What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

[RightField]

i haven't been following this thread at all so maybe i have entirely the wrong idea about you but


this is a well-articulated and rational post. i don't agree with all of it, of course, but i'm so used to vetteman and busybody that i'm honestly impressed.

Thanks. There's no C&P in it either.

 

[mercury14]

I dunno. Listened to crazy people all day I guess. I can only assume that dating me was like bringing your work home.

Well... Look in your phone book to see how many shrinks are in private practice. It's a tiny fraction of the total social workers, licensed professional counselors, psychologists, and psychiatrists in your community.

Insurance company reimbursement for med management is far greater per hour than reimbursement for therapy. Not to mention insurance plans often cap the number of therapy sessions covered and simply do not authorize payment for a huge range of diagnoses. So psychiatrists tend to have a very difficult time making money as shrinks in private practice.

I'm currently interviewing for psychiatry positions in Ohio. They generally pay $180k-$200k ish for med management positions (which may include some teaching, call, inpatient mixed in). If I did only therapy I'd make about $60k per year since insurance companies pay for "therapy", making no distinction if the practitioner has a bachelor's or an MD.

I recently turned down a private practice med-management job in a 4-person practice that paid up to $350k per year. But sessions were limited to 12-minute med checks, plus 3 minutes for documentation, four patients per hour. Total salary depended on how many sessions could be squeezed in. It wasn't a shrink job by any sense of the word.

 

[mercury14]

Yes.

Sometimes all knowledge isn't internet based.

You made a huge claim though. I doubt your anecdotal experience amounts to any kind of knowledge that would at all support what you said.

What do you do for a living?

 

[RightField]

So you work up to 18 hours per day? Or 13 hours per day including Saturdays and Sundays? And you pay almost 50% in taxes? And you still have time to pore through the news and the conservative blogosphere? And after that you still have time to be a prolific GB poster?

Something isn't adding up here.

But I guess what you're getting at is that your line about taxes discouraging hard work was a total line of crap this whole time.

Some weeks are busier than others. I don't really post that much, only in fits and starts. I have 9,000 posts over 9 years while you have more than me in 2.5 years. You average about 10 per day while I average about 3 (which is usually a weekend where I post 15-20) and not much during the week. I'm tired today and came up about 7pm.

There are a few people around like me who actually like to work, but general trends in macro economics is what really matters when looking at the nation.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Well... Look in your phone book to see how many shrinks are in private practice. It's a tiny fraction of the total social workers, licensed professional counselors, psychologists, and psychiatrists in your community.

Insurance company reimbursement for med management is far greater per hour than reimbursement for therapy. Not to mention insurance plans often cap the number of therapy sessions covered and simply do not authorize payment for a huge range of diagnoses. So psychiatrists tend to have a very difficult time making money as shrinks in private practice.

I'm currently interviewing for psychiatry positions in Ohio. They generally pay $180k-$200k ish for med management positions (which may include some teaching, call, inpatient mixed in). If I did only therapy I'd make about $60k per year since insurance companies pay for "therapy", making no distinction if the practitioner has a bachelor's or an MD.

I recently turned down a private practice med-management job in a 4-person practice that paid up to $350k per year. But sessions were limited to 12-minute med checks, plus 3 minutes for documentation, four patients per hour. Total salary depended on how many sessions could be squeezed in. It wasn't a shrink job by any sense of the word.

All of the ones I dated were MDs and none took insurance. So I assume they did the typical one hour sessions with cash on the barrel head.

 

[mercury14]

i haven't been following this thread at all so maybe i have entirely the wrong idea about you but


this is a well-articulated and rational post. i don't agree with all of it, of course, but i'm so used to vetteman and busybody that i'm honestly impressed.

I 1% agree. But it's partly because he's changing his mind about some things. He used to say that the stimulus caused a net job loss, then he shifted to it having no impact. Now we hear him saying it actually made a positive impact.

Rightfield still claims that the Bush tax cuts paid for themselves, that private insurance companies are about to go out of business because of health care reform, and that the stimulus was created primarily to throw a trillion dollars into labor union coffers... He also believes that the Democrats are outright seeking to destroy the American economy (read: not that they're well-intentioned but misguided - their willful goal is the destruction of America).

And he believes in Death Panels.

So don't get your hopes up here.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Obamacare is turning out to be a problem too. The legislation was rushed and there were a lot of very questionable changes in it such as the the individual mandate and the IPAB (some called the death panel) which is being railed upon by some Democrats who are writing a bill to repeal that particular part.

