).
BTW that is 5+ times the cost not the wage If they didn't you'd go broke (overheads... administration, supervision etc)

It is FACT that it takes time and therefore (loss of) money and less than optimum production while training new employees.
Every time an employee is absent (the bills, supervisory staff admin etc still need to be paid only with less productive time. Regardless of if the absent employee is being paid sick pay.
Ergo the ideal is to reduce Absenteeism and having to train new staff ... also note getting the potential new staff Costs the enterprise additional $'s.
If say your corp has 10% absenteeism and 6% turnover of staff that has a BIG EFFECT ON THE BOTTOM LINE.
I have helped turn around a branch financially by simply reducing both.

Examinator said...

Part 2
In one instance I saved the branch $600,000 in one year by increasing the health insurance premium by $30,000 PA by adding one extra benefit. Just in case your math is as bad as mine that's $570,000 extra productive time. the net bottom line was nearly $2.5 million.

There are Three points here.
THE FIRST is that NOTHING happens in a vacuum. There is always a knock on effect to every decision. the trick is to ensure it has a positive multiplier effect to the bottom line.
THE SECOND is NOT to get all bound up in the short term cutting.
The third is that the logic holds for a nation.
This SHOULD be the thinking of any "all of government" reasoning.

FACT: the health status of the UNEMPLOYED, POOR, medically UNinsured... DOES HAVE A NEGATIVE Effect on the NATIONAL Bottom line... ergo we ALL PAY FOR IT ANYWAY, it's just not clearly visible to the ill informed, ignorant.
That means YOU AND YOUR CORP are paying for the consequences in MANY, MANY WAY you can't see and yes it effect your bottom line too.
Note this article.

And all this in a nation that has some of the most regulated situations... universal health coverage AND private health coverage, 2.6 times higher minimum wage, the most regulated (but profitable)banks etc. (BTW the regulations meant they came out of the US created GFC quicker and better) No Massive bank welfare payments.

Perhaps what amazes me most by the TP mentality is that they DON'T know what they're talking about.
e.g. Do you know what, how and why the national accounts are constructed the way they are?
Do you know their short comings and why?
Do you know what the 'Current Account' is what it shows and what it can't show?
Do you know how or what 'seasonally adjusted' means?
Do you know what, how and why goes into making up the CPI?
These are essential to understanding the state of the country's health.
All there are part of economics 101.
If one doesn't understand even the basics how can those who do take the ignorant hip pocket nerve sensitive Tea Partier serious.


Chad said...

JC - I missed your point sorry. I am not a war guy at all so your preaching to the choir there. I would be happy to defund every country and shut down or limit the war machine to protect our borders. I would love to place a line of US troops along the Mexico border.

Here is the thing Jon - and this is a real question for you - no sarcasm here. The war machine is open for business because it is a big business enterprise - we all get that - so assume we get our wish right - how are going to replace all of those jobs? Again - in a dark sound proof room with the President and 10 other high ranking people I believe in my heart that smart people tell every President what the war machine is actually worth to the US and what shutting it down would actually mean to the economy. I also believe that they open up our other secrets/threats and things that probably would give most people a heart attack, but that is a topic for another day. Again the question - how do you replace those jobs? I don't need an answer my friend - I am just saying it is an enormous amount of money spent and created.

I also wasn't comparing war money versus welfare money, but I think you know that as well.

As the point wizzed by your ear - I shall repeat again - No individual should be allowed to make individual choices and then to pass on the cost of those choices to another. I can't get $10k of dental work done without paying $10k - all right. Now the sad part that Progressives and Lefty Economist or just folks who think they are smart (since Ex believes the Tea party folks are stupid when it is more likely they are the smartest people in the room) is that when gov't (or any negative influence for that matter) affects a good or service those goods or services will increase in price. Someone has to pay - so my sister pops out 2 kids - pays nearly nothing, diapers free, formula free - discounted rent and so on that burden gets transferred in cost to the goods or services. So I paid full price for my kids diapers at a cost way above what they should have been to pay for someone else. Simple Econ 101 that Ex thinks non of the TP's have even though many run/own the businesses that produce the money that gov't takes to pass onto other folks.

So my sister, her 3 other friends who did the same thing plus the countless numbers before them created a costing hole - they got the services they wanted and did not pay. That burden must be shifted - it has to now be added to the goods and services prices for those who actually do pay. Meaning that a cleaning that should cost everyone $50 now costs me and even you 3 times as much or more. See she went and got $10K worth of work - so did her friends so that takes a lot of cleanings and fillings to recover from. You constantly speak about costs of health care and insurance and I find it funny and sad that you forget about the #1 driver for those costs going up - and that is people. Start with the welfare crowd then add up all the regulations on medical companies whether in the drug or equipment side then add up the taxes then add up this that and the other. The amount of people that make up welfare pool is growing rapidly sir and there in lies a great deal of the costs associated.

My sister makes the decision to have a baby out of wedlock with no financial means to care for the baby - we don't let her have a $10k tooth repair and we place that bill at her feet to be paid like a student loan. Your choice - your bill - add it all up from tip to stern to pay that bill in full. I paid my bills in full - so should she and everyone else.

Jon said...

Chad, you know who started the tea party? Ron Paul. I was actually right along side him. You can go through my blog history and see. But Ron Paul noticed something. He certainly agreed with you on welfare, but he also noticed that the biggest part of welfare is the war machine. So he would actually say it's better to at least spend the wasted money at home making people's lives better rather than building bridges in Iraq, blowing them up, rebuilding them, blowing them up again. He saw that this is what the corporate world wanted. And it's easy to go after the poor.

Well, where is Ron Paul now with regards to the tea party? He's pretty much out. He said as much. His message of ending welfare for the rich first, since they need it even less than the poor, was unacceptable to the new corporate sponsors of the tea party.

So there message has shifted. Now, I know you agree with me on these wars, and a lot of tea party people do. But the corporate world doesn't. I think what is happening is you are allowing them to control where your focus lies. Sure, go ahead and oppose welfare. But I think you've seen my posts that show how large a part of the budget real welfare for the poor is. Relative to welfare to the rich it is small.

Regarding the economy and defense, yeah, you make a great point. This really is the foundation of our economy, so you can't just shut it down and replace it with nothing. Here we would agree. I'm on my ipad so linking is a bit of a headache, but I'll post a link after this comment where Chomsky discusses this issue in detail. Check it out, it's very interesting.

It's tough for me to comment on the details of your sister because there's a lot more information I would need to comment intelligently, so I want to just stick with this broader point, the point Ron Paul gets but the leadership of the tea party doesn't. Even if your sister is abusing the system and even if these hand outs are a mistake, this is the smallest part of the problem. There's no government shut down to end wars that are undeclared or surveillance, and these are much more expensive. Sure, this gives people jobs, but providing dental care gives a dentist a job. And it actually does some good. So I ask you to consider your focus.

Jon said...

Link as promised, I really hope you read this, it's very informative.


Examinator said...

Again the Umpteen squillionth time. I didn't say TPers are stupid.
I have said they're most often ignorant ....and the act of asserting ones ignorance is an ACT of stupidity.
There is a clear difference.
look at it this way I do NOT have the correct knowledge to build the tower in Dubai (I am ignorant to the issues of stress factors, wind ballistics, detail metallurgy, eddy control, materials design and other highly specialised engineering knowledge as I am sure Chomsky is but neither of us is STUPID. However it would be an act of stupidity to let me (or Chomsky) design such an edifice.
Yes I've read several books by Chomsky

The whole point of my last pieces here is to make that point. You are not skilled enough or knowledgeable
enough to advance a definitive prescription for the countries financial basis (nor am I for that matter).

The whole emphasis of what I've been doing since day one is EXAMINING and pointing out flaws in the logic, methodology(ies), facts, ideologies and adding what limited knowledge I have.

Oh yes I've also added factors like epigenetics, genetics responses to help explain WHY TP ers, God botherers react the way they do . I've also added psychological research etc, criticisms of taking ultra specialised ( half assed economics read assumptive/ esoteric) too literally....

In fact Chad, More by actual collective conclusions than intent, I am echoing much of post structuralist thinking.
Note too I said thinking(methodology/reasoning) not ideology.

In my *opinion* Factually and technical methodologies Chomsky IS the best living thinker and ethicist to day.
NB that does NOT mean I agree with all his conclusions But I'm not silly enough to try and debate him even now. In my mind One is wilfully blind and ill advised to dismiss his work with false claims and ideological ill founded and spin 'talking points' as is your want. I still wait for your factual rebuttal to my earlier missives.
Simply put T Bers tend to use instant ' convenient packaged' self serving verbiage rather than examine the facts and reality.

Chad said...

I can't seem to open the link on my IPad - will try on my computer Monday.

So what your saying here is that I should be more focused on changing something that has been around since the beginning of time - war or the war machine - rather than focusing on a grass roots problem that wastes probably billions maybe trillions of dollars a year of tax payers money (or my kids future earning) every year? Sorry bud, but I am of the opinion that your focus needs shifting not mine.

I know streamlining the Gov't and holding people responsible for their own actions goes against your overall narrative and the narrative of the Progressive movement, but that is where we can enact change fairly quickly actually.

Chad said...

Ex - I like how elitist try to spin talking points into some kind of bad thing - assuming that there is no additional thought behind it somehow. The irony is that the Progressive movement is nothing but talking points - try visiting an occupy rally then go to a Tea Party rally - enough said there.

Half asses economics? Is Von Mises half assed economic theory? Because basically the Tea Party group tends to adopt that kind of economic thinking - how about common sense economic theory - does that register with you at all? You see - why the Tea Party is so solid and such a danger to folks like you - a target as it appears is because we a rooted in common sense thought, common sense ideas and we do not talk about social activities, we stay focused on a limited 6 principal mission statement. As JC pointed out and correctly I might add is that different chapters have taken on different or additional focus points - thankfully each individual within the TP has the right to develop their own ideas on other topics, but the baseline is 6 simple principals.

In reference to old Noam - I find it troubling that you look to a guy who has never ran a business (to my kmowledge) for sound economic advise of any kind. From 16 until today the man appears to have never participated in the private market other than the sale of his books. He has gone through the ultimate indoctrination - he is the poster child for progressivism - endless amounts of education to produce absolutely nothing. He is a back seat quarterback who has a cult of followers hanging on every word that falls out of the side of his mouth - in the mean time getting filthy rich and living the elite lifestyle that he supposedly against. He has profited and prospered from the exact thing he claims to hate - writing (selling) his opinion about the war machine, the nasty corporations and the evil rich - which he is a paying member of

Ironic I think.

Examinator said...

Elite spin? Are you calling me elite?
Do you know what it actually means?...the best of the best!
I think you meant 'elitist' either way, I'm no where near being elite or claiming that. And I'm sick of telling you that.
I leave the absolutism of opinions up to you.

Talking points are a technique to STIFLE/Limit debate or discussion to avoid any chance of being proven wrong or alternative POV.

You are simply using bullying tactics to avoid answering the questions (You are simply using bullying tactics to avoid answering the questions (that we both know you have no idea)I posed.

The point I was making was that YOU and the MAJORITY of TPers have no idea of the basics of MACRO Economics (the running /workings of a country). As opposed to running household accounts or in your case part of a Business (MICRO economics). Let's be quite clear the two are poles apart and require different knowledge and skills. THE TWO AREN'T interchangeable!

Likewise there is a clear difference between Academic (theoretical) economics and those in running a country... simply put there are different assumptions, criteria, pressures, objections and conditions.

[NB Conditions in this context means immutable circumstances (as opposed to objections as in the sales context)
As you (should) know an objection is an issue that can be solved i.e. 'I don't like your pricing because it's complicated'.
A condition is "I have no money"]

FACT: without a good knowledge of the basics you and your Tpers aren't in the position to know if one academic's version of theoretical economics is better than an other or even if it's remotely plausible.

The same applies to AGW (sic) most of the denialist experts aren't sufficiently knowledgeable or experienced in the topic to be credible. (journalists, geologists or “scientists”). Homeland's key advisor was 84 when he did his examination of AGW...it was 25years after he retired and 35 years since he was actively involved at the cutting edge. His base knowledge was gained at a time when tectonic plates was still a theory. One singular dissenting climatologist who was a specialist at NASA in PART of the field which in turn was one of some 40 different researching disciplines.
The point here is that *most * TPers are not qualified or competent to judge. All you need to do is look at their demographics.

Examinator said...

Part 2
Again I make the point …. unlike you I am NOT Saying that NC's conclusion is any better than any other merely that he is always more accurate and as in the “thorium post” well and truly based and referenced on those who would know. Also Note (for the umpteenth time) I clearly state his FACTS/ Logic are effectively beyond reproach.

However, I'm not convinced about all his conclusions. HE IS AN Linguistic Academic, philosopher, historian, and as such his books etc are ANALYTICAL rather than PRESCRIPTIVE. As such I'd have to be convinced that he should be the secretary of the Treasury etc.

Thorium's piece like the NC's books are based on HISTORIC Documents and facts.
AGAIN for the record I have a degree in Business and had I chosen a different final year 4-6 subjects I could have been an Economist or Accountant. Clearly While I maybe have a better grasp of the underlying issues and I have run several business types.... Unlike you, I acknowledge my fallibility in that I'm neither appropriately qualified or have APPROPRIATE skills to run , dictate absolute prescriptive economic programs to those who are, least of all to governments.

Jon said...

Well, the war machine, at least as how it is currently organized under American capitalism, has been around since WWII, so about 60 years. Not since the beginning of time.

And wefare to the poor is not trillions of dollars. I'd estimated in a prior post that it's about a quarter of a trillion dollars. Not insignificant, but small compared to welfare for the rich.

But I get your point. Why fight a futile fight? Maybe the rich are too strong, so you can't stop welfare for them, but you can stop welfare for the poor, so you will try. Obviously it's easier to fight poor people than rich people. We'll have a government that only steals from the poor to give to the rich and never steals from the rich to give to the poor. I suppose that's better in your mind. I'd say that really does sum it up for tea party Congressman. They say stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is bad so they try to stop it. Stealing from the poor and giving to the rich is also bad, but they aren't interested in trying to stop that. That would be futile.

Chad said...

That is the part that maybe your not understanding on my end. I am no real fan of the super rich/rich, but I refuse to look at them as a target because of their successes. That is where you and I differ - if the Walton's are making X number of millions of dollars by doing nothing or on the back of low cost labor then we need a guy like you - or someone who thinks like you or even a group of someone's like yourself to build the anti Wal-Mart. Build a company - share the wealth among the employees to your satisfaction and beat Wal Mart in the open market. That is the absolute beauty of the system bud - your not forced to stand by and watch the Waltons make millions/billions - you can compete or you can choose not to shop there, but either way you have options in America within the framework of the game. You don't need to look toward gov't or a tax code for help - get your butt out there and compete. I try to support my local community and support those folks who go out to earn their way as much as I can. If my choice was to buy from Jon's-Mart knowing that they take care of their employees better than Wal-Mart - I will do that and maybe pay a slightly higher price along the way.

That's where we differ - you look toward the most corrupt organization we have to artificially level the playing field and I look at and for the reasons why there are not 5 different kinds of Wal Mart's opening up in my neck of the woods. If big money is being given to so few people then by God it is feasible to take the same model and not pay million/billion to one small group and compete.

