3rdnlng Posted June 2, 2012 Posted June 2, 2012 is it vacuous to respond to comments such as these? it appeared no one else was going to challenge them. and who are the americans who have had just about enough and are pushing fox"s ratings? is he speaking about me? omg, he was a wine columnist...that alone disqualifies him from any reasonable analysis! 1BillsFan posted a contribution to this thread. He linked to an article backing up what he was saying. You attacked him and mentioned "wine columnist" but that was only one of the jobs 1BF mentioned. So you were trying to ridicule. Your childish, partisan vitriol sidetracked this thread.
Magox Posted June 2, 2012 Posted June 2, 2012 so sorry. did i interrupt your conservative knitting circle? i would just point out again that the audience demographics for someone like stossel versus someone like zakaria speak for themselves...and they don't shine a good light on the fox guy. and i didn't conjure up the anti-intellectual sentiment for much of this board. there are plenty of examples to be found on many threads here. it seems to some intellectual= liberal=bad. No its not that, its just that if you see a dipshit, you call them out for being one, dipshit.
birdog1960 Posted June 2, 2012 Posted June 2, 2012 how do you expect this thread would have played out if the original premise had been to use limbaugh's show as a springboard to discussions on economics? then someone adroitly points out that he would not be a good source since he has no college degree...in essence, the inverse of this thread? do you suppose that assertion would go unchallenged? would citing a link on his educational background make such a comment immune from attack? yeah, right.
1billsfan Posted June 3, 2012 Posted June 3, 2012 is it vacuous to respond to comments such as these? it appeared no one else was going to challenge them. and who are the americans who have had just about enough and are pushing fox"s ratings? is he speaking about me? omg, he was a wine columnist...that alone disqualifies him from any reasonable analysis! This was your challenge? I understand your frustration though. It must be tough to watch the supreme being, and intellectually inclined, Obama looking so dang inept. I added in that colloquialism just for you, btw.
3rdnlng Posted June 3, 2012 Posted June 3, 2012 This was your challenge? I understand your frustration though. It must be tough to watch the supreme being, and intellectually inclined, Obama looking so dang inept. I added in that colloquialism just for you, btw. Hey, you're not supposed to be able to understand words with more than two syllables.
Barack Obama Posted June 3, 2012 Posted June 3, 2012 This was your challenge? I understand your frustration though. It must be tough to watch the supreme being, and intellectually inclined, Obama looking so dang inept. Let me be clear It is not my fault that average Americans are not doing their part. Between my time as a community organizer and stellar record of voting present I have had quite a bit of time to contemplate how the economy should work. I tell Americans what they should do and they're supposed to do it. But they don't. So is it my fault the economy is failing, or yours?
dayman Posted June 3, 2012 Author Posted June 3, 2012 Interview w/ Romney's senior economic adviser coming up
dayman Posted June 3, 2012 Author Posted June 3, 2012 (edited) lmfao on the first part of the interview... congratulations on your slightly more conservative white-Obama candidate. I hope all tea party people are watching this. There are some differences which are not insignificant but as it turns out Romney won't do anything the crazies want to do. Boehner go **** yourself. I have more respect for Romney now although still difficult questions on tax exemptions. He needed to just come out and provide these details in the primary to jar the retarded republican rhetoric which controls the house away from insanity though. But of course his name isn't Obama so insane GOP house members won't block him on every little issue? Is that what we're supposed to think now? Edited June 3, 2012 by TheNewBills
IDBillzFan Posted June 3, 2012 Posted June 3, 2012 lmfao on the first part of the interview... congratulations on your slightly more conservative white-Obama candidate. I hope all tea party people are watching this. There are some differences which are not insignificant but as it turns out Romney won't do anything the crazies want to do. Boehner go **** yourself. I have more respect for Romney now although still difficult questions on tax exemptions. He needed to just come out and provide these details in the primary to jar the retarded republican rhetoric which controls the house away from insanity though. But of course his name isn't Obama so insane GOP house members won't block him on every little issue? Is that what we're supposed to think now? Do you ever get the feeling you're just talking to yourself?
