Political Roundtable Pulsar of Annihilation part IV

[nate33]

Nice little trick there by Sowell, who I often agree with. He takes Obama's "redistribution" line, redefines it as "confiscating" and then tells us how bad confiscating wealth can be. Then he loops back to "redistribution" as if that's what he'd been talking about all along.

Except, "redistribution" and "confiscation" are not synonyms. Plus, Sowell doesn't get into the details (perhaps because of length restrictions), but the details are critical.

I do like his thoughts about distributing knowledge.

It's no trick. In the context of this topic, redistribution and confiscation are indeed synonyms. You can't redistribute without first confiscating.

[Zonkerbl]

Zonk - This is a response to your last two posts. First, Obama's health care plan and various other social programs that you mention as good assumes that our country can afford them and can perpetuate them. As you know, this is mathematically impossible without hyperinflation. Where a govt. check might buy a months worth of food today it will only by two weeks worth by next year or the year after. Something will have to give soon and we can be sure that those on the lower end of the economic stratum will suffer most. As we've discussed on this thread before, if Repubs are so evil why did they propose and adopt the EITC? Why are our churches, synagogues and mosques considered to be the greatest source of charity-giving on the face of the earth. Surely you don't believe that the American people, Repub and Dem alike, are not caring and generous in their charitable contribution.

I agree that neither candidate has an economic plan that brings the budget into balance. They both need to sharpen their pencils and get to work on our long term economic problems.

Regarding teaching science in public schools I'm not aware of the issue you describe. As far as I know, all of our public schools teach science. Gay marriage is a difficult issue for me and I don't feel qualified to offer an opinion on the matter.

Um, no I don't know. The health care plan saves money. Don't assume -- it makes a, well, you know.

What's going to bankrupt us is social security and medicare.

[Nivek]

Nice little trick there by Sowell, who I often agree with. He takes Obama's "redistribution" line, redefines it as "confiscating" and then tells us how bad confiscating wealth can be. Then he loops back to "redistribution" as if that's what he'd been talking about all along.

Except, "redistribution" and "confiscation" are not synonyms. Plus, Sowell doesn't get into the details (perhaps because of length restrictions), but the details are critical.

I do like his thoughts about distributing knowledge.

It's no trick. In the context of this topic, redistribution and confiscation are indeed synonyms. You can't redistribute without first confiscating.

No it's not. Sowell is intentionally selecting a loaded word. He knows what he's doing.

Just like he knows what he's doing when he drops Stalin and Castro as the examples of "confiscation" (comparing the result of Stalin's confiscation to Hitler and the holocaust).

And, he doesn't even connect the dots -- he just lets the reader associate Obama with Stalin, Hitler and Castro. What, was Pol Pot busy?

In what ways are Obama's thoughts on wealth redistribution similar to Stalin's or Castro's? Which of Obama's specific policy proposals can we look at to see how Obama's policies are similar to Stalin's or Castro's?

People really fall for this kind of tripe?

[fugop]

Evolution in progress: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/va ... 11514.html

[pancakes3]

Um, no I don't know. The health care plan saves money. Don't assume -- it makes a, well, you know.

What's going to bankrupt us is social security and medicare.

AAAAAAAAAAMEN

[nate33]

Um, no I don't know. The health care plan saves money. Don't assume -- it makes a, well, you know.

Since the subject came up:

Tax penalty to hit nearly 6M uninsured people
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press – 15 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly 6 million Americans — significantly more than first estimated— will face a tax penalty under President Barack Obama's health overhaul for not getting insurance, congressional analysts said Wednesday. Most would be in the middle class.

The new estimate amounts to an inconvenient fact for the administration, a reminder of what critics see as broken promises.

The numbers from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office are 50 percent higher than a previous projection by the same office in 2010, shortly after the law passed. The earlier estimate found 4 million people would be affected in 2016, when the penalty is fully in effect.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... fda77612f7

And there's this:

$1.8 trillion shock: Obama regs cost 20-times estimate
by Paul Bedard of the Washington Examiner

Current federal regulations plus those coming under Obamacare will cost American taxpayers and businesses $1.8 trillion annually, more than twenty times the $88 billion the administration estimates, according to a new roundup provided to Secrets from the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute.

*snip*

"While OMB officially reports amounts of only up to $88.6 billion in 2010 dollars," said Crews, "the non-tax cost of government intervention in the economy, without performing a sweeping survey, appears to total up to $1.806 trillion annually."

But, he added, "according to back of the envelope surveys and roundups, with gaps big enough to fit the beltway through, that up to $1.806 trillion annually and in many categories perhaps even considerably more, is a defensible assessment of the annual impact on the economy."