The problem of course is that when you attempt or anyone attempts to have the gov't pick winners and losers using the tax code or the health care system or by un-needed rules and regulations almost always the opposite of the intended happens. First the big buys/rich are either the smartest people in the room at all times or they make sure they have hired the smartest people in the room to investigate the impact of new rules and then to make sure those rules either don't apply to them or more often I think it is that they are happy for the regulations because it simply knocks out more of the competition.

Ex seems to think that only people who have a degree in Economics from both the Macro and Micro side can speak intelligently about economics - to some degree he is right about that, but I also think the reverse is also true - they are so book taught that they lose all comprehension of common sense.

Chad said...

Part II.

These so called geniuses sit around and figure out how to create money where there is none - they figure out ways to borrow money that is not there - they are so smart they have the ability to prop up a completely broken and flat our broke govt's and sell it as sound economic practice. That does not mean that I am not allowed to call Bull Shit and not be right about calling it what it is - its a house of cards.

BTW Ex - I see your almost degree and raise you a Masters. Not me of course - but my boss and President of the company I work for earned his Masters in Business and Economics (Maybe its an accounting degree more specifically) from one of the most prestigious Private Schools in the US - Washington University in St. Louis where he graduated with honors. He was an active member of the Quantitative Finance Club and more than two handfuls of other meaningful awards and certificates cover his office walls. Basically he's a pretty damn smart guy that I would think must pass any sniff test you might have so I think he would be fully qualified to speak intelligently about economics right? He is a Tea Party member and one of the Regional leaders as well for the TP. Guys and gals like my boss are who make up most of the heads of the TP Chapters - smart people with real degrees who apply those degrees in business - who are or have been involved in the Private market and who hire people and who are responsible for paying their bills - these people make up the bulk of the Tea Party Patriots and they are very well capable of speaking intelligently on the economy and economics far far more than Paul Krugman or Noam Chomsky.

Chad said...

So who do we turn to for economic advise? Should we listen to those folks on the front line of business who also have a degree in Micro and Macro Economics or should we listen to those folks who never have been in business - who have only a learning certificate on their wall? No practical business experience or application there in, but hey they have a lot of books they read.

For me - all day long - I will listen to guys like my boss, the Koch Bros, Mitt Romney, Hermain Cain and Von Mises for answers on the economy thank you very much.

Jon said...

Chad, you're talking about two different things. Here we're talking about welfare. Both the welfare to the poor and to the rich. Your switching gears and talking about people who have (in your mind) made their success on their own, without welfare. OK, that's a separate topic. You think they should keep what they earn. Fine. We're not talking about that. We're talking about the rich people that DO NOT make it on their own. They get there with welfare. Welfare for the rich. The biggest part of welfare.

You're basically saying you're going to fight welfare for the poor because you feel like you can succeed with that, but like a typical tea party Republican you aren't going to do anything about welfare to the rich because that's just something that can't be stopped. That's the tea party platform basically. Have I characterized you fairly? The biggest part of welfare is the part you will ignore. The part that helps the rich. The smallest part you will fight hard against.

And by the way, as I have said in the past, the Koch brothers didn't do it on their own in a free market. It was Stalin's Soviet Union that made them rich. Again, very typical. Nanny state is good for us because we couldn't succeed without government assistance. But for you we need the tough discipline that comes from the free market.


Also, remember that successful businessmen are successful at making a profit, but not necessarily telling us the truth about what is good for an economy as a whole. If they are smart they might just tell you what is false, but what also happens to make their company more profitable. So for instance it was very smart of the tobacco industry to tell people that smoking was good for us. Very smart because it led to high profits for them. It wasn't true, but it was exactly what they should have said if profit for their company was the goal. If you say you should listen to them because they are successful you are saying you should believe the convenient lies they tell you because your goal is to make them profitable, not to know what is true.

Not that they are necessarily lying. They wisely can convince themselves of their own lies. So they may not be lying themselves, but what they are saying is false. So we want to believe what is true, not what people that want to maximize their profits tell us is true, because they have to tell us that. Otherwise they get replaced by someone who will. Stockholders want profits maximized. Truth is secondary.

Examinator said...

You still insist on...well inventing my responses while avoiding the point.
I did NOT say any of what you said I did.

I did said that the MAJORITY of TPers are economically largely illiterate at least in all facets macro economics.
And I defy you to prove me wrong.

Your boss if he's a TPers is in all probability better *qualified * than I in accounting. More power to him. However Accounting is DIFFERENT from Economics.

Clearly you don't understand what a masters and Doctorates (PhD) are all about. Ask your wife to explain the mechanics and what they mean. I think it's fair to say that because he runs/owns a corporation his views would probably suffer from bias, in evidenciary terms have a large conflict of interests.

Anyway his is probably newer than mine as mine was in the late 80's.

I have never said that a degree makes one an expert, merely gives one the basics and the tools to become one.

I also said I was NOT QUALIFIED OR COMPETENT to run, dictate an absolute program for a countries finances. At best when coupled with my experience, I know the enough to point out the blatant flaws and errors in fact in most TP level ideas.
Clearly those paragraphs add up to that a degree or training in the basics makes one better at examination than a nigh on economics illiterate like you.

You would know nf your boss was giving you a load of BS to MANIPULATE your loyalty and vote.

Also note: I said Comsky's facts and logic were generally impeccable. BUT I also said that his work is historic and philosophic NOT PRESCRIPTIVE economics ... he isn't an economist.
AND I said I'd have yet to be convinced he should be put in charge of US finances.

Over all Chad, you and the average American wants BLACK OR white Answers to questions that are as yet to be completely defined.
So who do you believe? Good question ...the best that I can come up with is to try and improve my knowledge so that I can make reasoned input to the questions.

Hence I don't swing wildly at every ball pitched my way.

The real problem is that if there's a simple answer to these questions then either it or the question posed is wrong.
Simply put it's all very, very complex and the more you know the better the outcome(answer) will be.
CONSEQUENTLY I DON'T believe in a two (any number) party system as it falsely limits the reality and the options.

Chad said...

MAJORITY of Progressives/Left are economically largely illiterate at least in all facets macro economics. And I defy you to prove me wrong also.

BTW I checked with my boss/friend this morning, he has a MA in Economics.

What is interesting, but far from surprising is that an Acedemic Pedigree is important to you only if it fits your specific narrative. If the Pedigree - in this case the MA in Economics by my friend - is then used to educate or outline a completely different view of gov't economics then they are lying or currying favor to get a vote?

Your the head doc, but sure sounds like a pile of steaming turds too me. Maybe a better analogy - your talking from both sides of your mouth again.

When was the last time you saw, heard or can site anything that a Tea Party leader said specific to the economy and or more specifically Macro Economics that fits your argument - prove me wrong.

Chad said...

Have I characterized you fairly?

I don't think you have, but I certainly do understand the point your attempting to make. Crony Capitalism is a problem - for me however I believe that these two things are very very different. If you will allow me to explain and keep an open mind for a second.

First off and most importantly here - the Koch brothers played by the dog gone rules created by gov't. The didn't break the law - they did not create the laws but they simply followed the rules of the game. So that needs to be a huge distinction right of the gate. Also point of clarification the Koch Brothers - more specifically Charles has said on multiple occasions that Crony Capitalism is a Destructive Force. If you sat those two down in a sound proof room - it would be my guess that they would tell you that either they didn't need the subsidies or even that they are actually against the subsidy, but since everyone else gets the same opportunity by law they followed the game rules. For the specific industry - everyone gets the same subsidies meaning a fair playing field.

Second big point - The Koch Brothers employed many people okay so in a weird spin here the subsidies most likely helped growth and more employment. Ie - an exchange and quite possibly a wash between subsidy dollars and individual income tax dollars collected from the employee/employer via taxes.