The legislation was rushed? Gee then why not fix or repeal it? Because you don't have the votes. Deal with it. You're prayin' for judicial activists on the Supreme Court to overturn it.

I also enjoyed your falsehoods about the individual mandate and IPAB. The individual mandate, first promulgated by the Heritage foundation back in the 1990s, ensures the widest pool available to spread the risk.

The IPAB is a one-time gummit-paid consultation with the elderly to discuss end-of-life options (living wills, DNR orders, etc).

Keep those smears a-comin', son!

 

[mercury14]

All of the ones I dated were MDs and none took insurance. So I assume they did the typical one hour sessions with cash on the barrel head.

Oh right, there are the ones that sit in their office and charge $200 per hour private pay to the worried-well. But those cushy jobs are hard to come by and not the norm. And they're boring.

 

[mercury14]

The legislation was rushed?

Yes it was rushed over the course of about two years.

 

[richard_daily]

I recently turned down a private practice med-management job in a 4-person practice that paid up to $350k per year. But sessions were limited to 12-minute med checks, plus 3 minutes for documentation, four patients per hour. Total salary depended on how many sessions could be squeezed in. It wasn't a shrink job by any sense of the word.

That's the problem with the current health care industry (even under the Affordable Health Care Act). Most operations follow that sort of business model.

Good for you for having the moral standards to not take it.

 

[eyer]

Iceland Gets It...

What Iceland Teaches Us: “Let Banks Fail”

Three years after Iceland’s banks collapsed and the country teetered on the brink, its economy is recovering, proof that governments should let failing lenders go bust and protect taxpayers, analysts say.

***

“The lesson that could be learned from Iceland’s way of handling its crisis is that it is important to shield taxpayers and government finances from bearing the cost of a financial crisis to the extent possible,” Islandsbanki analyst Jon Bjarki Bentsson told AFP.

“Even if our way of dealing with the crisis was not by choice but due to the inability of the government to support the banks back in 2008 due to their size relative to the economy, this has turned out relatively well for us,” Bentsson said.

...Unlike other nations, including the U.S. and Ireland, which injected billions of dollars of capital into their financial institutions to keep them afloat, Iceland placed its biggest lenders in receivership. It chose not to protect creditors of the country’s banks, whose assets had ballooned to $209 billion, 11 times gross domestic product.

***

“Iceland did the right thing by making sure its payment systems continued to function while creditors, not the taxpayers, shouldered the losses of banks,” says Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, an economics professor at Columbia University in New York. “Ireland’s done all the wrong things, on the other hand. That’s probably the worst model.”

Ireland guaranteed all the liabilities of its banks when they ran into trouble and has been injecting capital — 46 billion euros ($64 billion) so far — to prop them up. That brought the country to the brink of ruin, forcing it to accept a rescue package from the European Union in December.

***

Countries with larger banking systems can follow Iceland’s example, says Adriaan van der Knaap, a managing director at UBS AG.

“It wouldn’t upset the financial system,” says Van der Knaap, who has advised Iceland’s bank resolution committees.

...“In the beginning, banks and other financial institutions in Europe were telling us, ‘Never again will we lend to you,’” Einarsdottir says. “Then it was 10 years, then 5. Now they say they might soon be ready to lend again.”

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/11/key-lesson-from-iceland-crisis-“let-banks-fail”/

The people decided not to pay up. In fact, they held two referendums and it was voted down both times. In the words of a spokesperson for the anti-bailout coalition, “It is totally insane that taxpayers foot the bill for failed private companies. It was odious. We had to say no.”

Ellen Russell, Just say no to corporate greed: The case of Iceland

http://rabble.ca/columnists/2012/02/just-say-no-corporate-greed-case-iceland

 

[richard_daily]

Ellen Russell, Just say no to corporate greed: The case of Iceland

http://rabble.ca/columnists/2012/02/just-say-no-corporate-greed-case-iceland

How many people live in Iceland?

 

[RightField]

I 1% agree. But it's partly because he's changing his mind about some things. He used to say that the stimulus caused a net job loss, then he shifted to it having no impact. Now we hear him saying it actually made a positive impact.

Rightfield still claims that the Bush tax cuts paid for themselves, that private insurance companies are about to go out of business because of health care reform, and that the stimulus was created primarily to throw a trillion dollars into labor union coffers... He also believes that the Democrats are outright seeking to destroy the American economy (read: not that they're well-intentioned but misguided - their willful goal is the destruction of America).

And he believes in Death Panels.

So don't get your hopes up here.

