Support NeoGAF

[talisayNon]

i swear if i have to maintain individual discontinuation code....

 

[Black Mamba]

It should also be pointed out that the Austrians have pretty much always been thought about as a joke but the internet gives life to many jokes.

That's the beauty of the internet. It's both a great and terrible resource simultaneously.

 

[Oblivion]

Obama's socialist teachings have spread to Switzerland. D:

 

[airmangataosenai]

Does anyone know why Madeline Albright is in North Korea today? I was at the DMZ today and I saw her with an entourage.

 

[The Librarian]

Good god, man. What is wrong with you Oregonians?

Too busy being awesome by passing free tuition for higher education.

 

[Diablos]

Honestly, this terrible roll-out of healthcare.gov makes me think another shutdown is more likely in 2014.

Yeah, and how willing will Dems be to stand up to the GOP over a shutdown threat over the ACA next time? They're already starting to spar internally over it, and the public may very well be more sympathetic to the GOP's cause in light of Obama's approval (as well as the ACA's) falling.

 

[The Librarian]

Yeah, and how willing will Dems be to stand up to the GOP over a shutdown threat over the ACA next time? They're already starting to spar internally over it, and the public may very well be more sympathetic to the GOP's cause in light of Obama's approval (as well as the ACA's) falling.

Not at all.

 

[Diablos]

Not at all.

I don't think so, a lot of Dems will still defend it -- but definitely enough of them -- particularly those in tight Senate races next year and in swing districts -- will be more vocal in opposition.

Even my Senator, Bob Casey, is now flirting with changing his position on the law. The extent of how big of a change that will be hasn't been made entirely clear but it's never good to hear that.

 

[The Librarian]

I don't think that, a lot of Dems will still defend it -- but definitely enough of them -- particularly those in tight Senate races next year and in swing districts -- will be more vocal in opposition.

Even my Senator, Bob Casey, is now flirting with changing his position on the law. The extent of how big of a change that will be hasn't been made entirely clear but it's never good to hear that.

Of course you don't – that's what you do. If the website is fixed before January – and even if it isn't, I doubt it will be in a state that undermines the politics of a shutdown – there's really nothing about the situation that will be different from the last shutdown.

 

[Diablos]

Of course you don't – that's what you do. If the website is fixed before January – and even if it isn't, I doubt it will be in a state that undermines the politics of a shutdown – there's really nothing about the situation that will be different from the last shutdown.

Your arrogance in how you address anything I say is really unnecessary, as is the apparent mere assumption that I actually thought zero Democrats are going to fight for the ACA during another shutdown (should it occur). I'm offended that you would think I am that stupid.

You are borderline delusional if you think there won't be any Democrats next time who won't be so willing to defend the website/law like they did last time. Look at how easy some of them cracked lately. We've already got Democrats in the House who were considering things like Upton's bill. Now, what if Obama's mere statement that insurers can keep people on their shitty plan doesn't pan out (since he didn't exactly propose a bill or anything) and the website stays borked through January? In either case you'd better believe it will magnify the situation even more.

If healthcare.gov doesn't get fixed -- 100% -- and if the WH can't figure out a way to stop the bleeding on all this damage done by cancellation notices it is no doubt going to impact the manufactured crises of next year. Democrats, particularly those in tight races/states with important Gov races, would be in a horrible situation which will in turn make them take stupid positions.

 

[Oblivion]

http://freebeacon.com/obama-contra/

o_0

 

[The Librarian]

Your arrogance in how you address anything I say is really unnecessary, as is the apparent mere assumption that I actually thought zero Democrats are going to fight for the ACA during another shutdown (should it occur). I'm offended that you would think I am that stupid.

I'm not arrogant, Diablos, I am simply looking at the fundamentals of the situation and, seeing there is nothing to be concerned about in the long term, not panicking.

I said once that this thread feels much like it did after the first debate in 2012:
1. PD was trolling and/or believing some of the stuff he said.
2. Pigeon, Black Mamba, and I were looking at the fundamentals and not freaking out.
3. You were panicking.

Present:
1. PD is trolling and/or believing some of the stuff he says.
2. Black Mamba, Pigeon, and I are looking at the fundamentals and not freaking out.
3. You are panicking.

I really don't feel like going through this a second time. :|

 

[WayneMorse]

Does anyone know why Madeline Albright is in North Korea today? I was at the DMZ today and I saw her with an entourage.

Maybe it's to help free Kenneth Bae.