Before I move on - let me be absolutely clear right now - I am not promoting Corporate Welfare in fact I would stand toe to toe to argue against it in probably most cases. What I am saying and asking you to consider is that we know some of the money finds its way into the pockets of the rich and you will not get an ounce of argument there, but I would argue that a great deal of the money finds its way back to the gov't via taxes and that the growth outweighs the costs. It lowers unemployment and keeps money flowing through the system.

Moving on - I think that there is a real argument to be had when comparing the dollars for each.

The left think tanks love to say that Corporate Welfare is about double traditional welfare totals which is a big time lie. About $65 billion (last I recall reading) in general welfare and Section 8 which is what they like to say is the grand total. Forgetting conveniently of course the Food Stamps, WIC and other means tested assistance programs and their totals. Some reports put that welfare total at 3 times what the Left tells us so lets cut in half for argument sake and call it $90 billion for giggles.

Now look on the other side - the Left says $100 billion in Corporate Welfare, but as we look a bit closer we find some rats in the closet here. Included in those totals you will find Amtrak, Public Broadcasting and all of the payments made to landlords of Section 8 housing is considered Corporate Welfare as well. So that trims that by something like $30 billion off the supposed Corporate Welfare totals being sold by the Left.

Where it gets a little delicate and I am sure your on board with is trying to add the Tax Exemptions on top of the Corporate Side of the ledger. If that is on the table then you have to add Medicaid and Medicare on the Social Welfare side.

At the end of the day - the physical dollar bills handed to Corporations in business is far less than the Social Welfare programs when you actually dive into the meat and potatoes here which then submarines your argument.

As said previously - I don't agree with Crony Capitalism and would definitely be on board with a 1 for 1 swap for other Corporate Welfare programs that make no sense with equal cuts to some Social Welfare programs.

Again a good majority of the Corporate Welfare finds its way in the hands of the people which then through taxes finds its way back to the gov't via taxes. Social Welfare eliminates an entire step in the money laundering process because it is not having income taxes taken out - it misses an entire rung on the ladder.

Chad said...

Put a final stamp on the thought - I will stand shoulder to shoulder with you to fight Corporate Welfare especially where it makes no sense as long as you agree to tighten up the strings on the social welfare side by policing the activities and holding individual responsible for their actions.

HispanicPundit said...

Kinda late to this, but wanted to respond anyway. Im here responding to Jon's "October 8, 2013 at 5:47 PM" post.

Politicians, especially, cannot be taken at their word here, Id assume of all people, you know this Jon. Sure, Republicans SAY they want to stop ObamaCare...but everybody, even you, knows the probability of that succeeding, given Republicans only hand they can play, is less than 10%. It's just not a real goal. Even Republicans know this. So then why still play the hand? Again, bargaining power...it's working.

Regarding who the Slimdown hurts: thought I made this clear in my response, but let me be more specific, when discussing who 'this harms', it was meant from a POLITICAL standpoint. Basically, I am asking what voters would the GOP lose by such a strategy. My point was that almost NONE. The majority of the voters would be, again, union loving government workers. Of which very few vote Republican anyway.

Jon brought up two other groups: Scientists and welfare recipients. Welfare recipients already dont vote for the party that generates tax revenue...they've long been for the party that drains tax revenue...so no voter loss there. Scientists is more a mixed bag, and yes, this is one area where real harm is done. If it was up to me I'd double, triple, government support for the sciences.

But even then, funding for the sciences is something that is already rising around the world. Sure, the USA will capture less of the gains, but the world writ large is already benefiting from a science funding increase worldwide. And even then, even after the drop, the USA still dwarfs others in max dollar amount spent (if not by %, certainly by absolute numbers). Hard to say where the right funding is. But again, up to me Id double, triple, the amount...

Regarding welfare recipients, who knows...maybe with a drop in government support, private charities will pick it up. Private charities are much more efficient at the distribution game. So in the long run, even just looking at welfare recipients, it could be a net gain - long term.

Btw, I think Republicans next move should be tax refunds in the amount equal to what is being saved in tax revenue by the government slimdown. THEN, and only then, will the public be given the true trade-off: big government big taxes, vs small government small taxes. My bet: public support for the Slimdown will increase dramatically!

Jon said...

First off and most importantly here - the Koch brothers played by the dog gone rules created by gov't.

And so did the poor when they receive WIC and use Medicaid. Why do you get upset when poor people play by the rules and enjoy welfare, but when the Koch's do it you say "Well, that's the rules." It's really incredible to me.

If you sat those two down in a sound proof room - it would be my guess that they would tell you that either they didn't need the subsidies or even that they are actually against the subsidy

They may be able to delude themselves into believing this fantasy, but it's still an absolute fantasy. Go to my link and read about what the free market did to their father's superior oil refining methods. They absolutely had to have the centrally planned economy found in the Soviet Union for success. It's not just an accident. This is the driving force.

Second big point - The Koch Brothers employed many people okay so in a weird spin here the subsidies most likely helped growth and more employment.

And so does welfare for the poor. When your sister gets dental work, this is income for a dentist, who spends the money which leads to more jobs. You're not wrong. It's just that when you apply this reasoning you only apply it in a way that favors the rich. The exact same logic applies to welfare to the poor, but you don't apply it. Why?

I don't know where you get $100 billion for corporate welfare, but the military industrial complex alone is something approaching $1 trillion, when you add Homeland Security and a few others. Remember, we haven't had an attack on our territory since 1812. 18 freaking 12. Now, you can make the case that we need some of that. But what we in fact have is a military system that costs almost as much as the rest of the world's military expenditures combined. China, the next largest, spends $166 billion. We could at least fall to that level. Military is BY FAR the largest source of corporate welfare. WIC is almost nothing in comparison.

Remember, we don't have threats. The threats that exist are actually a product of the very military system that takes our tax dollars. Without the US military occupying foreign countries there would have been no 9-11. Factor the additional costs of the destruction due to retaliation and you get the true cost of our military.

And by the way, not to sidetrack the discussion further, but I would argue that Capitalism is crony Capitalism. It's the natural outworking of Capitalism. I'd read that Marx had predicted that on Capitalism the small must be consumed by the large. Companies must get larger and larger or die. This is a pretty amazing prediction when you consider what existed at the time. All small family businesses. Today it's multi national corporations. Marx built on that argument and explained that these corporations must become wedded to the state, kind of in an inter dependent way, to where these corporations eliminate the very creative destruction advocates of Capitalism say is such an important feature. Witness our now too big to fail banks. Trillions in corporate welfare to prop up these corporations that had failed. Marx predicted all of this. Or so I've read. Haven't tracked down the specific statements. But he argued that Capitalism is crony Capitalism. It's the way it must progress. We have to admit that this is what we see, and getting worse all the time.

Chad said...

Although I believe the military is too big and wastes money - it does not belong in the Corporate Welfare discussion. Not even the Left think tanks place the military under that umbrella - your grasping right there. And if you would like too place the military on the plate then you have to put Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security under the Social Welfare umbrella then.

Legal dental work - very grey - they used the pregnancy as a smoke screen. Besides she didn't use earned money to pay - she used OPM - there is your biggest difference. On top of that she just used $10k worth of aid that should have gone to a needy family. She can live fine with poor teeth - people on food stamps can live without cigarettes, beer and cable as well.

HispanicPundit said...


What about the argument that the Koch brothers, et al, increased the standard of living for all...in other words, they atleast contributed to society as a whole. Even I, marginally, benefited from their success.

Welfare recipients are a net loss to the standard of living of others.

That's the distinction I would make.

Chad said...

Another words Jon - what did my sister do to deserve to get $10k of dental work done? Did she deserve that work because she was pregnant with a child she could not afford? Did she earn it because she is breathing? Did she earn that dental work because she is a productive member of society?

In your ultimate logic - as a tax payer for all my adult life I should be able to quit my job today and should be able to get free dental care, food, rent and any vehicle I choose right? I have been paying all my life so I would think I should be able to get $10k in dental work for free if I go in for a broken toe then right?