Did you miss me? I had to help the darling daughter with some homework.

I've not changed my position, your lack of reading comprehension, logic and analytical skills are the bigger part of the problem. Would a highly educated person who specializes in matters of the brain make such simple logic errors? Would a person who has dedicated his life to listening, understanding and helping people heal the grey matter be such a poor listener/reader, brazenly attack people and be so opinionated (rather than objectively weighing and considering differing perspectives)?

I think not. That's why I think you're a medical clerk with a middling education.

I believe that the Democrats mean well, but their recommended paths often accomplish the opposite of what they're trying to accomplish. Their plan for governance is misguided and leads to problems for the nation. A classic example is their effort and legislation to be compassionate with single mothers so they put together a plan for families with dependent children. The problem is that the program provides motivation for young women to get pregnant and keep the father away, the more children, the more government money. It led to an explosion in single-mother families and with it the many attendent problems associated with kids raised in single-parent households (not in every case, but certainly in a macro population). It took many years and a lot of Republican ingenuity to change the program to include incentives to work and with that change, create a program that works well for our society (something Newt and Bill Clinton did together). Even with the changes, the incidence of out-of-wedlock births and single-parent families isn't shrinking. I'm worried that it will have long term negative repercussions for the country, and it's genesis was a misguided Dem plan.

The stimulus was a plan to put Americans back to work. They loudly proclaimed that we had to pass the bill quickly in order to keep unemployment below 8%. In fact, the unemployment rate went up much higher due to the instability of this market "tinkering" (what will the real tax rate be next year? The year after?), the large added debt and a number of other "disincentives" such as lots of discussion regarding additional regulation and tax increases mixed with a healthy dose of cronyism and fraud.

Shall we talk of unintended consequences? Maybe another time.

Democrats have proved time and time again that they just can't govern effectively. This current administration truly is Jimmy Carter redux.


NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE www.nationalreview.com

Obamacare’s Bipartisan Critics
By Deroy Murdock
National Review Online
February 28, 2012

The ongoing controversy over President Obama’s universal female-contraception entitlement decree reportedly found Vice President Joseph Biden, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, former chief of staff Richard Daley, and five Democratic senators opposing Obama’s fusillade against religious liberty and economic freedom. (It is tyrannical to force faith-based organizations to commit what they consider sins and dictate to insurance companies that they deliver a service for free — namely, birth-control coverage — for which they normally charge money.) This is the latest example of Democrats, in whole, or in part, giving the cold shoulder to Obamacare.

Congressman Barney Frank, the crusading Massachusetts liberal, recently co-sponsored H.R. 452, joining California’s Joe Baca and Loretta Sanchez, New York’s Timothy Bishop, Pennsylvania’s Chaka Fattah, and ten other Democrats. This measure, introduced by Representative Phil Roe (R., Tenn.), would terminate the Independent Payment Advisory Board. Dubbed “the real death panel” by its critics, IPAB would begin work in 2014. Its 15 appointed members would control Medicare costs by deciding which treatments are cost-effective and which aren’t, essentially rationing care. Its recommendations would become federal law unless Congress found other ways to match or exceed its spending cuts. Alternatively, 60 senators overrule IPAB’s advice — no small task.

Representative Frank’s spokesman, Diego Sanchez, says that his boss’s opposition to IPAB has been “consistent and firm.” As far back as January 15, 2010, Frank — along with California’s Pete Stark, Texas’s Sheila Jackson-Lee, Georgia’s John Lewis, and dozens of other stalwart Democrats — signed a letter to then-speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) spurning “legislation that would place authority for Medicare payment policy in an unelected, executive branch commission or board.”

Elsewhere on Capitol Hill, Senator Ben Nelson (D., Neb.) asked the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Budget Office to find replacements for Obamacare’s individual mandate, the new law’s most constitutionally dodgy provision. “I never thought the mandate was a particularly good way to do it,” he told Politico. Senator Claire McCaskill (D., Mo.) also frets about the mandate. “There’s [sic] other ways we can get people into the pool — I hope — other than a mandate, and we need to look at that,” she told MSNBC.

Obamacare’s chief mandate has enraged Democrats across America.

 

[RightField]

Yes it was rushed over the course of about two years.

As I recall, didn't Nancy Pelosi say "We've got to pass it to see what's in it?"....Maybe they should have slowed down so more people could read it, understand it and debate the points thoroughly before making a final decision on it.

 

[mercury14]

As I recall, didn't Nancy Pelosi say "We've got to pass it to see what's in it?"....Maybe they should have slowed down so more people could read it, understand it and debate the points thoroughly before making a final decision on it.