 

[WayneMorse]

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...co-hurts-democrats-undercuts-faith-government

Tennis players make a distinction between forced and unforced errors. President Obama’s failure to provide sufficient funds in 2009 to boost employment was a forced error – it’s unlikely he could have gotten a trillion-plus spending bill through Congress. But Obama’s failure to make good on the promise of the Affordable Care Act is an unforced error – and the public is unlikely to forgive or forget it.

We're so fucked.

 

[RustyNails]

I don't think so, a lot of Dems will still defend it -- but definitely enough of them -- particularly those in tight Senate races next year and in swing districts -- will be more vocal in opposition.

Even my Senator, Bob Casey, is now flirting with changing his position on the law. The extent of how big of a change that will be hasn't been made entirely clear but it's never good to hear that.

Reid wont allow it.

 

[RustyNails]

Diablos at least be glad the rollout happened in non election year and not during October 2012. Also people saying Obama am doooomed. Not at all.

 

[Aylinato]

That is hogwash. Economics is the 'dismal science'. They don't know shit. They can't agree upon shit. Sure . . . a lot of people that disagree with Keynesian economics have won Nobel prizes . . . but a lot of Keynesians have ALSO won.

So . . . no, they have NOT debunked Keynesian economics. People with ideas that conflict with other Nobel prize winning ideas win all the time.

Case in point . . . this year. They gave the prize to two guys who completely disagree with each other!



http://www.theatlantic.com/business...a-big-fat-critique-of-financial-media/280548/

Our country still uses over 80% of the program that Keynesian economics advocated for. So most politicians are lying that the don't use then

 

[speculawyer]

Too much diablosing on this thread.

Keep calm and carry on.

 

[speculawyer]

http://freebeacon.com/obama-contra/

o_0

Obama-contra
Column: Obamacare isn’t Katrina. It’s Iran-contra

LOL. Yeah, a healthcare program with a rough start is just like secretly negotiating with terrorists to sell them missiles and using the money to fund a secret war in direct violation of a law forbidding such funding.

What clowns. If he is on Left, Right, and Center this week they better take this clown to the woodshed.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

If they can get the site to fucking work again, we could think about ACA recovering from this.

 

[The Librarian]

Reid wont allow it.

Former top aide to Harry Reid: https://twitter.com/jamespmanley/status/401379092802449409

 

[PhoenixDark]

Can't link now but TPM has a story about most of the 100k enrolled people being older, potentially sick folks. That tracks how Romneycare's rollout went so it's too early to throw up a white flag. People, specifically younger people, tend to sign up at the last minute, which would be December in this case.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Enrollment numbers while not optimal are fine when you include Medicaid expansion.

A LOT of people are not going to bother with this until the site is fixed.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Can't link now but TPM has a story about most of the 100k enrolled people being older, potentially sick folks. That tracks how Romneycare's rollout went so it's too early to throw up a white flag. People, specifically younger people, tend to sign up at the last minute, which would be December in this case.

or march.


LULZ at Allan West:

I hope at some point the American Jewish community will awaken. I’ve almost lost any hope for my own black community, which is being led to a slaughter in the inner cities. If the Jewish American community continues to live in the fantasy world that these progressive socialists actually care about Israel, it is completely delusional.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Enrollment numbers while not optimal are fine when you include Medicaid expansion.

A LOT of people are not going to bother with this until the site is fixed.

The media keeps screaming the site isn't working (not really true, its just not the best). So people aren't even gonna check it out till they get the go-ahead

 

[CHEEZMO™]

*socialism intensifies*

 

[NYCmetsfan]

To shift gears real quickly, I was reading this article by some economist named John Cochrane, where he says that academia views Keynesian economics the way climatologists view global warming deniers:

http://equitablegrowth.org/2013/11/...ies-on-john-cochrane-and-so-goes-badly-astray

Are there any studies that back up this claim? I thought that most economists agreed with keynesianism even if it might not be to the same degree as climatologists do when it comes to AGW.

Krugman has had tuffles with him. And I'm not well versed in the debate but it seems like he's focusing on HOW the multiplier (I actually think there is some debate on even if there IS a multiplier) and government spending works. As the blog points out Keynes never really was advocating useless expenditures

He published this in the past

First, if money is not going to be printed, it has to come from somewhere. If the government borrows a dollar from you, that is a dollar that you do not spend, or that you do not lend to a company to spend on new investment. Every dollar of increased government spending must correspond to one less dollar of private spending. Jobs created by stimulus spending are offset by jobs lost from the decline in private spending. We can build roads instead of factories, but fiscal stimulus can’t help us to build more of both. This is just accounting, and does not need a complex argument about “crowding out.”