Your trying to bring in feelings, empathy for the poor poor people when your forgetting that for the most part the people paying the bill go to work with holes in their socks - they live on a strict budget, they may not be able to take their kids to get all the dental care they need, but damn it is off limits to try and eliminate the fraud happening from the welfare recipients.


Chad said...

+2 for HP - well said.

Chad said...

The Von Mises Institute and people who believe in Austrian Economics predicted the same results Jon. Like you I don't have the article, but you don't need a economics degree to understand that if you have a labor pool demanding more for their labor than it is worth, if you continue to build legacy costs because people want to retire in 30 years, if people continue to pop out kids they can not afford and if the people taking gov't money grows faster than what the private sector can grow and support then you have a big problem. The only way to keep up with the growing liability - to help pay for the last 30-40 years people live in retirement these companies are forced to grow exponentially Jon. How many employees at Ford are retired at 50 with no bank account to speak of and plenty of life to live. They are going to be drawing a pension check for years then a social security check for 30-35 more years potentially? Gov't employees are even worse - you can retire in 20 in some fields and live off other people for 40 some years on average.

Your a funny bird - your all for less work and early retirement, but complain when companies have to grow rapidly to keep up with legacy costs and then you wonder why the cost of things get so far out of scope or when a pension gets raided. Back to individual responsibility big fella - you want to retire then you best damn better make sure you can pay for all your golden years.

I plan to work until I physically am unable to work or if and when I have enough money to live comfortably retired.

Jon said...

Politicians, especially, cannot be taken at their word here, Id assume of all people, you know this Jon.

That's not correct. In closed door strategy meetings where participants are not expecting their statements to be published you should expect them to tell the truth. The same thing applies to Wikileaks revelations. We were getting internal communications where the writers didn't think what they would write would be made public. You are getting their honest views in these cases.

You say this doesn't hurt Republicans in terms of voters. Have you missed the widespread polling? Republicans are getting destroyed like never before with this.

Welfare recipients are a net loss to the standard of living of others.

How do you figure that? So for instance let's suppose welfare allows a single mother to work less, so she can be home at night with her kids. She keeps them focused on their grades and they create a decent life for themselves, paying taxes. If she had lacked that support she'd be gone, and maybe they end up in prison. So the welfare definitely is not a net loss in this case. And I could give many more similar examples. You could also add the fact that this single mom spends money on food and consumables, so that stimulates the economy further, in addition to helping raise decent kids. It's not like child rearing is something that has no value to society.

You may say that's just an individual case, but so is the case of Koch's being funded by Stalin. In a lot of cases government support doesn't produce net gains.

Remember, I'm not the one saying support for Koch was bad. I'm just saying that you and Chad have a strange inability to see the stimulative effects of welfare for the poor and a very good ability to recognize the stimulative effects of welfare for the rich. I think the tea party and corporate propaganda have you by the nose, leading you to advance a glaring double standard. Excuses for the rich man's welfare, condemnation of the poor man's welfare.

Jon said...

Yeah, leftist do regard military as corporate welfare, Chad. There's no grasping on my part there.

And when I describe welfare I did include Medicare. Not SS and Medicaid because these are not programs directed at the poor. You and I will use these programs in retirement.

Chad, the rest of what you say is too off topic. Points you often make about how the poor aren't deserving. Those are all points I think we should save for another day and right now focus on this glaring double standard of yours. Kind of faint hearted opposition to welfare for the rich, but then when HP comes in to defend it you think it's great. Amazing hostility for welfare for the poor. Excuses for why you don't want to talk about it or do anything about it (it's futile). Meanwhile it makes welfare to the poor look small. This is a testament to how effective corporate propaganda is. A glaring double standard where the showering of gifts on the rich is very much deemphasized, but welfare for the poor boils your blood. Damn these lazy women popping out babies.

Jon said...

Sorry, I flipped Medicare and Medicaid above. Welfare to the poor includes Medicaid, but not Medicare. Medicare is not targeted to the poor.

HispanicPundit said...

Responses below:

That's not correct. In closed door strategy meetings where participants are not expecting their statements to be published you should expect them to tell the truth.

Maybe with military strategists, yes. But certainly NOT with politicians. I believe politicians, of all public figures, are almost always on the script. Even their wives, probably get a large portion of the 'script'. Politicians are a whole different type of person. Like the company executives psycho analysis you give, I believe politicians are fakers - through and through.

Anyway, this is beside the point. We both (hopefully?) agree that Republicans, given their current hand, have a very low probability of ever truly stopping ObamaCare. Its just not a real option. So either they are very stupid, or its a political front.

You say this doesn't hurt Republicans in terms of voters. Have you missed the widespread polling? Republicans are getting destroyed like never before with this.

No, re-read my comments again. I said the slimdown doesn't really harm Republican voters.

Whether Republicans are losing the PR battle after the fact, is a different topic that wasn't addressed. With that said though, I still think absent some atleast seemingly radical attack against ObamaCare and Obama, the GOP would be in a far worst position - atleast with their base.

Regarding welfare recipients: Sure, we can both bring up hypotheticals all day. I could say how does a welfare system that encourages single motherhood, more kids out of wedlock, and encourages a lifestyle of joblessness produce productive citizens? Reducing GOVERNMENT welfare would atleast encourage more private charity...thereby increasing efficient forms of redistribution. etc

Also, remember Jon, before you quote another book, or source, as far as i know, it is only me the one who actually...you know, grew up poor. I grew up in Compton, California until my mid twenties. You will be hard pressed to find a poorer neighborhood in the United States. Welfare recipients were the norm. They were my neighbors. Friends. Family. Its all I knew growing up. When I bring up my 'hypotheticals' I speak from experience (Btw, I also lived a couple of years in the Valley of Texas...another very poor neighborhood).

If you truly believe that your welfare justification addresses my argument - that welfare truly increases the standard of living of others, then why stop at welfare recipients? Why not have everybody quite their jobs and live off welfare? Would that work? If not, why not? I mean, according to you, such a system surely encourages the standard of living of us all!

Following the thought to its logical limit shows my point: welfare recipients are a net drain on the tax base. Without those who DONT live off of welfare, the system will collapse. In other words, it is precisely those who are NOT on welfare that have to contribute to the system to get welfare. You can have a world full of people who work and NOBODY on welfare - but you cant have the reverse. Precisely because one group adds to the standard of living of all, while the other group does not.

HispanicPundit said...

Btw, like Chad, I am against corporate welfare as well. My point here is ONLY to show that there is a difference between that which adds to the standard of living of others, and that which doesnt.

But corporate welfare should be eliminated as well. No support here for that either.

Examinator said...

Re your burst on my allegedly "talking out of both sides of my mouth".
1. you are as usual either deliberately mis-reading/interpreting what I said.
2. I did NOT saying that your boss was lying least of all because he has a different take on macro economics than me
YOU said "probably accounting"
economics and accounting in the context of national finance etc are two related but different fields.

3. You asked me who should one believe ... I clearly made the point that he is probably better educated on the specifics than I
I also said that you boss has a conflict of interests... that doesn't mean he's lying just as an observer I would factor in his conflict of interest. [I'd be stunned given HIS Job is to advance the interests of the company if he held Say Chomsky's socialist views.]

4.You should have noted that I was very specific in that I also said Chomsky's facts and reasoning are beyond reproach BUT I WAS LESS THAN CONVINCED OF HIS CONCLUSIONS and I wouldn't want him to be the secretary of the Treasury (he has a philosophic bias).
5. I also said he was Historic and more political philosophy that research as in the 3 two right wing and 1 left leaning Economists who just won the Nobel for economics...

Sadly Chad Economics isn't a hard science like mathematics or in organic Chemistry/ civil engineering the principals are set and immutable... where you are dealing with hard facts 1+2=3 or drop a brick and Gravity will pull it towards the ground.