His estimate is close to the $1.7 trillion estimate from the Small Business Administration which the White House distanced itself from. For comparison, the total U.S. GDP is $15 trillion.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/1.8-trill ... FtS2FFPv-G

[nate33]

Nice little trick there by Sowell, who I often agree with. He takes Obama's "redistribution" line, redefines it as "confiscating" and then tells us how bad confiscating wealth can be. Then he loops back to "redistribution" as if that's what he'd been talking about all along.

Except, "redistribution" and "confiscation" are not synonyms. Plus, Sowell doesn't get into the details (perhaps because of length restrictions), but the details are critical.

I do like his thoughts about distributing knowledge.

It's no trick. In the context of this topic, redistribution and confiscation are indeed synonyms. You can't redistribute without first confiscating.

No it's not. Sowell is intentionally selecting a loaded word. He knows what he's doing.

Just like he knows what he's doing when he drops Stalin and Castro as the examples of "confiscation" (comparing the result of Stalin's confiscation to Hitler and the holocaust).

And, he doesn't even connect the dots -- he just lets the reader associate Obama with Stalin, Hitler and Castro. What, was Pol Pot busy?

In what ways are Obama's thoughts on wealth redistribution similar to Stalin's or Castro's? Which of Obama's specific policy proposals can we look at to see how Obama's policies are similar to Stalin's or Castro's?

People really fall for this kind of tripe?

That's a different argument. I think it's fair to criticize Sowell for implying that Obama intends to implement the same policies as Stalin. But that's different from equating redistribution to confiscation, which I maintain is analogous in this case.

[dobrojim]

I'm not ready to believe much that I would read in the Washington Examiner.
Maybe their sports coverage. It was incredibly difficult to get them to stop
leaving their free paper in my driveway. I very politely called and requested
this probably 10 times over a period of several months before it stopped.
I don't see them as much different than the loonies at WorldNet. Can you
say Obama Derangement syndrome?

I fail to see how more consumer friendly regulation of private for profit health
insurance is likely to bankrupt us. Speaking of which, one of my favorites parts
was saying the a certain minimum percentage of premiums has to actually go
to providing coverage. This is something that will save consumers thousands of
dollars.

The righties may scream that all the social democratic govs like Canada and
western Europe are going bankrupt (I think that's overblown) but the fact remains
that they are delivering health care to their citizens cheaper, and their citizens
are healthier, happier and living longer as a result. Uncovered medical expenses
are one of the single most prevalent causes of personal bankruptcy in this country.
Doing something to address this was necessary. So I would argue that doing nothing
about health care insurance would have been a quicker path to widespread
bankruptcy, unless you're a CEO of a large health insurance company.

Finally Popper, do you really think the financial crash of 08 was caused by too many
poor people trying to buy homes? I would strongly urge you to read the most
excellent, if frequently profane, Griftopia by Matt Taibi.

[popper]

Advance Warning - the following is awkwardly worded but I'm sure you'll get my point anyway.

Pretend it's inauguration day 2008. Obama has promised that the planet would begin to heal, that oceans would begin to recede, that unemployment would fall to 6% (given his stimulus), that he would cut the deficit in half in his first term, that the Muslim world would begin to like us.

Knowing now what you didn't know then, that in general he was not able to honor his commitments, would progressives have changed their vote in 2008. If not, with a history of not being able to honor his commitments over the last four years why would you trust him for another four years?

[popper]

I'm not ready to believe much that I would read in the Washington Examiner.
Maybe their sports coverage. It was incredibly difficult to get them to stop
leaving their free paper in my driveway. I very politely called and requested
this probably 10 times over a period of several months before it stopped.
I don't see them as much different than the loonies at WorldNet. Can you
say Obama Derangement syndrome?

I fail to see how more consumer friendly regulation of private for profit health
insurance is likely to bankrupt us. Speaking of which, one of my favorites parts
was saying the a certain minimum percentage of premiums has to actually go
to providing coverage. This is something that will save consumers thousands of
dollars.

The righties may scream that all the social democratic govs like Canada and
western Europe are going bankrupt (I think that's overblown) but the fact remains
that they are delivering health care to their citizens cheaper, and their citizens
are healthier, happier and living longer as a result. Uncovered medical expenses
are one of the single most prevalent causes of personal bankruptcy in this country.
Doing something to address this was necessary. So I would argue that doing nothing
about health care insurance would have been a quicker path to widespread
bankruptcy, unless you're a CEO of a large health insurance company.

Finally Popper, do you really think the financial crash of 08 was caused by too many
poor people trying to buy homes? I would strongly urge you to read the most
excellent, if frequently profane, Griftopia by Matt Taibi.

I agree that health care needed reform. I'm certain beyond a reasonable doubt that a 20,000 page regulation will never work in the real world. There are reforms we could have made that are much cheaper and easier to understand.

Regarding easy money and unqualified borrowers, the poor were a small fraction of the problems. It was the middle, upper middle and wealthy that were the biggest part of the problem. They bit off more than they could chew and the banks had a short term financial incentive to assist them.

[Zonkerbl]

Um, no I don't know. The health care plan saves money. Don't assume -- it makes a, well, you know.

Since the subject came up:

Tax penalty to hit nearly 6M uninsured people
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press – 15 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly 6 million Americans — significantly more than first estimated— will face a tax penalty under President Barack Obama's health overhaul for not getting insurance, congressional analysts said Wednesday. Most would be in the middle class.

The new estimate amounts to an inconvenient fact for the administration, a reminder of what critics see as broken promises.

The numbers from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office are 50 percent higher than a previous projection by the same office in 2010, shortly after the law passed. The earlier estimate found 4 million people would be affected in 2016, when the penalty is fully in effect.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... fda77612f7

And there's this:

$1.8 trillion shock: Obama regs cost 20-times estimate
by Paul Bedard of the Washington Examiner

Current federal regulations plus those coming under Obamacare will cost American taxpayers and businesses $1.8 trillion annually, more than twenty times the $88 billion the administration estimates, according to a new roundup provided to Secrets from the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute.

*snip*

"While OMB officially reports amounts of only up to $88.6 billion in 2010 dollars," said Crews, "the non-tax cost of government intervention in the economy, without performing a sweeping survey, appears to total up to $1.806 trillion annually."

But, he added, "according to back of the envelope surveys and roundups, with gaps big enough to fit the beltway through, that up to $1.806 trillion annually and in many categories perhaps even considerably more, is a defensible assessment of the annual impact on the economy."

His estimate is close to the $1.7 trillion estimate from the Small Business Administration which the White House distanced itself from. For comparison, the total U.S. GDP is $15 trillion.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/1.8-trill ... FtS2FFPv-G

THAT'S HOW MANY SLACKERS THERE ARE FREE-LOADING ON THE REST OF US, DRIVING UP THE COST OF HEALTH CARE. The more people hit by the penalty, the more effective it is AND THE MORE MONEY IT WILL SAVE. People aren't going to pay the tax -- they're going to buy insurance instead. That means I don't have to pay for their insurance when they show up in the emergency room and drive up my premiums. Means the legislation has more bite in it than the Republicans thought it would, awesome. Nate, you were in favor of letting the housing market bottom out so it would recover faster, this is kind of the same thing. The more pain the penalties cause, the more significant structural change there will be in the health care system. This is an extremely market-oriented way to address the health care problem, don't know why the Republicans are so upset.

I wonder if the change in numbers is because of the Supreme Court decision that states couldn't be forced to increase medicare provisions. That was a political decision, not one that would have made Obamacare work better, so I'm glad they struck that part down.

The SBA comes out with a $1.whatever trillion estimate of the cost of federal regulations each year, and started doing it long before Obamacare. Many of those costs are from amendments to the Clean Air Act passed in 1992, under the first Bush. Plus the methodology they use is crap, using like 30 data points, totally not statistically significant result at all. I cringe every time I hear someone (especially when their in my own agency) cite that number. Never heard of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

But yeah, the OMB numbers are crap. You know the NAAQS ozone rule (setting the standard at I think .065) that got pulled earlier this year because it costs $60 billion? That's using EPA's crap methodology. I ran the .075 standard, that's only supposed to cost $7 billion, through my cge model right before leaving Commerce and it came out to something like $130 billion. Bastards just waited me out, if I had stayed at Commerce I would've had a chance to force them to consider calculating things my way when the 2013 review comes up. I shudder to think how much the $60 billion rule would really cost.

[dobrojim]

It was needed (health care reform). What we got was a program based much
more on republican ideas than democratic ones. Yet the GOP fought it with
everything they had, lying consistently about it (govt takeover of health care,
pulling the plug on Grandma, 700B Medicare cut). Maybe something better
could have been achieved if both parties had worked to make that happen.
We know that the GOP had dedicated itself to preventing ANYTHING from
happening in order to make BHO appear to be a failure.

[Nivek]

Advance Warning - the following is awkwardly worded but I'm sure you'll get my point anyway.