Rob's House Posted June 3, 2012 Posted June 3, 2012 I don't get the Stossel bashing, unless it's just a knee jerk reaction to villify someone for posing facts and logic that kills off someone's sacred cow. I don't watch him often, but I read a book (Give Me a Break) a few years back. It wasn't a deep nuanced exploration, but rather a simple, interesting look at some ridiculous regulations with a common sense approach. Although I've found that some find common sense to be too common for them. As to Zakaria, I'd say he is left of center, but far more reasonable than anything you'd see on MSDNC. http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/26/zakaria-how-to-save-american-health-care/ He does a good job of laying out some of the pitfalls of the current system. I don't agree with the assessment that laws of market economics don't apply to health care. Just because people don't necessarily know what or when they'll need health care does not make the industry unique. People don't often know when their transmission will drop or when they'll need a new HVAC system, but usually when it happens they either have money set aside or they finance. If we can make sure everyone with a pulse can get a six-figure student loan to study early Hungarian cabinet making, I'm sure we could find a way to make sure the people with unexpected illness/injury have a safety net w/o upending the whole system (which he somewhat alludes to himself). I'll give him credit for being one of the first left of center guys to recognize that Obamacare does dick to address costs and that the innefficiency of our system has mainly to do with the convoluted incestuous relationship between markets, employers, and government where we have this quasi-free market cluster !@#$ where the customers and providers are essentially cut out of the loop thus distorting/obscuring the forces of supply and demand that would otherwise lead to a more optimal level. Although I suspect his solution would involve more government programs, agencies, and regulations, while I would prefer and simplified, scaled down, common sense government approach. His take on "death panels" seems somewhat sensible, but inconclusive. The problem here is who makes the decision. In his hypo the question is only whether its covered, but assumes you could pay if you had the resources and felt so inclined. This leads to the emotional tampon argument (where Keith Olbermann bursts a blood vessel) that it is somehow immoral to recognize that there is a price at which we should decide not to give grandma an extra week. While it might be worth it to me to drop $100k to prolong my mom's life a few weeks, it's not worth it to me to prolong a stranger's life for that time. So when someone asks how you put a price on someones life and time, I say it depends on who's paying.
B-Man Posted June 3, 2012 Posted June 3, 2012 lmfao on the first part of the interview... congratulations on your slightly more conservative white-Obama candidate. I hope all tea party people are watching this. There are some differences which are not insignificant but as it turns out Romney won't do anything the crazies want to do. Boehner go **** yourself. I have more respect for Romney now although still difficult questions on tax exemptions. He needed to just come out and provide these details in the primary (?) to jar the retarded republican rhetoric which controls the house away from insanity though. But of course his name isn't Obama so insane GOP house members won't block him on every little issue? Is that what we're supposed to think now? LOL....... so much for the call for civility in the intelligent article/clip/show thread IDEAS NOT PEOPLE. Separate the ideas from the people in this thread. If that means the thread is boring and infrequently posted in...then so be it. There a million threads to troll and rail against each other on this board. Take this **** over to those threads. Knock it off The give away is the complete misrepresentation of Republican actions and their ideas and the desperate hope that Mr. Romney will attack these fake liberal memes then the tag "Is that what we're supposed to think now?"......................pretty funny stuff for a Sunday morning. There really is no point in continuing. .
dayman Posted June 3, 2012 Author Posted June 3, 2012 B-Man I'm sorry if you are tea party guy. But I don't like the tea party ideology that holds congress hostage and I'm glad to see even the mainstream GOP figure head now has policies that will basically force them to either come back to the middle or leave the party.
Rob's House Posted June 3, 2012 Posted June 3, 2012 B-Man I'm sorry if you are tea party guy. But I don't like the tea party ideology that holds congress hostage and I'm glad to see even the mainstream GOP figure head now has policies that will basically force them to either come back to the middle or leave the party. What does this mean?
WorldTraveller Posted June 3, 2012 Posted June 3, 2012 (edited) Just like in San Francisco or Vermont they sometimes elect full throated socialists, in rural America they elect tea partiers. The reality is that the base if the left has moved to the extreme fringe and the base of the right has done the same. I will say this, romneys core is more closely aligned to the middle than obamas. Obama is an ideologue, driven by nebulus concepts such as "fairness" that may poll test well with certain segments of the population, but that do nothing to reinvigorate the business community ie economy . Romney on the other hand is driven more so by data, he is more of a technocrat, which I happen to find comforting, however technocrats such as Romney don't inspire people nearly as much as ideologues. So in one hand you have the eloquent ideologue that inspires the leftist base who doesn't have the solutions to get this economy moving as quickly as it should against the bland vanilla technocrat who doesn't inspire but has the better solutions to get the economy moving in a better direction. Edited June 3, 2012 by WorldTraveller
3rdnlng Posted June 3, 2012 Posted June 3, 2012 lmfao on the first part of the interview... congratulations on your slightly more conservative white-Obama candidate. I hope all tea party people are watching this. There are some differences which are not insignificant but as it turns out Romney won't do anything the crazies want to do. Boehner go **** yourself. I have more respect for Romney now although still difficult questions on tax exemptions. He needed to just come out and provide these details in the primary to jar the retarded republican rhetoric which controls the house away from insanity though. But of course his name isn't Obama so insane GOP house members won't block him on every little issue? Is that what we're supposed to think now? Knock it off.