Economics is very much interpretive and variable given different circumstances.
You tend to read through a Republican V Socialist prism rather than objectively.
You have a real problem with nuanced arguments or points to you it's black or White, right or wrong to me it *ALWAYS* depends on which factors one is including (context)..... TO ME there are NO Absolutes!! least of all in Economic theory.
It is impossible to know or quantify ALL the factors that may or may not effect the outcome.
6. I've stated SEVERAL times in multiple way and contexts A degree does not make one an expert it gives the basics and give the tools ... it is WHAT THE PERSON DOES THEN that makes them an expert and that is generally in a narrow band of a topic.
That doesnot mean that one can't get the same basics and or tools without a degree.
But my erstwhile friend what I said still stands most Tea Partiers DON'T HAVE THE BASICS, skills or tools to know what are the implications of what they are trying to enforce. They have beliefs PERIOD! One can fervently believe that if you jump off the top of empire state building that the up wind currents created by the near by buildings will stop you from dying from the fall. Sadly the fall may not kill you but the sudden stop will.

Examinator said...

Stopping the budget debt ceiling on the grounds that ACA will destroy America effect the economy/ credibility of America and there maybe world wide side effects too.

Where is the PROOF that ACA will destroy the country ? In truth it's based on a misunderstanding of how macro economics work.
Keep in mind many countries have the equivalent and are motoring on just fine.

Jon said...

No, re-read my comments again. I said the slimdown doesn't really harm Republican voters.

My thinking was that with such an enormous collapse in support it has to be bad even amongst Republican voters. That's what the polling shows. Also keep in mind that there is such a thing as non tea-party Republicans.


Sure, we can both bring up hypotheticals all day.

Exactly, so my question is, how do you know welfare is a net loss? I didn't say it wasn't. I just gave an example where it wouldn't be, and you can give examples where it is. So how do you know it's a net loss? Growing up in Compton doesn't really prove much. Yeah, you see poverty and irresponsibility. But like an economist that has a simple mathematical model and thinks it tells the whole story your pretending welfare is everything. There's a thousand things going on there. There's disproportionate imprisonment of minorities, there's immigration, there's NAFTA. There's CIA drug running. There's parents raising kids who themselves didn't live with parents that could stay home and watch them, so they have no role models. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying you've very much simplified the problem and pretended that you know the answer. You're quick to assume welfare for the poor is a problem and not so quick to give anecdotes about how welfare for the rich is a problem, which is just as easy. This is my main point here. Your emphasis clearly is on resistance to welfare for the poor, not the rich. Rich man welfare is an afterthought, which is why you add a comment after the fact, just one line. Line after line about how welfare for the poor is a problem, one afterthought line about how welfare to the rich is a problem. That's the effectiveness of corporate propaganda.

Following the thought to its logical limit shows my point: welfare recipients are a net drain on the tax base

That's just more basic fallacious reasoning. If one aspirin is good for you then 1000 must be even better. Some welfare can be a net gain even if everyone on welfare wouldn't work. It's not a linear relationship. This is like the argument that raising the minimum wage is bad, because if $15/hr were better this would have to mean $1000/hr would be even better. No it doesn't. A small amount can be good though a large amount would be bad.

HispanicPundit said...

My thinking was that with such an enormous collapse in support it has to be bad even amongst Republican voters. That's what the polling shows. Also keep in mind that there is such a thing as non tea-party Republicans.

Sigh. Were talking past each other again Jon. My point was on who the Slimdown harms. Who is financially affected by the Slimdown. Who will be negatively impacted by certain government functions closing. Who are the direct victims of such a shut down. The overall political impact of such a move is an important discussion, but that should be for another time.

...how do you know welfare is a net loss? I didn't say it wasn't. I just gave an example where it wouldn't be, and you can give examples where it is. So how do you know it's a net loss?

Experience Jon. I lived it. I've experienced it. It was more than half my life. The question should be: how do YOU know it's NOT a net loss? Did you see something contrary in a youtube video? Are the romanticized stories of the poor from linguists telling you otherwise? Did you read about the poor in a book from some son of rich parents? The only poor Mexicans those people know are their gardeners. Seriously. In my case, those gardeners are my uncles. My dad. My family. I am also the first person in my family to be born in the USA. Immigration is also what I know a lot about. A good chunk of my family in the USA are currently illegal immigrants. This isn't read about - it's lived.

And it's not just personal experience, it's also theory and practice. The best combo.

Growing up in Compton doesn't really prove much.

So personal experience doesn't count much when discussing welfare, but when discussing other policy issues, the personal experience on the ground is of prime importance??? Still trying to understanding your benchmarks here Jon.

Sure, personal experience doesnt tell all - but it adds to the big picture. It increases the probability that my conclusions are right. In other words, it does 'prove much' - though certainly not all. Can we atleast agree that personal experience beats youtube videos and books from linguists?

HispanicPundit said...

Your emphasis clearly is on resistance to welfare for the poor, not the rich. Rich man welfare is an afterthought, which is why you add a comment after the fact, just one line. Line after line about how welfare for the poor is a problem, one afterthought line about how welfare to the rich is a problem.

Can I speak for myself Jon? Can my views, priorities, and mental thoughts come from me? If I say I care about something, can it be taken as is, and not filtered? I realize this is mentally inconvenient for you, but please let me speak for myself here. I am also against corporate welfare.

Here, let write about it at length: I am also against corporate welfare. I am also against corporate welfare. I am also against corporate welfare. I am also against corporate welfare. I am also against corporate welfare. I am also against corporate welfare. I am also against corporate welfare. I am also against corporate welfare. I am also against corporate welfare. I am also against corporate welfare. I am also against corporate welfare. I am also against corporate welfare. I am also against corporate welfare. I am also against corporate welfare. I am also against corporate welfare. I am also against corporate welfare. I am also against corporate welfare. I am also against corporate welfare. Better?

But in all seriousness, the reason I write differently is that I am here discussing the DIFFERENCES between two bad things: corporate welfare and welfare for the poor. There is a difference. Its fundamental. That's my point.

That's just more basic fallacious reasoning. If one aspirin is good for you then 1000 must be even better. Some welfare can be a net gain even if everyone on welfare wouldn't work. It's not a linear relationship.

But it is in the opposite direction: you can have a fully functioning government with ZERO corporate taxes. With all kinds of tax benefits for corporations. With rent seeking by corporations. With politicians favoring one corporation over another. The government, in such a situation, can continue to function.

But remove working citizens and the whole thing collapses. Working citizens are the BACKBONE of a functioning government. It's what everything else rests on. It is in THIS aspect that corporate welfare is different than welfare for the poor. In fact, there is some corporate welfare that actually INCREASES working citizens count. Thereby replenishing the tax base.

So yes, when discussing welfare for the poor, going to it's logical limit is not possible. But when discussing corporate welfare, it is. And thats a fundamental difference.

Chad said...

JC - I think most of what I was talking about was on point. I agreed with you that Corporate Welfare needs to be scrutinized as much or more than Social Welfare - as HP and I tried pointing out - Comparing the evils and it is not even close. Corporate Welfare is used, spent on employees and is able to be taxed a full rung above Social Welfare, but again I am willing to do a $1 for $1 exchange. But unlike Corporate Welfare which then is subject to Gov't watchdogs and agencies and strict rules - people who are on WIC because they can not afford the baby they are about to have should have no access to Elective surgeries.

HP is on point - why should I (and my wife) get up every day, kiss my kids good bye, work, work and work more and then sympathize with your position that a poor mommy needs to be home all day with their kids, but work slaves work so she doesn't have to. From the top - I am not given the choice to support these people - my money is stolen from me - I don't get to go to their house and eat their food, but they are apparently welcomed to mine with no consequences other than the position that they put themselves in.