So I'm tending to not really think he's the best person to take advice from

 

[Wilsongt]

This is why we should never let Republicans in the House and Senate anywhere near anything related to Science and reserach. The article is a week old, but this is still bullshit. I'll just post choice parts of the article due to its length. As a scientist, despite the fact that I quit my Ph.D program, this pisses me off.

Republican Plan to Guide NSF Programs Draws Darts, and Befuddlement, From Research Advocates

A bill unveiled this week that would reshape how the U.S. government manages key research and education programs has rekindled tensions between the scientific community and Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX), the head of the science committee in the House of Representatives. The conflict, which began shortly after Smith became chairman in January, is being waged not just over the words in the legislation but also its overall tone.

The 96-page bill, which the House science committee will discuss at a hearing next Wednesday, is intended to replace the expired 2010 America COMPETES Act. The 2010 law set overall policy and suggested funding levels for the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Office of Science, along with authorizing federal efforts to improve STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) education. The original COMPETES Act, adopted in 2007, grew out of a high-profile 2005 National Academies’ report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm, that called for doubling federal investment in the physical sciences and improving the quality of the nation’s STEM teacher workforce

The bill also breaks with tradition by not specifying authorized funding levels for any agency or program. Historically, authorization bills set stretch goals that are rarely met by spending panels, but the numbers indicate the relative importance that legislators give to that activity.

A committee aide says those numbers are absent from FIRST because the panel is awaiting the results of negotiations on this year’s federal budget and a long-term spending plan. “This is a policy discussion draft that will enable us to focus on policy issues,” the aide says. “Once there is a bipartisan agreement on a budget, we’ll have a better idea of NSF funding for the legislation.”

The language seems innocuous at first glance, lobbyists say. For example, it says that every grant should be “in the national interest.” But it also stipulates that the funded research must satisfy “one or more” of six “goals.” And those goals extend beyond the traditional NSF mission of advancing the frontiers of research and developing a scientific workforce to include other desirable outcomes, such as “ncreased economic competitiveness,” “support for the national defense,” and “increased partnerships between academia and industry.”

Such specificity bothers Michael Lubell, head of the Washington, D.C., office of the American Physical Society. “NSF already requires PIs [principal investigators] to describe the broader impacts of their research,” he says. “So why would you list six goals? It suggests that the mission of the foundation should be changed.”

But what really gets Lubell’s goat—and upsets other lobbyists who weren’t willing to speak publicly for fear of offending Smith—is the next paragraph in the bill. It would require NSF to list the name of the employee who decided that the research was worth funding and require a “written justification” of that decision, along with “any other information about the research proposal the [NSF] director considers appropriate.”

“You’re subjecting the program manager to public scrutiny,” Lubell says. “Given the world we live in, who knows what could happen? ... Of course, what’s ironic is that, as their title implies, [program managers] really only manage the process. It’s the reviewers who basically determine the fate of any particular grant proposal.”

Smith declined to discuss the bill. But committee aides responded to questions posed by ScienceInsider. Asked why the bill requires identifying individual program managers, the aide replied: “Taxpayers have a right to know why research projects deserve their support. It will promote public confidence and increase support for research funding if the responsible federal employees provide a concise explanation of why a funded project deserves funding.”

Another provision that bothers several science lobbyists would require scientists to certify that anything published as a result of their NSF grant “will be based on an accurate and truthful representation of the research results.” It implies that scientists can’t be trusted to behave ethically, Lubell says, and that scientific misconduct is rampant. According to the committee aide, the language simply reflects the fact that “the NSF inspector general has reported that there is an increasing number of research misconduct” cases and a view that “taxpayer-funded scientists should be held to the highest standards.”

Some sections of the bill simply don’t make sense, lobbyists say, or the meaning is opaque. It would limit grant applicants to five citations of their previous work, they note, instead of leaving it to the discretion of the agency. What’s the point? they ask. And what’s the significance of telling NSF that it can fund scientists for more than 5 years only “if they will be contributing substantial original research”?

Lamar Smith: The same asshat that gave us SOPA.

Generally, tax papers don't understand shit about the way science works, so why should the information be focused around what tax payers know?

Now news from the hearing.