B-Man Posted June 3, 2012 Posted June 3, 2012 (edited) What does this mean? The use of the word "hostage" gives away his mistaken belief. Imagine, a group of voters (Left or Right), who help support a like-minded candidate, and then they expect them to follow through with their policies. To Liberals this is "standing on principles" , except when Conservatives do it...............then its madness . Edited June 3, 2012 by B-Man
IDBillzFan Posted June 3, 2012 Posted June 3, 2012 What does this mean? It means he's one of those people who believes the tea party was responsible for the country's credit downgrade.
dayman Posted June 3, 2012 Author Posted June 3, 2012 (edited) http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/26/zakaria-how-to-save-american-health-care/ He does a good job of laying out some of the pitfalls of the current system. I don't agree with the assessment that laws of market economics don't apply to health care. Just because people don't necessarily know what or when they'll need health care does not make the industry unique. People don't often know when their transmission will drop or when they'll need a new HVAC system, but usually when it happens they either have money set aside or they finance. If we can make sure everyone with a pulse can get a six-figure student loan to study early Hungarian cabinet making, I'm sure we could find a way to make sure the people with unexpected illness/injury have a safety net w/o upending the whole system (which he somewhat alludes to himself). I'll give him credit for being one of the first left of center guys to recognize that Obamacare does dick to address costs and that the innefficiency of our system has mainly to do with the convoluted incestuous relationship between markets, employers, and government where we have this quasi-free market cluster !@#$ where the customers and providers are essentially cut out of the loop thus distorting/obscuring the forces of supply and demand that would otherwise lead to a more optimal level. Although I suspect his solution would involve more government programs, agencies, and regulations, while I would prefer and simplified, scaled down, common sense government approach. His take on "death panels" seems somewhat sensible, but inconclusive. The problem here is who makes the decision. In his hypo the question is only whether its covered, but assumes you could pay if you had the resources and felt so inclined. This leads to the emotional tampon argument (where Keith Olbermann bursts a blood vessel) that it is somehow immoral to recognize that there is a price at which we should decide not to give grandma an extra week. While it might be worth it to me to drop $100k to prolong my mom's life a few weeks, it's not worth it to me to prolong a stranger's life for that time. So when someone asks how you put a price on someones life and time, I say it depends on who's paying. Well the free market not applying to health care well IMO is not b/c of the uncertainty, or the cost necessarily...but both combined and definitely when considering the potential incredible costs. I agree that it isn't impossible, but in practicality it's best to acknowledge that it's very difficult. I'm with Fareed in that to truly bring down the cost of insurance (especially individual insurance) everyone needs to have it... But really where we will agree is that the market for services needs to behave more like a free market...and that's the only way to control costs. Move toward the outcome oriented system (there are is some medicare experimentation in Obamacare to help nudge this forward for what it is worth but ultimately it will be a 10-20 year process that happens organically...no statute will change this), reduce waste in services (obviously no genius point there), and then put more skin in the game for specialist services so people shop (so the high dollar services function in a free market and hopefully follow the pattern we saw w/ lasik as much as possible). Either way insuring everyone and reforming the market are the two things that needs to happen. There are 2 possible ways to insure everyone and they need law. And the market reform is obvious and can be helped with policies of large government customers like medicare leading the charge for private insurers to adopt later but the service side needs time to adjust and ultimately this is just something that will take time and occur organically. What does this mean? To put it simply, compromise. Edited June 3, 2012 by TheNewBills
WorldTraveller Posted June 3, 2012 Posted June 3, 2012 I found this to be humorous, on one of the Sunday talk shows, Paul krugman made the case that Obama is an anti keynesian.
Recommended Posts