What if we all decided to kick up our feet and say screw it - done with working? The Welfare system should be harsh - it should be limited and is should be ran like a Private Business. Is should come with strict rules, regulations and limits while giving those in need a painted path (not free path) to earn themselves a better life.

Jon said...

Sigh. Were talking past each other again Jon. My point was on who the Slimdown harms.

Sigh is right. I get your point, you're just not getting mine. You said Republicans don't lose voters because the shutdown doesn't harm them. But the polling shows that Republicans ARE IN FACT LOSING VOTERS. So your talk about why they won't lose voters is kind of moot. You're like a weather reporting standing in the rain telling us why it won't rain today. You have well adopted the economist mentality that gets lost in his own thought experiments about the weather and forgets to look outside his window.

The question should be: how do YOU know it's NOT a net loss?

That's the kind of question a person that doesn't understand logic and argument would make. You made the claim. It's a net loss. I didn't make any claim. I didn't say it wasn't. I just ask you to back up your claim. People that understand logic understand that the burden of proof lies with the one making the positive assertion.

If you come up to me and say you met an alien and I ask for evidence it's not good enough to say "Well how do you know I didn't?" That has nothing to do with it. If you can't justify your claims you should refrain from making them.

So personal experience doesn't count much when discussing welfare, but when discussing other policy issues, the personal experience on the ground is of prime importance?

No, personal experience really doesn't have much place in an argument. So for instance if we are asking about the prevalence of alcoholism we don't say "Well, my dad wasn't an alcoholic, so it's not a problem apparently." We ask the social workers to gather the data and tell us what is going on. That's not personal experience. That's going into the field and collecting data. That's personal experience in the way that a scientist performing tests and tallying the results is personal experience. Yeah, a person does it, but it's not really personal experience.

Your comment in response to what I said about aspirin is incomprehensible to me so I won't address it.

Jon said...

BTW, just in case you missed your point above that is now being addressed, you had written:

Regarding who the Slimdown hurts: thought I made this clear in my response, but let me be more specific, when discussing who 'this harms', it was meant from a POLITICAL standpoint. Basically, I am asking what voters would the GOP lose by such a strategy. My point was that almost NONE. The majority of the voters would be, again, union loving government workers. Of which very few vote Republican anyway.

We're talking about who the slim down hurts because we want to understand if it hurts Republicans in terms of votes. So I'm addressing this point directly and you come back with "Sigh, I'm not talking about the politics and the votes, only who the shutdown harms."

Now you say

"The overall political impact of such a move is an important discussion, but that should be for another time."

So you're talking about how this strategy affects votes in the quote above, which is about the political impact, and now you say you're not talking about the political impact. I'm apparently to be faulted for thinking you were addressing the impact to voting. That's not what you had meant, even though that's what you had said.

Examinator said...

HP VIEWS on this are simply a more articulate version of Chad's.
Republicans, Libertarians and Tea Partiers (the latter two in particular) are simply more interested in THEIR 'personal' interests. They are evangelically defensive of their advantages.

They work from the (unsupportable) assumption that *their* 'success' is prima facie proof of the superiority/correctness (false equivalence)of their justification. Objectively that is simply the metaphoric house of cards... false logic.
e.g. Earlier he used an unsupportable claim that most of America were ify about ACA (Obamacare..(sic)) to give the impression that the current opposition and therefore the current tactics were/are valid. Clearly the 'most people were ify...' was the underpinning supporting pillar to the whole claim/ implied justification. Without it his whole argument collapses leaving him with no more validity than 'because I would like it to be so.'

Most of their arguments and certainly his current one to you is the same 'house of cards' without any substance.
My reading of his argument was that he intended (as usually does) that by ill defined assumptions he can persuade you of the efficacy of what in the final analysis is his emotional personal interests. When you pointed this out he used the standard defensive tactic of deflecting the focus on his myopic self interest by redefining the it. i.e. from greater victim hood to political losers. In the hope(? ) that this too is a fatally flawed argument by virtue of the unrepresentative nature of the minority of representatives involved and their disproportionate power. By doing this he/ they have move the focus from PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for the collateral damage to the amorphous someone else. Whale at the time de humanising them. In his case the social welfare soaks and the federal public servants (non Republican voters (sic)).

As if they aren't people and that many of both vote Republican or have Republican leanings. In truth his views are unsustainable and are more likely to be an artefact of the multiply flawed voting system in America.

The second criticism of his mindset is that first person (experience) evidence is very limited in range, bias (proportionality in judgement of factors) and (often wanton) ignorance (i.e. was he ever a high ranking statistician or manager in any department involving social security? Being a social welfare recipient doesn't count for expertise)

HispanicPundit said...

Done here also. We both said what needed to be said...I think others can judge who made the better argument.

Chad said...

Great - your referencing a poll full of zero liability voters who's opinions are negative toward the GOP's position on the shut down - oh goodie. Do we know their voting record in the past? What states are they from, what district? What is the demographic breakdown on public vs private vs welfare recipient in that voter pool?

Things are at a tipping point now bud - the number of zero liability and recipient class of voters have caught up to the producing class number of voters. Unfortunately this probably does not bother or concern you - in fact I think your optimistic that eventually it will give you the hammer to take as much as you would like from whatever class of people you choose to target, but it is not a good thing to reference these polls as a manner to govern the USA or to think that it galvanizes any position because that is a very dangerous way to make law.

Jon said...

What the poll I showed indicated is that even Republicans are souring on the GOP. Could be these are members of the recipient class. People like Romney or the Walton family. Biggest part of the recipient class. Does no work, takes all the money. You are actually the biggest defender of the parasites. I'm the one that says that the people that do the work should be allowed to keep the fruits of their labor.

Chad said...

Then those folks aren't true Republicans then - maybe they dislike the handling, but they will still pull the lever for the R candidate.

Blah and Blah on the other stuff - once again if they are worthless parasites who's existence is only to collect money and not offer any services then it should be fairly easy to beat them in the open market selling the same products and not having that financial burden strapped to the cost of the good or service. That is only if an individual or a group of individuals has the stomach to go out there and compete.

Examinator said...

The difference between a patriot and a zealot it that a patriot loves their country ( all of it)
A zealot (aka TPer) is that they love those like them and hates everyone else. In short they love themselves because the reality there will always be differences in others you couldn't stand.

BTW regardless of your hyperbole the truth is people who don't vote GOP are still entitled to vote ergo their opinion is as valid as yours. It's called democracy...I'm sure you could Google it if it doesn't ring any bells.

FYI GOP/TPer does not necessarily mean REAL PATRIOT any more than being non GOP/TBer necessarily mean the opposite!(I don't remember the US oath of allegiance Containing Terms Like GOP/TP , Democrat Patriot or REAL patriot. In fact I seem to have a memory that the Constitution specifically mentioned everyone/ all citizens.

So unless you are saying that Jon and or all the non GOPers aren't 'real patriots' (in which case I'd want to see YOUR definition of the words in a legitimate dictionary)I'd suggest you drop the offensive imputation and the hyperbole before you REALly look silly or UNPATRIOTIC i.e. usurp the legitimate US government to replace it with ?? it's sounding like a dictatorship! In which case ....the NSA is watching YOU :-O

Chad said...

Well Ex - our great country was setup as a Republic - available on Google if your interested. Our founding fathers feared a direct democracy and as it turns out there fears are coming true.

"Because it is inherently flawed with the share the wealth philosophy, which only works as long as there is someoneelse'ss money to share. Those receiving are quite pleased with getting something for nothing. But those forced to give are denied the right to spend the benefits of their own labor in their own self-interest, which creates jobs no matter how the money is spent. They also lose a portion of their incentive to produce." - Ben Franklin

Of which Patriot are you speaking of or should I say what defines Patriotism? The Constitution - which is no longer followed - is clear on this matter. Paraphrasing now, but it tells us that when a Gov't is no longer performing its duty as written by the Constitution it is the duty of the people to throw that gov't out and start anew. In this rare case these true Patriots actually - and get this crazy concept - they actually want to follow the rules as written in the Constitution - I mean holy shit right? Patriotism is not the blind love for all man especially as the foundational principals are no longer being followed. True Patriotism is when you stand up on the right side of things even if it means you get shot, put in jail or scrutinized by the mob.