House Hearing Skates Over Big Disagreements on NSF Reauthorization

Congressional hearings can sometimes hide more than they reveal. So it was yesterday, when the research panel of the U.S. House of Representatives science committee held its first public airing of a bill that would make some controversial changes to peer review at the National Science Foundation (NSF).

One key change would require the NSF director to certify that every grant will achieve one or more of six national goals—including strengthening the U.S. economy, bolstering national defense, increasing partnerships between academia and industry, and training the next generation of scientists. The director would also have to post a description of each pending award before it is made, along with the names of the relevant program managers who made the decision.

A casual observer might easily have come away from the 95-minute hearing with the impression that such language, drafted by the committee’s Republican majority, is in line with current NSF policy. The witnesses didn’t dwell on the language, and Representative Larry Bucshon (R-IN), who chairs the subcommittee, said that the proposed changes to NSF’s merit review system were “consistent with steps the NSF is already considering to improve accountability, which have been approved by the National Science Board.”

That’s not exactly true, says Dan Arvizu, chairman of the 24-member board, which sets policy for the $7 billion agency. The presidentially appointed board has yet to review the 96-page bill, Arvizu told ScienceInsider, much less sign off on any of its provisions.

Arvizu explained that he and acting NSF Director Cora Marrett did meet in September with Bucshon and Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX), who leads the full committee. “We embraced the idea of transparency, accountability, and continuous improvement,” says Arvizu, adding that Smith told him those concepts were also guiding principles for the committee. But Arvizu says that none of the specific language in the bill, dubbed the FIRST (Frontiers in Innovation, Research, Science, and Technology) Act, was even discussed.

Two weeks ago, when science lobbyists were given a 2-page description of the draft legislation, committee staffers repeated the message that the science board supported the changes. And after today’s briefing, a senior aide said that the board had told Smith at the September meeting that it had adopted new guidelines that were consistent with the FIRST Act.

But Arvizu takes issue with that description. What actually happened, he says, is that the board heard a presentation last month in closed session from Marrett and her aides about “NSF’s approach to implementing” the principles that had been discussed at the September meeting with Smith. The board has asked NSF officials “to implement those principles independent of any legislation” the committee might adopt, Arvizu added.

Although Arvizu declined to give details of NSF’s plan, he said it consisted of reinforcing existing procedures at the agency “both before and after an award is made.” Such steps are likely to include better documentation of how each award satisfies the agency’s two funding criteria—scientific merit and broader impacts—as well as a clearer description for the public of what the researcher hopes to accomplish.

A second false assumption from the hearing would be that the gentle criticism of those provisions from two former NSF senior officials means only minor tweaks are needed to satisfy the scientific community. In reality, the testimony of Richard Buckius, vice president for research at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, and Tim Killeen, vice chancellor for research for the State University of New York (SUNY) system, pointed to a fundamental misunderstanding in the bill of how NSF operates and, more broadly, the purpose of federally funded research.

Oddly enough, Bucshon hinted at the first problem in his opening question to Buckius. “Yes or no, does the proposed FIRST bill have what you might call any congressional interference in the peer review mechanism for evaluating grants at NSF?” he wondered.

A professor of mechanical engineering who led NSF’s engineering directorate for 3 years before going to Purdue in 2008, Buckius immediately asked for some wiggle room. “Can I do yes and no?” he replied. But then he gamely plunged ahead.

“My first point is who would actually affirm the awards that go out,” Buckius began. “The bill says the director should. But I don’t believe anyone is all-knowing enough to affirm the 11,000+ awards made every year. So I’d change that.”

Buckius then offered up a more substantive criticism, suggesting that posting pending grant winners would spur widespread second-guessing of reviewers. “The bill talks about the prior announcement of awards before they are made,” he began. “In some of our competitions, we only fund a few out of a hundred proposals. So that means there will be 90+ folks who, prior to the award, can energize the system and create chaos. So the system could become extremely bogged down.”

After the hearing, Killeen also amplified Buckius’s concerns about posting advance information about an award. “It could lead to the worse type of grandstanding,” he told ScienceInsider, “with scientists making their case in public for why NSF should have funded their research. It could become a real free-for-all.”

Arvizu was also disturbed by the provision. “I don’t believe NSF has ever published information about an award before it was made,” he said. “I’m not even sure how that would work. It certainly was not part of our discussion [with Smith].”

For Killeen, who served as head of NSF’s geosciences directorate for 4 years before joining SUNY in 2012, a bigger problem with the legislation is how it regards basic research. “If I have a concern, it’s mostly the message that this bill will send out to the world, in fact. As my testimony indicated, I hope it’s a vibrant, enthusiastic, ‘let’s take on the 21st century,’ United States can-do kind of [legislation] rather than one that seeks to find the constraints and stiffen the sinews. My personal experience with NSF is that it is a magnificent national asset. We don’t want to throttle it back.”

The list of goals in the legislation also troubles him. “I do worry about every proposal having to conform to a specified set of criteria,” Killeen said. “That’s why I used the word vibrant in my testimony. Scientific inquiry includes following leads that may not take you anywhere, and setting out hypotheses. But yes, the overall portfolio should address all of those statements.”

What’s next? Bucshon said in his opening remarks that “members and staff on both sides of the aisle are continuing to work on the final legislation.” But he did not say when the subcommittee planned to mark up the bill, and he handed off the gavel to Representative David Schweikert (R-AZ) and left before the hearing ended.

The status of the bill could be affected by a private sitdown next week between the science board and Smith, which will take place during the board’s regular 2-day meeting at the foundation. Arvizu said it would be a chance for the board and the science committee’s chairman “to understand one another, for the board to say, ‘Here’s what we are planning to do,’ and to ensure him that we are moving in a productive manner to address his concerns.”

In a statement this morning, Smith said that “I look forward to continued discussions with the National Science Board next week on this draft legislation and ways to boost R&D funding.” The statement clarifies Bucshon’s comments by explaining that the draft legislation “is consistent with the plan approved by the National Science Board that requires NSF staff to provide clear justifications for why grants are worthy of American taxpayer funds.”

Augh.

 

[ivysaur12]

http://www.latimes.com/business/realestate/la-fi-edd-deficit-20131112,0,627791.story#axzz2kjjxpXRz

SACRAMENTO — Late payments, glitch-prone computers and swamped call centers aren't the only problems bedeviling California's unemployment insurance program.

The insurance fund that pays state jobless benefits — run by the Employment Development Department — owes nearly $10 billion to the federal government. That's because the state has been paying far more in jobless benefits than it receives in employer-paid taxes, and the feds make up the difference.

"The whole system is really whacked out right now and needs a fix," said Assemblyman Curt Hagman (R-Chino Hills). "Every time you peel off a layer of this EDD, there's an additional problem waiting to be tackled."

Hagman is vice chairman of the Assembly Insurance Committee, which last week held an oversight hearing into the EDD's operations.

California has been wrestling with its unemployment insurance debt for almost five years, and now it projects that the debt won't be repaid for at least a decade. That's unless Gov. Jerry Brown's administration and the Legislature come up with a new way to pay for the employer-financed program.

At least three stabs at finding such a solution have failed since 2004, with the last attempt failing this year.

"We can't keep putting our heads in the sand," said Angie Wei, a lobbyist for the California Labor Federation. "The problem is not going to go away by itself."

About 466,000 Californians currently receive state-paid unemployment benefits. The average weekly benefit is about $300; the maximum, $450. Recipients are required to actively seek employment.

Employers pay state and federal unemployment-insurance taxes. The state's unemployment insurance fund finances the first 26 weeks of jobless benefits, and that's the fund that is insolvent — largely because tax revenue has been insufficient to cover the sharp rise in claims that began with the recent recession.

In addition, federally funded benefits extending past 26 weeks are scheduled to expire at the end of the year unless renewed by Congress.

The state had hoped to pay back the federal government as the economy got better, but no dice, officials said recently. The debt is so large, a recent EDD update warned, that "the current financing system cannot self-correct during better economic times ... even if disbursement levels were to reach pre-recessionary levels."

The blunt assessment, EDD spokeswoman Loree Levy said, was intended to spur policymakers, economic interest groups and politicians to reach agreement on how to balance the fund. "It's got to be fixed," she said, "or we take another dive when we hit another recession."

In the meantime, each year California employers have to forgo hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of federal tax credits, which are reduced when the state cuts its repayments to the federal government. And their federal unemployment tax bill could more than quadruple in 2015 compared with the 2012 level, the EDD forecast said.

State taxpayers, meanwhile, are saddled with the interest payments on the debt to the federal government. The state has paid $871 million in the last three years and will pay an estimated $431 million in the next two years, the EDD said.