Pretend it's inauguration day 2008. Obama has promised that the planet would begin to heal, that oceans would begin to recede, that unemployment would fall to 6% (given his stimulus), that he would cut the deficit in half in his first term, that the Muslim world would begin to like us.

Knowing now what you didn't know then, that in general he was not able to honor his commitments, would progressives have changed their vote in 2008. If not, with a history of not being able to honor his commitments over the last four years why would you trust him for another four years?

Is it true that "in general" Obama has not been able to honor his commitments? If so, is that inability to deliver on campaign promises materially different from other presidents?

I don't know the answer to these questions. I'm also not a progressive, so my answer is probably disqualified.

Politifact.com (run by the Tampa Bay Times) has a "Promise Meter".

Code: Select all

                GOP     OBAMA
Promise Kept    19%     38%
Compromise      7%      14%
Promise Broken  19%     17%
Promise Stalled 5%      9%
In the Works    19%     22%
Not yet Rated   30%     2%


GOP above in the table above is current congressional leadership.

They don't have a similar meter for other presidents, unfortunately.

[dobrojim]

Ironic that Citizens United may end up hurting the GOP worse than the dems.
First they get a candidate they largely despise but in the primaries floods
them with money, although it should be pointed out the rest of field was truly
a bunch of clowns, unimaginable as POTUS. Now I wonder, given recent polling,
if the vast sums of money being spent will only/mostly benefit the producers and broadcasters
who get paid to make and air them. It seems the ads are not nearly as effective as
dems had feared. Diminishing returns and eventually good money after bad.

Of course we're still some ways from the actual election...

[dobrojim]

I really enjoyed this Michael Lewis (Moneyball, The Blind Side, etc) piece on Obama in Vanity Fair. He had great access. It reminded me of why I voted for Obama the first time around. He strikes me as introspective, thoughtful, calm, rational and exceptionally bright.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012 ... rack-obama

starting to read this. It is WAY cool.

Big props Fish.

[popper]

Regarding health care reform. One of the things I really like about Obamacare and something that I have been advocating for are community-based health clinics. Every major city should have several that are free to those below the poverty line and conveniently located for easy access.

On the subject of coverage for pre-existing conditions and other charitable govt. endeavors, I suggest the following. Since we all know that there are an infinite number of societal needs, and that there are finite resources available to address them, why not rank them according to importance and then set aside a percentage of GDP to fund them.

If free health care is most important then apply the funds there first. Next comes food stamps perhaps. I'm pretty sure as you get down the rankings that free birth control would probably not make the cut. This is my problem with Dems, they don't seem to grasp the fact that we operate within finite limits. Of course Bush was just as bad so I guess it's unfair to blame only Dems.

[dobrojim]

careful there Pop, you're starting to sound like a reasonable person.

LOL

one quibble - what you really want to do is apply cost-benefit analysis to what
you apply resources towards. Free birth control probably costs a fairly trivial
amount compared to the benefits of having it.

[Zonkerbl]

Regarding health care reform. One of the things I really like about Obamacare and something that I have been advocating for are community-based health clinics. Every major city should have several that are free to those below the poverty line and conveniently located for easy access.

On the subject of coverage for pre-existing conditions and other charitable govt. endeavors, I suggest the following. Since we all know that there are an infinite number of societal needs, and that there are finite resources available to address them, why not rank them according to importance and then set aside a percentage of GDP to fund them.

If free health care is most important then apply the funds there first. Next comes food stamps perhaps. I'm pretty sure as you get down the rankings that free birth control would probably not make the cut. This is my problem with Dems, they don't seem to grasp the fact that we operate within finite limits. Of course Bush was just as bad so I guess it's unfair to blame only Dems.

On pre-existing conditions -- that's basically a penalty for changing jobs. If you don't change your job you're covered. If you get fired and get a new job you're not. So, not only is that totally unfair and doesn't make sense, it also discourages labor mobility, which is necessary for labor markets to function properly.

So to me, eliminating the pre-existing condition silliness is fair AND corrects a market failure, a no-brainer.

So I wouldn't lump that in with "govt sponsored charitable endeavors." It's a government intervention addressing a market failure, so that markets can function the way they're supposed to.

[nate33]

Um, no I don't know. The health care plan saves money. Don't assume -- it makes a, well, you know.

Since the subject came up:

Tax penalty to hit nearly 6M uninsured people
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press – 15 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly 6 million Americans — significantly more than first estimated— will face a tax penalty under President Barack Obama's health overhaul for not getting insurance, congressional analysts said Wednesday. Most would be in the middle class.

The new estimate amounts to an inconvenient fact for the administration, a reminder of what critics see as broken promises.