Examinator said...

Chad and others

In support of my conviction that the TP in particular are grossly/ wilfully Uninformed

Chad you said ["America is a republic....look it up on the google"] I'd suggest that YOU do the similar but at the library of Congress America is a "Democratic Republic" it is different.

Chad said ["The founding fathers feared 'direct Democracy'"]Yes and no.
The founding fathers also believed in wooden teeth, not washing every day, powdered wigs and many other moot and out dated beliefs.
They used Smith's “Wealth of Nations” as their economic bible Which was based on the gold/silver standard, i.e. money over currency. (see economics text book for definitions).
This meant Collateral based loans THERE WAS NO SUCH THING AS LIMITED LIABILITY (that happened nearly a hundred years later). It is Legal Limited Liability that makes CORPORATIONS and facilitates development…. Without it Business as we know it would cease. Spending only what you earn would mean you wouldn't be able to borrow …. to buy you house, vehicles etc because YOU HAD NO ASSETS for COLATERAL. Under their understanding if you invested in a company you were liable for any debts it may incur. One doesn't need to be a genius to see that the rich are protected against uncontrolled losses. However there is no such thing as a free lunch some one pays … the people a bad decision by a rich person means people lose too (back pay, holiday pay …), the means to survive however, the rich person maybe a little less rich but they're fine.

As for the comment that I think that one needs a degree in economics to discuss (Chad, you don't discuss you bully insult and in many ways simple give a 'now hear this' proselytes) economics.

I actually pointed out that one needs a basic understanding and more, if one wanted to lay down Economic absolutes as in national policy statements. I also pointed out that a degree wasn't the only way but the easiest/ arguably the best. Without the knowledge and the tools the badly or uninformed are simply suggesting nonsense because there are other factors that stop many simplistic prognostications.

The VAST majority of Americans at the time of the US foundation were far less educated than today. They were considered by the founding fathers as being, illiterate and particularly “ignorant of matters of state”. In their day literacy and HIGHER EDUCATION (in matters of state required philosophy, classics, sciences, music and civilised etiquette) was the province of the rich LAND OWNERS who relied on slaves to make fortunes. They were the only ones who had the time and money to attain it.
By their reasoning one may at best expect, depending on the wealth of your parents, is an elementary school education. (just enough to be useful to the rich but not enough to be a threat. (see founding fathers letters at the time). Clearly all else we have wouldn't have been possible... NO COLLEGE LOANS.

Like it or not WE ALL OWE OUR Life style to them 'unpatriotic' (sic) Liberals (sic). One that comes to mind was Abraham Lincoln.

NB none of the above is opinion but a matter of Historic fact

Chad said...

Thanks for proving my point as to how uninformed and skewed the Liberal thinking is and how we got ourselves in this mess - eventually with thinking like yours. Twisting the Constution so out of whack it's hardly recognized.

Your best argument is wooden teeth - something not mentioned in the Constitution 1 time - good point.

Please read the Federalist Papers and the Constitution a little better.

What they understood above all else is that change would occur and they gave elected officials a road map how to change the Constitution through amendments (women voting and the end to slavery). They never once said they were all knowing in fact the opposite they felt like they knew very little and in many cases they were afraid they gave Gov't too much power at the onset. What they did - however - know above all else is that Gov't is the most dangerous apparatus known to mankind. They did their very best to limit the powers and actually outlined in the enumerator powers what Gov't could do. What ever not on that list is passed down to the individual states and to the people of the States to decide and be responsible for. The Supreme Court was supposed to be the protector of the Constitution and a ref between State disputes.

Instead supposed big brains like you and it possibly started with Abe Lincoln attacked, suspended and amended the Constitution outside its charter starting the snow ball affect to today where the Gov't believes it has a right and duty to take over freaking healthcare. The Supreme Court has been given powers not ever - not ever afforded them and suddenly things like the FED is born from the bowels of big thinkers.

What the TP believes is going back to basics Ex. Let's go back to those basic principals that Gov't was founded upon. Allow Gov't to do what the Constitution says it should and can then let the 50 States take care of themselves. If California runs out of cash they run out of cash - if Texas loans them money then some it, but the Gov't can not.

Wooden Teeth - I love that one it shows the readers exactly how far away from the truth and understanding what the core of the TP is all about.

Wooden Teeth - lol.

Examinator said...

The wooden teeth was to illustrate to you how that things have changed since the founding fathers signed the constitution etc.

They were firm advocates in theory to the Philosophy de Jure i.e. Enlightenment philosophies OF THEIR TIME.
I note that you ignored the substantive argument i.e. the differences between 'capitalism' as writ and Capitalism as it is today. They are poles apart.
As I've said countless times CONTEXT IS EVERY THING.

We can no more go back to the philosophies of the C18th than return to dentistry with wooden or whalebone teeth!

And yet again (Tsk sigh) I do NOT SPEAK for the Liberals. I speak for my understanding. I don't see discrete sides rather a series of individual topic continuums, logic and contexts.

STOP ARGUING IN TERMS OF ABSOLUTES , Black or white they are artificial and demonstrably false!
even color blindness doesn't mean the person sees things in monochrome.

I've re read the Commentary piece and while there a lot in the second part is accurate.i.e. I wouldn't/couldn't [i don't have sufficient technical skills or evidence] argue with the technicalities.
I would suggest that his argument is very academically orientated and as such is based on technical and caveated basis.

Notwithstanding this in a practical sense it's a bit like arguing that some coal mines operate on WORLD'S BEST PRACTICES. However World's best practice isn't the same as the best possible rather the best of an inadequate lot.
But again it is a very interesting piece worth the read although he doesn't prove his assertion that The US is Number 1 But ignores the facts that to the significant 68 million that's a moot point.

Examinator said...

I was going to let it slide but I will comment on ["supposed big brains like you"] WTF? by whome? Certainly not me. Do I really have to go through a context search to count the number of times I flatly argued down that concept.
I think you mean it as a sarcastic put down to in your mind gain the moral high ground.
There IS NO MORAL high ground here merely two men arguing the validity of each other's points, nothing more! There are no winners or losers at least in my mind.
I'm not competing! merely examinating (sic)

The BASIC'S you refer to are predicated on C17th understanding. Things have moved on. including society it's understanding/ expectations, knowledge, the way we do business and even Brain power.
Research has shown that the average IQ is rising by an average of 5-10 points each generation. this is due to brain plasticity i.e. the more training (demands and practice)the brain get the greater its cognitive abilities it become.

That is demonstrated to mean that the more you exercise various cognitive attributes the more the brain rewires connections resulting in higher cognitive abilities the person has.

e.g.Simply put reading wider raises you cognitive abilities become.

There was a fascinating series in Australia of a bright average person who's cognitive skills is specific areas were scientifically tested. Then was sent around the world to experts to gain training and techniques to increase the cognitive abilities as measured. Each month he was given a goal. In the first month he was entered into the memory Olympics to be tested on remembering the positions of each card in a pack. He did it in 90 seconds under test conditions. He was taught a technique and practised it and other exercises for an hour per day.

After three months he beat Houdini's best effort, by being bound by 5 sets of chains sealed by five digit different combination locks each with different combination under 3 meters of water on a single breath.
He could barely swim and was mildly claustrophobic at the beginning. At the end he was retested and showed improvements ranging from 28-49% increase in those cognitive skills..
In the light of that and other reading bigger better brain more intellectual is a decidedly dubious concept.