Much of that interest had to be paid with other borrowed money: $612 million from the state disability insurance fund, which comes due in 2016 and 2017.

There's no mystery about how to right the fund, analysts say.

Employers, who provide 100% of the funds for the state safety-net program, could increase contributions. California is one of a handful of states in the nation that levy the payroll tax on only a worker's first $7,000 of annual income.

Alternatively, laid-off workers could get lower payments or be excluded from benefits by tightening eligibility requirements. Or, there could be some combination of the two.

For now, groups representing employers and labor, separately, have shown interest in talking with the governor's staff about trying yet again to cut a deal.

"The administration will continue to push all parties to work together to stabilize the fund," said Jim Evans, a Brown spokesman.

But getting business owners and lawmakers to pass a tax increase during an election year "is a tough sell," said Allan Zaremberg, president of the California Chamber of Commerce.

Zaremberg and other employer groups are not confident of reaching an agreement that can win support from two-thirds of the members of the state Senate and Assembly.

"I don't see the political will to do it," said Bill Dombrowski, leader of the California Retailers Assn.

This year, an employers coalition proposed refinancing the federal debt by selling state bonds to be retired out of current unemployment tax revenue. The governor's office, which has been working to pay down what Brown calls the state's "wall of debt," did not embrace the idea.

"It appears to be a non-starter," Dombrowski said.

At the same time, business also put forward a list of 23 proposals, similar to those in other states, that in various ways would reduce unemployment benefits and make qualifying for them more difficult.

"There's no appetite for taking away benefits or eligibility for laid-off workers," said Wei, the California Labor Federation lobbyist. "Our average weekly benefit is $300. Who can live on that?"

EDD is awful. You can't talk to anyone on the phone, the payments are late (or glitched), and you get paid nothing once that money comes in. There needs to be more contributions.

Being on EDD was one of the worst experiences of my life, and I didn't receive any of my payments until after our season started up again and I was already employed. Great. Thanks. That really helped.

 

[RustyNails]

This is why we should never let Republicans in the House and Senate anywhere near anything related to Science and reserach. The article is a week old, but this is still bullshit. I'll just post choice parts of the article due to its length. As a scientist, despite the fact that I quit my Ph.D program, this pisses me off.

Republican Plan to Guide NSF Programs Draws Darts, and Befuddlement, From Research Advocates













Lamar Smith: The same asshat that gave us SOPA.

Generally, tax papers don't understand shit about the way science works, so why should the information be focused around what tax payers know?

Now news from the hearing.

House Hearing Skates Over Big Disagreements on NSF Reauthorization



Augh.

bubu both sides

 

[empty vessel]

To shift gears real quickly, I was reading this article by some economist named John Cochrane, where he says that academia views Keynesian economics the way climatologists view global warming deniers:

http://equitablegrowth.org/2013/11/...ies-on-john-cochrane-and-so-goes-badly-astray

Are there any studies that back up this claim? I thought that most economists agreed with keynesianism even if it might not be to the same degree as climatologists do when it comes to AGW.

Cochrane is a hack economist, but his opinion about the sorry academic state of economics was effectively endorsed by Krugman. I was actually shocked by Krugman's blog post: "Keynesian models — even New Keynesian models — remain hard to get past referees." That is a testament to how corrupt academic economics has become. It is apparently filled to the brim with hacks just like Cochrane. That economics journals apparently reject the simple (and obviously true) proposition that government spending "raises incomes, which leads to further spending etc" is mind boggling. If this is the state of economics in academia, it must be burned to the ground.

 

[zero shift]

So one of my friends said that under Obamacare if the government does not like the plan you have you have to not only pay for the healthcare plan you have but the Obamacare plan as well. What's the deal with this?

 

[B-Dubs]

So one of my friends said that under Obamacare if the government does not like the plan you have you have to not only pay for the healthcare plan you have but the Obamacare plan as well. What's the deal with this?

Sounds like the guy has no idea what he's talking about

 

[StopMakingSense]

So one of my friends said that under Obamacare if the government does not like the plan you have you have to not only pay for the healthcare plan you have but the Obamacare plan as well. What's the deal with this?

Your friend is horribly misinformed.

 

[empty vessel]

So one of my friends said that under Obamacare if the government does not like the plan you have you have to not only pay for the healthcare plan you have but the Obamacare plan as well. What's the deal with this?

Your friend is an American.

 

[Aylinato]

So one of my friends said that under Obamacare if the government does not like the plan you have you have to not only pay for the healthcare plan you have but the Obamacare plan as well. What's the deal with this?

