Is David Brooks retarded?
Edit: No but seriously, they did it by mail I assume, does he not read what he type?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
- Thread starter ClovingWestbrook
- Start date
- Status
Edit: No but seriously, they did it by mail I assume, does he not read what he type?
Had to drop this on a Facebook acquaintance who was complaining about "Obamunism" and that he was still waiting for prices to go down as promised and that they were still going up. He claimed market based competition was the only way costs would ever decrease :/
Re: "the best price controls are market-based competition!"
This is true... for commodities. Health and healthcare are not commodities.
Repeat after me, there is no healthcare "market." For a true market to exist consumers have to have the ability to choose to participate. Unfortunately, you don't get to choose when you catch the flu, when you fall and break a bone, or when you get cancer. Everyone will require healthcare services at some point, but they largely cannot predict when or why. You also don't get the option of not participating in giving custom for healthcare services. If you don't seek treatment for pneumonia or cancer, you die. Period.
Likewise you don't really get to choose the service you want. If you have heart disease you don't get to choose a dose of antibiotics over more expensive bypass surgery. There may be a few treatment options, but they are not largely driven by the consumer.
There has never been demonstration that a traditional consumer market will keep down healthcare costs. Purchasing healthcare is not and will never be like buying a phone, TV or toaster.
It's fine if you are philosophically opposed to the concept of any form of central planning or regulation of healthcare, more power too you. But please don't spread the misinformation that healthcare is a traditional commodity market, it is not.
Sorry for shitting up your wall
The Librarian
Banned
Sargent posted a poll showing that it'll be the House GOP that takes the hit.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I'm not sure it would actually play out that way. Every poll during the debt ceiling crisis of 2011 showed that people blamed House Republicans for it, but Obama's approval rating still plummeted.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Exactly. The polls are taken in a current vacuum, they don't take into effect how a worse economic situation would impact people's views. Traditionally presidents get blamed when things go south economically, which is what will happen if sequestration isn't addressed.
Yep. And my man Charlie Pierce had a bit of fun with him today:
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/david-brooks-sequestration-022213
TheLaughingStock
Member
So I was looking again at CBO forecasts and was wondering when did we start seeing the counter intuitiveness in Europe and subsequent revisions? Can deficits fall over the next few years even slightly?
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43943
All part of the master plan. It'll pave the way for a right-winger to take back the WH from godless socialism in 2016.
Our country can't take much more of this bullshit from Congressional Republicans. And, to be fair, Democrats ain't perfect either. But the GOPers are ideological terrorists, I'm confident history will remember them that way.
We are so, so fucked if this isn't addressed. How many more "recessions" can we suffer until everything goes to shit? What's it going to take for people to realize they can't just be engaged in a fucking Presidential election year? If the people who were asleep in 2010 but not 2008 actually showed up and stuck it to those tea party idiots we'd be SO much better off right now.
jamesinclair
Banned
DRUDGE SIREN
Rubio resigns to take position at Chevron.
Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2013/02/22/3184009/state-sen-michael-rubio-d-bakersfield.html#storylink=cpy
Rubio resigns to take position at Chevron.
Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2013/02/22/3184009/state-sen-michael-rubio-d-bakersfield.html#storylink=cpy
Link
The Autumn Wind
jamesinclair
Banned
Please, only Onion ban beggers hide URLs
I think we're getting there. You have to remember that for long stretches of time since FDR the two parties have basically agreed about economic policy. With the New Deal in place, everything else took a back seat to WW2 and the Cold War. Some differences cropped up briefly with Goldwater in '64, but the Civil Rights Act was a bigger deal and realignment meant that both parties were in a constant state of flux. From Reagan through Clinton the parties were again basically in agreement, although to the right of where they'd been before. W pushed things a bit with SS privatization but his own base turned on him, and then the Republicans went off the deep end when Obama took office.
I think it's very possible that 2010 showed people, and the media, that this stuff matters. I don't think 2014 will be nearly as bad.
Old, but didn't see this posted.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/marco-rubio-has-sold-more-than-3100-water-bottles-raising-10
Buzzfeed said:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/marco-rubio-has-sold-more-than-3100-water-bottles-raising-10
The Librarian
Banned
That's really cool that he can just laugh at himself about it.
Arrowgigantic
Member
3,100 water bottles, why that's 0.0025% of the electorate!
She's no longer going to host their morning talk show and instead take on a new role where she focuses on documentaries. I'd say that's much more fitting for her.
cartoon_soldier
Member
While that idiot Erin Brunnet continues with an evening show
Link
The Autumn Wind
Nope, Erin is replacing her in the morning.
cartoon_soldier
Member
I guess that's good, at least she's off the evening slots. It's a start!
The Librarian
Banned
I was going through Justin Amash's Twitter account and came across this article. The author may have a point overall, but she's missing a key point of which Obama and Boehner are trying to say: that $82 billion dollars are going to be taken out of the economy this year and that's why the sequester is so devastating.
tanooki141
Member
The Librarian
Banned
No, he's not. Sometimes I like to read the Twitter feeds of crazy representatives.
tanooki141
Member
haha, I see.