The numbers from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office are 50 percent higher than a previous projection by the same office in 2010, shortly after the law passed. The earlier estimate found 4 million people would be affected in 2016, when the penalty is fully in effect.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... fda77612f7

And there's this:

$1.8 trillion shock: Obama regs cost 20-times estimate
by Paul Bedard of the Washington Examiner

Current federal regulations plus those coming under Obamacare will cost American taxpayers and businesses $1.8 trillion annually, more than twenty times the $88 billion the administration estimates, according to a new roundup provided to Secrets from the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute.

*snip*

"While OMB officially reports amounts of only up to $88.6 billion in 2010 dollars," said Crews, "the non-tax cost of government intervention in the economy, without performing a sweeping survey, appears to total up to $1.806 trillion annually."

But, he added, "according to back of the envelope surveys and roundups, with gaps big enough to fit the beltway through, that up to $1.806 trillion annually and in many categories perhaps even considerably more, is a defensible assessment of the annual impact on the economy."

His estimate is close to the $1.7 trillion estimate from the Small Business Administration which the White House distanced itself from. For comparison, the total U.S. GDP is $15 trillion.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/1.8-trill ... FtS2FFPv-G

THAT'S HOW MANY SLACKERS THERE ARE FREE-LOADING ON THE REST OF US, DRIVING UP THE COST OF HEALTH CARE. The more people hit by the penalty, the more effective it is AND THE MORE MONEY IT WILL SAVE. People aren't going to pay the tax -- they're going to buy insurance instead. That means I don't have to pay for their insurance when they show up in the emergency room and drive up my premiums. Means the legislation has more bite in it than the Republicans thought it would, awesome. Nate, you were in favor of letting the housing market bottom out so it would recover faster, this is kind of the same thing. The more pain the penalties cause, the more significant structural change there will be in the health care system. This is an extremely market-oriented way to address the health care problem, don't know why the Republicans are so upset.

I wonder if the change in numbers is because of the Supreme Court decision that states couldn't be forced to increase medicare provisions. That was a political decision, not one that would have made Obamacare work better, so I'm glad they struck that part down.

The SBA comes out with a $1.whatever trillion estimate of the cost of federal regulations each year, and started doing it long before Obamacare. Many of those costs are from amendments to the Clean Air Act passed in 1992, under the first Bush. Plus the methodology they use is crap, using like 30 data points, totally not statistically significant result at all. I cringe every time I hear someone (especially when their in my own agency) cite that number. Never heard of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

But yeah, the OMB numbers are crap. You know the NAAQS ozone rule (setting the standard at I think .065) that got pulled earlier this year because it costs $60 billion? That's using EPA's crap methodology. I ran the .075 standard, that's only supposed to cost $7 billion, through my cge model right before leaving Commerce and it came out to something like $130 billion. Bastards just waited me out, if I had stayed at Commerce I would've had a chance to force them to consider calculating things my way when the 2013 review comes up. I shudder to think how much the $60 billion rule would really cost.

Lots of good points here, Zonker. You are right that it's probably a good thing that "taxes" are being raised for those not paying insurance. I just want how long it'll take for the sob stories to hit the media and for redistributionists to come up with an excuse for the government to foot the bill for the poor working families who are paying the health care tax. The end result will be what I fear: government paying for all health care, the market for health care products and services collapsing, the incentive to improve health care disappearing, and all the doctor shortages and rationing that will follow.

It's pretty simple really. When government gets involved (education, health care, highways, etc.) things get expensive. When government butts out (computer technology, clothing, etc.) things get cheaper.

[nate33]

The righties may scream that all the social democratic govs like Canada and
western Europe are going bankrupt (I think that's overblown) but the fact remains
that they are delivering health care to their citizens cheaper, and their citizens
are healthier, happier and living longer as a result. Uncovered medical expenses
are one of the single most prevalent causes of personal bankruptcy in this country.
Doing something to address this was necessary. So I would argue that doing nothing
about health care insurance would have been a quicker path to widespread
bankruptcy, unless you're a CEO of a large health insurance company.

They are delivering health care cheaper because the U.S. market is still driving innovation. Without the profit incentive from the U.S. market, there would be very little advancement in health care technology. Canada and Western Europe are getting a free ride from our free market and the associated innovation.

There is also a delay before the consequences of socialized health care has a real impact. At first, you still have all the doctors that went to school under the free market system dreaming of becoming upper middle class. But once the price controls kick in, nobody goes to school to become a doctor anymore because there is no financial incentive. For a few decades, you get by with the existing supply of doctors, plus imports from India, but ultimately you end with a catastrophic supply shortage of health care professionals. Canada and Britain are entering the terminal phase now.