The Glade 4.0

LOL indeed... that "massive savings" relied on two key points that your talking points bulletin doesn't like to address...

1) It only examines the first 10 year period, in which the government starts collecting money to pay for the system at year 1, but doesn't start actually pay out of the collections until year 3, or is it year 5 now? And after that... increasing deficit spending/taxation to cover the costs.

2) It requires the massive cuts in payments to doctors for Medicaid that get "suspended" every year, and that have already been put back on the table to be suspended indefinitely if the bill passes.

Smoke and mirrors.

Which is one of the problems on this board. People accept the drek folks spew here (like DE on the military or DFK on health care) and ignore the ideological bias that inevitably colors their arguments. DFK is not a health care expert. He may work in that field, he may be studying that field, but smarter, more experienced, and better people entirely disagree with him.

If he's going to appeal to his own authority, then he opened the door to being shot down by better, smarter, and more experienced experts. He spews right wing talking points from Red State, tells you that he's an expert so his statements are somehow beyond examination, and you buy it.

It's the same thing with Khross and, well, basically everything. He says it without any objective backup, and if you dare to examine what he's saying he flips out in a torrent of linguistic Doom Bottery.

It's crap. It's crap when DE says waterboarding isn't torture, and that his experience int he military means he's right. It's crap when DFK says this is unconstitutional because he works and studies the industry. It's crap when Khross says the New Deal didn't save our asses in the Great Depression, even though he's educated in economics. It's crap when Bery says he knows god's will because he happens to be a preacher.

If I am going to make an argument about Swordplay, I am not going to say "I'm an expert, so stfu". I'm going to say *why* I am taking the position I am taking.

Edit -

And Ladas, you're just plain wrong.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

However, for the sake of arguments on this board, DFK knows more than you on healthcare. DE knows more about the Military than you. Bery knows the Bible better than you.

You tend to just spout talking points, and don't seem to know a damn thing besides what the MSM tells you. Oh, and that Bush was the Devil.

Just an observation.

Also, the "No U!" defense is pretty weak. Just so you know.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Less posturing, more proof please, because those factors are a part of the CBO estimates... which were intentionally limited to a 10 year review.

The best, smartest, most experienced people were telling us to pile our dollars into financials brokering CMO traunches backed by subprime debt right up until September 2008. What is your point? That's just an appeal to authority. Many people state how they arrive at their positions, but you just respond with a TLDR fallacy, the Stupid Man Fallacy or call it outright false:



Way to **** on yourself, brah.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Montegue:

I spent years explaining my positions with links, sources, citations, and reading recommendations to have you say ...So, I will simply point out the empirical evidence.

The United States, according to the knowingly flawed BLS numbers for December 2009, showed a 95,000 net job loss in December. Permanent job losses exceeded temporary hires by 95,000 positions. Do you know when the last Net Negative Jobs December was? Do you even have a clue how horrendous the jobs' share of the domestic economy is when its hemorrhaging jobs in December?

_________________

You should definitely add "linguistic doombottery" to the list of interests in your Glade profile.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

Neither DFK, I, or anyone else here has ever taken the position that we're right because we're and expert or because of our experience.

We've used that experience and knowledge to access facts you can't.

All this is, is you having a temper tantrum because you don't know very much about these areas and can't access the facts we can. It pisses you off massively that the ideas you cherish don't hold up when exposed to cold, hard facts.

Your last line, explaining why you're taking a position is what I've done on every military thread I've posted in. It's what DFK! does on healthcare, and so forth. You just plain don't read them, and then claim we haven't done so.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Unfortunately, when asked by anyone else to provide sources besides Monty, I provide them; this refutes several of the points above.

I've never heard of Red State, sounds like a Commie website to me.

It isn't my expertise I'm appealing to, I'm reading dozens of sources and hearing multiple viewpoints and reflecting them back into this board for other people to absorb. If they'd like the sources, I can provide them.

I will not provide them for Monty, however, because it is a waste of my time. There hasn't been a single source I've ever posted that he hasn't written off due to an ad hom fallacy. Moreover, when I've attempted to expand his understanding of quite legitimate sources such as the NEJM, he merely dismisses my interpretation of the study as false due to the source (ad hom) rather than improve his comprehension.

Furthermore, regardless of what my perceived qualifications are (or are not), slandering someone for claiming to be an expert is neither an effective rebuttal to the topic at hand, nor becoming in civil debate.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

If it's really that bad, then January should have losses of several hundred thousand as all the Christmas temporary workers are eliminated. We'll see if it goes that way.

No no, they "seasonally correct" these things now, so it'll really be minor.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Uhm, if that's true, then it works both ways, and Christmas temporary jobs would not have been counted as added in the first place.

Xequecal:

You won't see them until February, and the season correction will "normalize" the reality of the job losses. But, yes, unemployment is still rising, and the government is saying a damn thing about the staggering rate at which the BLS is contracting the institutional workforce population.

So, I'll ask you, since you've been around long enough ...

Every economic prediction I've made for the last 4 years on the Glade has been spot on. At what point do you start considering that I might, just might, know more about economics and macro-economic management and statistics manipulation than you want to admit?

_________________

It's a selective thing.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

I didn't even say you were wrong, I just said we'll see how bad it really is when the January figures come out. And yes, unemployment is still rising, noone disputes that, but your position pointing out that it's a catastrophe pretty much requires that the government, the news media, and most of the major economists to be part of a major conspiracy to churn out nothing but blatant lies. I have the last two issues of The Economist right here and the position of their "Economic think tank" is about the opposite of yours and others on this board. They claimed 2009 had significant deflation and 2010 will have 1% inflation at most and might even also have deflation. The people on this board, in comparison, warn of supermassive inflation.

Xequecal:

And that depends on how you want to calculate "deflation" or "inflation". I'll point out, however, that the average price of a Big Mac has gone up twice in the last 90 days.

_________________

It would only work that way if it was not in the controlling groups best interest to portray job growth, not losses. Not that one party is more responsible than the other, just pointing out that both play games and hide the facts behind cherry picked stats.

That said, here is an article from MSNBC on the outlook for job prospects so far in January... Jobless claims

I went and Googled this because I thought it would be interesting, and I found this:

http://www.investmentu.com/IUEL/2006/20060601.html



Of course, this is somewhat old, I'm still looking for more current stuff, but 10 cents in 2.5 years isn't much inflation.

EDIT: Found another source showing $3.57 in mid-2009, from $3.10 in mid-2006. A bit more inflation, about 4.8% average annually, but I guess that's to be expected with all the money Obama started spending. Still doesn't look catastrophic.

Xequecal:

That $0.10 rise has happened mostly in the last 90 days, which is why I paid attention to it. You can dismiss PPP for now, however, since normalizing currency values to an arbitrary point doesn't really help. Certain things are going up in cost, but the relative value has not changed. And certain regions (locations) are experiencing more dramatic changes than others. For instance, my local market has an average price of $5.40 a gallon for milk. The national average is closer to $3.50 than it is $5.00. Obviously something is going on with milk here.

That said, a 3% rise in the cost of a Big Mac over 90 days isn't anything to scoff at. When you consider how many dollars are moving but economic mobility is still declining, jobs are shrinking, etc., the macroeconomic picture is not pretty. I get my general feel for how the nation is doing by talking to all the regional and local micro-experts I know.

_________________

We cannot have no inflation. Inflation is properly defined as an increase in the money supply. What those in the Economist are treating as inflation is a sympton of inflation as a rise in prices. This is the typical Keynesian view on the subject.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville