Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats

[GasBandit]

Some links for today:

Want booze or a tattoo but don't have the cash? Eh, spend your food stamps on it.

The latest column from Thomas Sowell: Dependency and Votes. “The poor have been used as human shields behind which the expanding welfare state can advance.”

Are you aware of the little stunt that the AARP has pulled in regards to ObamaCare? Here comes that "crony capitalism" word again.

Even after raising income taxes 66%, Illinois is still spending about $5 billion more a year than it receives in revenue.

Those evil Republicans want to cut a giant 1.3% ($2 billion) from our food stamps program (which saw a $20 billion increase in 2009).

Thousands of companies that cashed in on PrezBo’s economic stimulus package owed the government millions in unpaid taxes.

Obama is increasing government spending even faster than the budget numbers imply. That’s because some of his increased spending is disguised as cuts in taxes.

What happens if you post something on the Internet about our Dear Ruler that isn’t true? You may be hearing from the White House.

Reason Magazine explains why Obama's spin on GM's latest profit report is pure horseshit.

Don’t let these Quantitative Easement (QE2) stuff scare you. You need to know that the plan failed. Miserably.

SEIU union goons got their members and local citizens in Hastings, PA all worked up about an evil shale driller in their neighborhood. The only problem is …

Bruce Bartlett: Is the Fair Tax Herman Cain’s Ace in the Hole? I hope so. I don't think so, but I hope so.

 

[Adam]

Even after raising income taxes 66%, Illinois is still spending about $5 billion more a year than it receives in revenue.

GB, I love you like a brother, but I'm going to fucking punch you in the nuts for posting without doing some basic investigation first.

A raise from a 3% income tax to a 5% income tax may will be an relative increase of 66%, but the vast majority of people would consider that an increase of 2% - hardly earth shattering.

To clarify my anger. Income tax is calculated as a percentage of income (Makes sense, no?) An increase in an income tax is measured as an increase in that percentage of income, not against itself. If an income tax rate is currently at 1%, and it is increased to 2%, no one in the right mind (only bitter partisans) is going to attempt to sell it as a 100% increase in an income tax.

 

[AshburnerX]

GB, I love you like a brother, but I'm going to fucking punch you in the nuts for posting without doing some basic investigation first.

A raise from a 3% income tax to a 5% income tax may will be an relative increase of 66%, but the vast majority of people would consider that an increase of 2% - hardly earth shattering.

To clarify my anger. Income tax is calculated as a percentage of income (Makes sense, no?) An increase in an income tax is measured as an increase in that percentage of income, not against itself. If an income tax rate is currently at 1%, and it is increased to 2%, no one in the right mind (only bitter partisans) is going to attempt to sell it as a 100% increase in an income tax.

MATH?! HOW DOES IT WORK!?

 

[GasBandit]

GB, I love you like a brother, but I'm going to fucking punch you in the nuts for posting without doing some basic investigation first.

A raise from a 3% income tax to a 5% income tax may will be an relative increase of 66%, but the vast majority of people would consider that an increase of 2% - hardly earth shattering.

To clarify my anger. Income tax is calculated as a percentage of income (Makes sense, no?) An increase in an income tax is measured as an increase in that percentage of income, not against itself. If an income tax rate is currently at 1%, and it is increased to 2%, no one in the right mind (only bitter partisans) is going to attempt to sell it as a 100% increase in an income tax.

They'd probably call it "doubling" the tax rate. In this case, I myself would have gone for "raised by two thirds," but maybe that's just me. I don't think anybody actually thought that meant the tax rate was actually in the 60s or higher.

Maybe it isn't earth shattering, maybe it is. An increase of 2 points on income tax might seem one way when it's going from 3 to 5, and another when it's going from 29 to 31.

 

[Adam]

They'd probably call it "doubling" the tax rate. In this case, I myself would have gone for "raised by two thirds," but maybe that's just me. I don't think anybody actually thought that meant the tax rate was actually in the 60s or higher.

Maybe it isn't earth shattering, maybe it is. An increase of 2 points on income tax might seem one way when it's going from 3 to 5, and another when it's going from 29 to 31.

You'd be surprised. I did a google search for "raised by 66% illinois" and the chatter is disappointing. A 2% increase isn't going to end the world any more than gay marriage is.

 

[GasBandit]

You'd be surprised. I did a google search for "raised by 66% illinois" and the chatter is disappointing. A 2% increase isn't going to end the world any more than gay marriage is.

After all the damage REGULAR marriage has done to the world, I still can't believe people want to open it up to even more people.
Added at: 16:46
Seriously though, the point, to me, was that despite taking an action that should have allegedly raised incoming tax revenue by 66%, they are still in the hole to the tune of (pinky finger) five beel-eeyon dollars. This is what's really meant by "we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem." Because every increase in revenue is merely seen as license to spend that much more.

 

[Adam]

After all the damage REGULAR marriage has done to the world, I still can't believe people want to open it up to even more people.
Added at: 16:46
Seriously though, the point, to me, was that despite taking an action that should have allegedly raised incoming tax revenue by 66%, they are still in the hole to the tune of (pinky finger) five beel-eeyon dollars. This is what's really meant by "we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem." Because every increase in revenue is merely seen as license to spend that much more.

It's worse than that. Illinois apparently had raised their income tax to 3% from 2.5% "temporarily". Well, I guess honestly it was temporary, because it didn't stay at 3% long.

 

[GasBandit]

It's worse than that. Illinois apparently had raised their income tax to 3% from 2.5% "temporarily". Well, I guess honestly it was temporary, because it didn't stay at 3% long.

Sometimes I feel like I'm watching the blisters start to bubble up on the paint on the US economy as it is lowered into a fire.

 

[GasBandit]

Democrats are really ratcheting up the MediScare tactics.

Union members are only 12% of all employees but have gotten 50.3% of Obamacare waivers.

Philadelphia is warning gun owners that they will be "inconvenienced" if they carry unconcealed handguns in the city.

Chris Christie blasts the latest New Jersey Supreme Court decision, ordering the state to pay $500 million to poor schools.

Which will be the first state to go bankrupt?

Which state has created the most private sector jobs since 2001?

Your government PR oops of the day …

Islam: Winning hearts and minds on facebook.

 

[Eriol]

Chris Christie blasts the latest New Jersey Supreme Court decision, ordering the state to pay $500 million to poor schools.

That article has a lot about the reaction, but virtually nothing about the how/why of the decision itself, which seems key to me. Also the $20k/student and still having bad results seems like something that needs to be backed up too. Could be 100% true, but I'd like some background, not just the reaction.

 

[Krisken]

On the Medicare thing- The Ryan plan wants to privatize Medicare. It doesn't want to streamline it. It isn't going to remove it completely, it's just going to force have seniors invest it in the stock market. Now there is an idea which smacks of ignorance of the last 5 years.

 

[TheBrew]

Mediscare. Right.

The Ryan plan would give seniors less options and cost them more money. Besides some of the OTT commercials, seniors should be wary of any politician who endorse the dismantling of Medicare.

 

[GasBandit]

Mediscare. Right.

The Ryan plan would give seniors less options and cost them more money. Besides some of the OTT commercials, seniors should be wary of any politician who endorse the dismantling of Medicare.

The Ryan plan exempts anyone currently enrolled in medicare.

On the Medicare thing- The Ryan plan wants to privatize Medicare. It doesn't want to streamline it. It isn't going to remove it completely, it's just going to force have seniors invest it in the stock market. Now there is an idea which smacks of ignorance of the last 5 years.

The ryan plan is to issue vouchers to subsidize the purchase of private medical insurance. The Galveston Social Security privatization shows that even during a recession, it can be done right. The stock market is not just a single fund you invest in, or even an index. There are also shelters such as money market funds to weather rough spots. To simply assume that "investing in the stock market means you lose everything in a recession" smacks of even MORE ignorance

 

[Krisken]

Woop de fucking do. So people who are 55 won't have to do it, but people under 55 will after it is passed. No thanks, Gas. The people who made money in the stock market are the banks and the people who move the money around, not the little people invested who have no idea what is going on.

Tell it to my mom, who lost $60k from her retirement fund when the market crashed. Now imagine that for the millions of elderly people.

Fuck your vouchers. They're nothing but a sneaky way to snag even more money from the poor.

 

[GasBandit]

Woop de fucking do. So people who are 55 won't have to do it, but people under 55 will after it is passed. No thanks, Gas. The people who made money in the stock market are the banks and the people who move the money around, not the little people invested who have no idea what is going on.

Tell it to my mom, who lost $60k from her retirement fund when the market crashed. Now imagine that for the millions of elderly people.

Fuck your vouchers. They're nothing but a sneaky way to snag even more money from the poor.

I just provided you with an example that contradicts what you just said.

Vouchers ARE money. It is the government GIVING money to the poor. It means, "The government will pay for this much of this."

I guess you're just happy to leave things how they are so that nobody has anything at all in the future, rather than make reasonable changes today. You are ignorant, and from the sound of it, so's your mother. So go rage at your wife's pottery until you're ready to talk with the grown ups.

"I'm outta here" post in 3... 2....

 

[Krisken]

Vouchers give money to the poor. Yes. A limited amount that doesn't cover what they were receiving before and doesn't take into account that different people have different needs. It's a failure in understanding the needs of people and aims to over simplify a complex system.

It is a failure of understanding a demographic that you have no contact with.

Did I say 'failure' too much? I didn't want it to be glossed over.

 

[AshburnerX]

Gotta agree with Krisken here. Healthcare isn't one size fits all and that's what a voucher system is going to do: Give everyone the same limited amount of funds for survival. If you don't need a lot of treatment that works out great, but it's a death sentence for people with serious needs.

It's also astoundingly hard to shop for insurance on your own, especially if your on a fixed income (as I've had to do recently ), because it's next to impossible to find a package that fits your needs. Your options tend to be ether bare bones plans that have you paying out of pocket for anything short of a hospital visit or plans that cover routine ailments but cost huge amounts. How are people supposed to shop for health insurance in a market where your only options are inadequate or far too expensive? A voucher system will never work as long as the market works as it currently does.

 

[GasBandit]

Vouchers give money to the poor. Yes. A limited amount that doesn't cover what they were receiving before and doesn't take into account that different people have different needs. It's a failure in understanding the needs of people and aims to over simplify a complex system.

It is a failure of understanding a demographic that you have no contact with.

Did I say 'failure' too much? I didn't want it to be glossed over.

Thanks for coming back, and thanks for not invoking more appeals to emotion, and thanks for not directing me to fuck anything.

Now, as to the content of your post - These vouchers give more to the poor than what they will be receiving if nothing is done - which would be zero. Medicare is spiralling down the drain, certainly not helped along by the half-trillion dollars snatched from it in the name of ObamaCare. Furthermore, Medicare denies more procedures than private insurance does. It's a sick system which is siphoning off multibillions and not adequately delivering in any way, shape or form.

Gotta agree with Krisken here. Healthcare isn't one size fits all and that's what a voucher system is going to do: Give everyone the same limited amount of funds for survival. If you don't need a lot of treatment that works out great, but it's a death sentence for people with serious needs.

It's also astoundingly hard to shop for insurance on your own, especially if your on a fixed income (as I've had to do recently ), because it's next to impossible to find a package that fits your needs. Your options tend to be ether bare bones plans that have you paying out of pocket for anything short of a hospital visit or plans that cover routine ailments but cost huge amounts. How are people supposed to shop for health insurance in a market where your only options are inadequate or far too expensive? A voucher system will never work as long as the market works as it currently does.

You have a point that the current system for insurance is ludicrous. It should be noted, however, that this is due to other factors that also need to be addressed, such as the inflated price of health care due to the mental disconnect between the patient and the cost. The patient now is in the habit of thinking, "whatever, bitch, I pays my 200 bucks a month in premiums, chalk me up for 3 MRIs, an EKG and a CAT scan and send the bill to FacelessInsurance Corp." There are also a large number of regulations and limitations placed on insurance companies which eliminate competition and raises prices. While it varies from state to state (can't sell insurance across state lines!), in some places medical insurance is required to cover certain things, sometimes something rather ridiculous. Remember the kerfluffle in 08 about a certain New England state having laws on the books that required all medical insurance plans to cover hair plugs?

To put it another way, consider how America buys Cable TV, versus how other certain other nations do. In the US, you have "tiers" of service. You spend 30, 50, 70, 100 dollars per month depending on whether you choose to buy basic, extended, or premium tiers of cable service. Other nations simply buy channels a la carte. Now, imagine if there was a law that said that no matter what tier you bought of cable, it HAD to include certain channels? Wouldn't that necessarily inflate the price? Similar deal.

Now, before someone accuses me of it again (cause they always do), no, I don't want to COMPLETELY DEREGULATE the insurance industry and just let them do whatever they want. There are more settings on a dog's choke chain between "not wearing it" and "instant strangulation."

I myself have opted for an HSA and a high deductible insurance plan. It keeps my premiums low and every month my employer puts 30 bucks into an account that I have a debit card for. Preventative care is covered from first dollar (doesn't fall under the deductible).

So, in summary, Medicare's on borrowed time, the entire insurance industry and health care industry are completely wonky, and the best way to fix it (as with most things) is to harness the power of capitalist competition to allow for more tailored solutions, the driving down of costs and the driving up of quality of service. We may not like how some companies do things, but so long as there's competition there is choice and alternatives - unified government solutions are always more expensive, less effective, and in this case specifically, both ruinous and hazardous.

 

[GasBandit]

Harry Reid says he is not willing to change Medicare despite the fact that the program has an estimated $24.6 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

Dick Durbin explains why it would be a “nightmare scenario” if Republicans take the Senate.

The Obama administration has been pushing unionization through regulation -- enacting regulatory changes favoring unionization without the consent of Congress.

The Supreme Court has backed an Arizona law that punishes businesses hiring illegal immigrants.

How much does it cost to prevent such problems as 5-year olds who "can't sit still" in a kindergarten classroom? Try $500 million of your tax dollars.

What does Chris Christie think of the Obama administration supposedly digging up dirt on him? He thinks they're wasting their time because he's not running.

 

[Krisken]

I've already explained, numerous times, why we can't have cross-state insurance. Until every state has the same regulations regarding insurance, there can not be cross-state insurance.

As for the other nonsense, just keep pretending you know anything about how insurance works. I find it amusing since my mother (and step-father)works for West Bend Insurance and I'm a Health Information Technology professional.

 

[GasBandit]

I've already explained, numerous times, why we can't have cross-state insurance. Until every state has the same regulations regarding insurance, there can not be cross-state insurance.

... which was kind of the other half of my gripe. The varying, disparate regulation of the insurance industry from state to state.

As for the other nonsense, just keep pretending you know anything about how insurance works. I find it amusing since my mother (and step-father)works for West Bend Insurance and I'm a Health Information Technology professional.

And I bet you're really getting a kick out of these replies.

 

[Krisken]

Cute. Still doesn't change the fact you work at a radio station and expect everyone else to take your nonsense at face value over people who have actually studied it.

 

[GasBandit]

Cute. Still doesn't change the fact you work at a radio station and expect everyone else to take your nonsense at face value over people who have actually studied it.

So, mr-mom-works-in-the-industry-so-I'm-an-expert, what's your plan for medicare then, apart from maintaining status quo until it augers in and leaves a generations-long crater of destruction and poverty?

 

[Krisken]

What's the point? As I've already said, we've had these discussions before. You know as well as I do it all begins at overhauling the private industry. Trying to 'fix' Medicare before streamlining the health care system is pointless. Y'all are trying to kill a symptom, not cure the disease.

 

[makare]

So, mr-mom-works-in-the-industry-so-I'm-an-expert

I'm going to use that next time you start going on about law related topics.

 

[GasBandit]

What's the point? As I've already said, we've had these discussions before. You know as well as I do it all begins at overhauling the private industry. Trying to 'fix' Medicare before streamlining the health care system is pointless. Y'all are trying to kill a symptom, not cure the disease.

Well, a lot of what I talk about is in regards to that as well. Naturally the main problem with medicare and other insurance costs is rooted in medical costs themselves being so high... which comes back to that disconnect I mentioned earlier as well. But while the underlying cause definitely needs treatment, we have to stop the bleeding as well in the interim.

I'm going to use that next time you start going on about law related topics.

Damn. I knew that was a risk, but I thought you'd long since stopped reading this thread

Sorry for the belated re-entry to the thread, folks - long weekends make work hell. But here are some links.

George Will wants to know: Is Obama above the law?

Michael Barone explains to a baffled media why Obamanomics isn’t working.

Over the weekend, top GOP lawmakers reiterated their opposition to raising the debt ceiling without major moves to slash the deficit.

George Will says what a lot of people are thinking about the prospect of Sarah Palin as president …

Big news on the Greece front: In order for the country to get future bailout money, the country will have to give up some sovereignty.

Government school teachers are reporting that cheating is rampant in New York City schools -- and they claim principals are the culprits.

The religion of peace strikes again.

Another great column by Thomas Sowell: What could be more emotionally satisfying than seeing others who have done better in the world as the villains responsible for your not having done as well?

Victor Davis Hanson: Obama will campaign against Bush (again) and play the race card.

As a business owner, you have to take costs into account when making decisions. As the government … you apparently do not.

Florida Governor Rick Scott signed a bill which will require welfare applicants to undergo drug testing.

The Texas senate adopted ‘loser pays’ tort-reform legislation. Gotta love it.

Teachers reprimanded two seven-year-old boys for playing army games - because it amounted to 'threatening behavior'. The gelding of America continues.

A government school in California has banned frog dissections in biology classrooms because of animal welfare.

 

[AshburnerX]

Government school teachers are reporting that cheating is rampant in New York City schools -- and they claim principals are the culprits.

Once again, this is tied entirely to the No Child Left Behind policies of the Bush administration. The moment they made it so higher grades = higher funding, they gave everyone not just a reason to cheat but an imperative to cheat. Considering how hard it is to pass a levy for education in this country (unless you hold sports teams hostage to do so), I honestly can't blame them.

 

[GasBandit]

Once again, this is tied entirely to the No Child Left Behind policies of the Bush administration. The moment they made it so higher grades = higher funding, they gave everyone not just a reason to cheat but an imperative to cheat. Considering how hard it is to pass a levy for education in this country (unless you hold sports teams hostage to do so), I honestly can't blame them.

NCLB is most definitely a horrible abomination, definitely one of the many disservices the Bush administration perpetrated upon the nation. Just goes further to show you that centralized ineptitude is not the sole province of any one party.

I'm kinda liking Herman Cain, though... he's a stealth Libertarian.

 

[SpecialKO]

I have no doubt that NYC schools are in bad, bad, horrible shape, but you should never, ever, ever, ever take anything written in the NYPost (or its left-ish equivalent, the Daily News) at face-value. They're two of the schlockiest high-circulation papers in the country (they're only high-circulation because they're NYC local).

Note that in this particular example, it's written like an opinion piece, with no links or substantiation or verifiable facts, but still put in the news section, with no disclaimer. Both of them do that all the time.

 

[TheBrew]

NCLB is most definitely a horrible abomination, definitely one of the many disservices the Bush administration perpetrated upon the nation. Just goes further to show you that centralized ineptitude is not the sole province of any one party.

I'm kinda liking Herman Cain, though... he's a stealth Libertarian.

Wait you like a guy who is pro-affirmative action and also anti-abortion even in the case of rape/incest? A guy who is against same sex marriage? A guy thinks that no Muslim should ever hold a high public office? A guy who feels that there is no need to audit the Federal Reserve? A guy who supported TARP?

Because none of those sound like libertarian positions to me.

 

[GasBandit]

Wait you like a guy who is pro-affirmative action and also anti-abortion even in the case of rape/incest? A guy who is against same sex marriage? A guy thinks that no Muslim should ever hold a high public office? A guy who feels that there is no need to audit the Federal Reserve? A guy who supported TARP?

Because none of those sound like libertarian positions to me.

Hrm, all I've ever heard him talk about was his financial platform, and I could have sworn I heard him say he DIDN'T support tarp.

*le google*

Well, shit. Guess I don't like him any more. Maybe I had him confused with Walter E. Williams.

Ok, links -

The Global Commission on Drug Policy — a 19-member panel which includes former leaders of Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil, as well as former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and billionaire Sir Richard Branson — has released a report saying the so-called “war on drugs” has “failed.”
The report, which was promptly rejected by the US and Mexican governments as “misguided,” asserts that current anti-drug policies have led to the expansion of organized crime, cost millions of tax dollars, and are directly responsible for thousands of deaths.

Barack Obama told Republicans that our current tax rates are lower than they were under Reagan. Someone will now explain the difference between a tax rate and effective tax rate.

QE2 was a bust, so I have a great idea: let’s try it again! Get ready for QE3.

Are we looking at the possibility of a World Tax Organization imposing global tax rules? The Obama administration supports the idea.

In bemoaning the pain of fiscal responsibility, the Democrats show they still haven’t learned the lessons of Europe.

How’s that housing stimulus working out for you?

How has RomneyCare turned out for Massachusetts? It’s been a big fat failure.

You know it’s sad when tornado cleanup is being touted as a rousing economic stimulus success.

The architect of Arizona’s SB 1070 law that sparked a new flash point in the country's immigration debate, is facing a recall election in his district.

The debate over federal rules for healthier eating has become a classic symbol of nanny-state government versus personal responsibility.

 

[AshburnerX]

You know it’s sad when tornado cleanup is being touted as a rousing economic stimulus success.

Hey, at least we know of SOMETHING guaranteed to create jobs!

 

[Eriol]

The Texas senate adopted ‘loser pays’ tort-reform legislation. Gotta love it.

Good. Now they just need sane patent-related laws (everybody files in east texas, can't remember exactly why right now), and maybe innovation can actually get off the ground.

 

[Krisken]

Shame that the article does nothing to even try to touch on the negatives of this. It would have been nice to have two sides to the story. Too much to ask from NRO, though.

 

[Covar]

Good. Now they just need sane patent-related laws (everybody files in east texas, can't remember exactly why right now), and maybe innovation can actually get off the ground.

Patents are a huge ball of problems. Especially software patents, which I believe can be fixed, there's no need to just scrap.