I should have known better than to think someone on gaf would like republican like amash.
The Librarian
Banned
He's respectable in some areas and he has a good sense of humor. But overall he's crazy. "Who thinks it's time to cut government spending?" Not me! That's a very bad thing to do during a recession.
tanooki141
Member
That is where I disagree with a lot of the politicians who want to cut spending. This is definitely not the opportune time.
That's unintentionally insightful though, house republican are in fact play a made up fictional game here.
The Librarian
Banned
He claims to be all for liberty, but he, as far as I can tell:
1. Supports DOMA and is against gay marriage
2. Doesn't support a woman's right to choose
He also supports a balanced-budget amendment, and I couldn't find it anywhere, but based on his positions I'd be willing to bet that he opposes the VRA and the CRA.
Also, we're technically not in a recession. Oopsie me.
tanooki141
Member
I'm not going to get into an abortion argument but I absolutely disagree with him on DOMA.
The Librarian
Banned
Ten bucks says he's against requiring insurance companies to cover the cost of birth control.
tanooki141
Member
Haha, you're probably right and thats another thing I'd disagree with him on.
Both parties would suffer from the economic shock of the cuts. That's why, despite coming perilously close on numerous occasions, neither party has pushed us over the precipice. Whether on the debt ceiling or the innumerable continuing resolutions, both parties have an incentive to prevent calamity. So although presidents receive disproportionate blame for the economy, the consequences for the majority House party are also severe. For either party to assume a measurable advantage would be a mighty gamble.
The most effective method of influencing your representative is a personal visit. Whether at the national office or the local office, a personal visit is more visible to the staff and your representative. I imagine it's a daunting task for many, but they are typically cordial even if you identify with the opposition.
Caught that last night, was a great segment. Michelle can dance for a mom!
PhoenixDark
Banned
I like Fallon's wig more than Michelle's
TacticalFox88
Banned
NPR had their usual segment with him and E.J. Dionne yesterday. Brooks actually said this on the sequester (transcribing):
"This is a piece of mindless anti-government fanaticism, which doesn't separate the good from the bad, it just cuts. In fact, it cuts in the worst of all possible ways, it doesn't cut the things that are actually leading to the long-term debt problem, like Medicare and Social Security. It cuts from things people actually like, the National Institute of Health and stuff like that. So it's a political disaster in the making for Republicans."
Apparently the public don't like Medicare and Social Security, and will punish Republicans unless they cut them.
He goes on to argue that because the GOP gave so much ground on taxes, Obama needs to cut more spending. Never mind the $2t Obama has already cut. It's like opposite day every time he opens his mouth.
So the Free Masons, Five Jewish Bankers, Gary Bettman, The Man and whoever else is in the powers that be these days got together to decide who get to butt bump Michelle Obama and they came up with Jimmy Fallon?
Fuck everything.
The Librarian
Banned
Where's that $2t figure coming from? Most of that's the sequester, right?
One of the most laughable levels of hypocrisy is that we're trying to avert the spending cuts the GOP forced Obama to sign into law. When they talk about "out of control spending," it really is code for "stuff we don't like." Also, I've been confused by the sequester on some points:
1. Is it really just a reduction in spending and not actual cuts? That's still a cut mind you for this year, because that's $82 billion out of the economy, but why is the federal government projecting increased money being spent? More spending on the elderly, and inflation, right?
2. How is the sequester hitting all the federal departments when it's only supposed to target defense and medicare provider payments?
Well, they didn't want to hurt her to they got as soft of a flat surface as they could.
We're not talking about Laura Bush here, first lady got back.
Black Mamba
Member
The $2tril is from the debt ceiling deal in 2001
1. Increase in Medicare and SS is probably right.
2. It's not. It's half defense and half discretionary and Medicare payments capped.
Here this should help. http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/w...g-you-could-possibly-need-to-know-in-one-faq/
ClassyPenguin
Banned
You kick a can....then you have to walk up to it too kick it again...walk up to it, kick....
on and on.
The Librarian
Banned
Huh. All this time I thought it was just defense and Medicare payments. It says the savings are only 1.1 trillion. Where's the other .9?
Black Mamba
Member
Do you mean .1?
The $2 trillion is from the deal to cut spending in 2011, not the sequester. This is additional cuts.
The Librarian
Banned
What deal to cut spending in 2011? I'm lost with all these deals and trying to keep track of what's what in my head.
And about the debt ceiling: forgot about this scene from The West Wing.
"Followed by week two" is a good line.
Black Mamba
Member
When the GOP held the debt ceiling hostage, Obama agreed to about $1 trillion in cuts and the supercommittee to come with $1.5 trillion more or we'd get the sequester. That was in addition to the other cuts previously agreed to in other appropriation bills.
edit: Only a little bit went into action last year. Like $20 billion or something. Almost all of it is long term cuts. in the next 10 years (9 now I suppose)
cooljeanius
Member
Link to the original article?
- Status