I don't care what Pelosi said. The plan was put forth over something like 23 months. Then Republicans said that they didn't have time to read it. They could have been given another 60 days to read it and they still would have called it rushed.

 

[phrodeau]

As I recall, didn't Nancy Pelosi say "We've got to pass it to see what's in it?"....Maybe they should have slowed down so more people could read it, understand it and debate the points thoroughly before making a final decision on it.

Your recollection is faulty. Speaker Pelosi said, "But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy." She was speaking to a delegation of county officials, in other words, people not in Congress.

She means "we" - people in Congress - have to pass it so that "you" - people not in Congress - can find out what is in it. The people in Congress read it, understood it and debated it thoroughly.

 

[mercury14]

Your recollection is faulty. Speaker Pelosi said, "But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy." She was speaking to a delegation of county officials, in other words, people not in Congress.

She means "we" - people in Congress - have to pass it so that "you" - people not in Congress - can find out what is in it. The people in Congress read it, understood it and debated it thoroughly.

Oh so Rightfield edited Pelosi's quote, even removing the second half of it in order to badly distort it?

 

[RightField]

Your recollection is faulty. Speaker Pelosi said, "But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy." She was speaking to a delegation of county officials, in other words, people not in Congress.

She means "we" - people in Congress - have to pass it so that "you" - people not in Congress - can find out what is in it. The people in Congress read it, understood it and debated it thoroughly.

You guys can contort youselves any way you want to try to feel better, but the fact is that Obamacare was rushed through in unsavory ways and two years later we're still finding objectionable segments and policies in it. I pray that we can find a way to overturn it, if not for me, for my unborn grandkids who I fear will have a lower standard of living than we do now thanks to poor democrat governance - Obamacare is just one of many examples.


Obamacare -- Just Another Democrat Brick in the 2012 Wall
By Patricia Campion | Yahoo! Contributor Network – Tue, Feb 14, 2012.. .

COMMENTARY | In 2010, then Majority House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy." In a March op-ed for the Washington Post Obama's lead pollster Joel Benenson insisted that -- despite every poll that showed the majority opposing the bill -- Americans would like Obamacare once it was passed.

After nearly two years of finding out what has been lurking in the contentious miasma of Obamacare, Americans despise it even more and Democrats are poised to suffer for it again.

In reality, The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has been plagued by storm and resistance from the very beginning. Before it became law in March 2010 the outcry against what the law's unconstitutional mandate whereby the United States government forces Americans to purchase something had already begun. Discovery that any refusal to comply with the edict would be met with fines and/or jail time only lifted the voices of protest higher.

In March 2010 a CNN Opinion Research poll showed 59 percent of Americans surveyed opposed the measure. A survey released by Rasmussen on Feb. 6 showed 54 percent of Americans still want the law repealed.

Other issues of contention:

* In 2009, Obama pledged that he would not sign a health insurance reform bill that "adds even one dime to our deficit over the next decade."

In June 2011, economist Peter Ferrara of Forbes reported that Obamacare will likely add $4 to $6 trillion to the deficit over the next 20 years.

* Two years ago, then Democrat Majority Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said that the health care bill "will create 4 million jobs -- 400,000 jobs almost immediately."

One year later, Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Doug Elmendorf testified before the House Budget Committee that Obamacare is expected to eliminate an estimated 800,000 jobs in the labor market in the first ten years.

* Two years ago, President Barack Obama told Americans: "If you like your current insurance, you will keep your current insurance," and "if you like your plan, you can keep it."

One year later -- through a detailed report sent to Obama by now Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner -- Americans discovered that, among other things, Obamacare regulations could force as many as 87 million Americans to lose their current health care plans and their own doctors.

Additionally:

* A survey released by Gallup on Feb. 14 shows employer-based health insurance has declined and the percentage of Americans who are uninsured has increased is the highest seen since 2008.

* Twenty-seven states have sued.

* Despite Obama's effort to toss Catholics a bone of compromise on the contraception mandate kerfuffle, a survey released by Gallup on Valentine's Day shows that their ire remains unchanged.

All of this precedes the decision of The United States Supreme Court to hear the case in March.

In November, Pelosi expressed confidence that the Supreme Court would uphold Obamacare and that Democrats would reclaim the House in 2012. In March the Chicago Sun Times quoted Pelosi saying Obama "is going to win the election."