Ask him how much his tinfoil hat cost him.

 

[Rhomega Beta]

JUST IN: In mild rebuke to Obama, 39 Democrats help pass GOP bill on health care reform in the House

 

[eBay Huckster]

JUST IN: In mild rebuke to Obama, 39 Democrats help pass GOP bill on health care reform in the House

burn this country to the ground

 

[zero shift]

Sounds like the guy has no idea what he's talking about

Your friend is horribly misinformed.

Your friend is an American.

I told her over and over again. "Obamacare" isn't something you sign up for. It isn't its own insurance plan." She kept saying "I should look it up". And that "My friends parents found out how insanely high their premiums got under Obamacare, its like $1,000!" or something.

There's also the abandoned stepchid, Black. But who knows what the hell Black is up to. They're fundamentally radical, and I suppose they throw a good party.

Occupy was started by the black. The black has some good ideas but unfortunately they are far too radical and naive to get anywhere. Red is too radical and unfortunately don't have too many success stories to stand by. All they have that isn't toxic is Yugoslavia (a dictatorship that was highly successful for thirty years then crumbled) and Venezuela (a highly dysfunctional mediocre preforming, given the resources, country).

 

[B-Dubs]

Eh, I feel like there are enough questionable decisions about scientific funding that it's appropriate to ask for a more public review process.

Even if you believe that, it's still a bad bill.

 

[The Librarian]

burn this country to the ground

It's basically the same people that voted for the individual mandate delay. Nothing to see here.

 

[eBay Huckster]

It's basically the same people that voted for the individual mandate delay. Nothing to see here.

okay, i'll amend that:

burn 270 districts to the ground

 

[ClassyPenguin]

Eh, I feel like there are enough questionable decisions about scientific funding that it's appropriate to ask for a more public review process.

Like there being not enough funding and not enough freedom. There is a ton of bureaucracy.

 

[WayneMorse]

burn this country to the ground

You should be more angry at Obama for fucking this up.

 

[WayneMorse]

McDermott: 'I Haven't Seen So Much Panic On This Floor Since 9/11'

"I haven't seen so much panic on this floor since 9/11," McDermott said before a vote on the bill.

"There will be nothing but confusion," he added. "You have 50 insurance commissioners around this country who are going to be suddenly given a bill after we write some rules and regulations here that require the insurance companies to sell policies to people. I can't believe what I'm hearing."

 

[NYCmetsfan]

McDermott: 'I Haven't Seen So Much Panic On This Floor Since 9/11'

Why do politicians make horrible analogies?

 

[Oblivion]

LOL. Yeah, a healthcare program with a rough start is just like secretly negotiating with terrorists to sell them missiles and using the money to fund a secret war in direct violation of a law forbidding such funding.

What clowns. If he is on Left, Right, and Center this week they better take this clown to the woodshed.

The bigger WTF in that story is right-wingers actually acknowledging Iran-Contra:

1. Existed
2. Was a BAD thing

 

[Oblivion]

Here's a fun game we can all play. Let's guess which insane right-wing outlet said the following:

The disastrous rollout of [President Obama's] health care law not only threatens the rest of his agenda but also raises questions about his competence in the same way that the Bush administration’s botched response to Hurricane Katrina undermined any semblance of Republican efficiency.

Answer:

Spoiler

The New York Times.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

Lol wut

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Something that's been bothering me and being under reported.

With Obama actually trying to talk to Iran and come to a deal the SAME EXACT PEOPLE that lead us to Iraq are now telling us how bad a deal this is and how Iran is some giant threat to humanity, Jews, Freedom, etc and how unless we crush them the world will end. Its absurd no one is calling them out. I'm sick of these people getting a free pass for the crap they pulled in 2002/2003.

Listen I don't like Iran, I'd love for them to not be a horribly repressive government that funds people like Hezbollah and Hamas, I'd love for them to treat their people better and not be a theocracy but bombing them into change isn't going to do that. There is glee in these peoples love of sanctions which is disgusting. It seems punishing Iran is an end to itself and not a means to put pressure on them to open up their nuclear program to more international oversight to make sure they don't get nukes (which would not be a good thing)

The bigger WTF in that story is right-wingers actually acknowledging Iran-Contra:

1. Existed
2. Was a BAD thing

Nah, they have a history of being pissed off at their own mistakes and projecting them on to others.