Then again, prior to the November 2010 mid-terms, Democrat New York Rep. Charles Schumer predicted on NBC's Meet the Press that those who voted for Obamacare would "find it an asset" and those who voted against it would "find it a liability."

When the dust settled, Democrats staggered from the election rubble to realize they had received the worst political drubbing in 70 years.

On the brighter side, considering the flaccid economy, a growing record deficit, the first credit rating downgrade in United States history, continued stagnant unemployment, having a record number of Americans living below poverty level and dependent on government assistance, a growing list of Solyndra-esque failures, Fast and Furious, the tenuous state of Obama's foreign policy, gas prices rising 83 percent during Obama's reign and the matter of the government's intrusion on what is and is not an acceptable parent-packed lunch for their child at school, Obamacare is but one of many bricks in the wall that Democrats are set to hit head-long in November.

 

[mercury14]

I've not changed my position, your lack of reading comprehension, logic and analytical skills are the bigger part of the problem.

Lol, do you not read your own posts? You have NEVER said that the stimulus helped until now. And in the past you actually said it hurt the economy.

I believe that the Democrats mean well...

That's NOT what you've said. You outright accused the Democrats of seeking falling employment and they wanting to destroy America. Then when I sarcastically said yes that's the case you put my comment in your signature block.

The stimulus was a plan to put Americans back to work. They loudly proclaimed that we had to pass the bill quickly in order to keep unemployment below 8%.

"They?" You mean Christina Romer said that unemployment would stay at 8%.

In fact, the unemployment rate went up much higher due to the instability of this market "tinkering" (what will the real tax rate be next year? The year after?), the large added debt and a number of other "disincentives" such as lots of discussion regarding additional regulation and tax increases mixed with a healthy dose of cronyism and fraud.

No, the unemployment rate went higher because we ended up having a severe recession. It had NOTHING to do with anything the brand-new Obama administration did. At that point just a few weeks into his presidency everything was inherited and the stimulus was a long way from being spent.

You're regurgitating Limbaugh here while offering no evidence, ZERO to back your claims.

NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE www.nationalreview.com

Dumbass, the NRO isn't going to give you objective information about health care reform. What's wrong with you?

Also the thing you call death panels are not death panels in the least bit. Even Sarah Palin who invented the term has backed off it. You lied, pure and simple.

The Independent Payment Advisory Board is there because it's the best way to determine what medical treatments are evidence-based best practice and which treatments are not proven effective - or proven ineffective. Do you want government funded care to pay for medical care that doesn't work? No? Then you must back the IPAB or float a better idea.

 

[mercury14]

You guys can contort youselves any way you want to try to feel better, but the fact is that Obamacare was rushed through

No it wasn't. That's just something you were told to believe. Looking at the timeline you simply cannot objectively say it was rushed.

 

[RightField]

Lol, do you not read your own posts? You have NEVER said that the stimulus helped until now. And in the past you actually said it hurt the economy.

That's NOT what you've said. You outright accused the Democrats of seeking falling employment and they wanting to destroy America. Then when I sarcastically said yes that's the case you put my comment in your signature block.

"They?" You mean Christina Romer said that unemployment would stay at 8%.

No, the unemployment rate went higher because we ended up having a severe recession. It had NOTHING to do with anything the brand-new Obama administration did. At that point just a few weeks into his presidency everything was inherited and the stimulus was a long way from being spent.

You're regurgitating Limbaugh here while offering no evidence, ZERO to back your claims.

Dumbass, the NRO isn't going to give you objective information about health care reform. What's wrong with you?

Also the thing you call death panels are not death panels in the least bit. Even Sarah Palin who invented the term has backed off it. You lied, pure and simple.

The Independent Payment Advisory Board is there because it's the best way to determine what medical treatments are evidence-based best practice and which treatments are not proven effective - or proven ineffective. Do you want government funded care to pay for medical care that doesn't work? No? Then you must back the IPAB or float a better idea.

You're so funny. You accuse me of following talking points, and yet, you're following the democratic talking points line by line (and counter to the reality we see all around us). You really do have to contort yourself to make them seem anything but hilarious. Then you tell me that when debating politics, quoting conservative thinkers is not allowed regardless of the content of their thoughts or facts. Are we to debate using only references sanctioned by the New York Times? lol.

The problem with the stimulus was the opportunity cost. Sure, it saved a few government jobs, but not much else and certainly didn't come anywhere close to achieving the promised goal (or are you going to try to tell me that we've been in a strong and roaring recovery with low unemployment these past three years?) The proof of this is the many studies that have shown that the "recovery" was the slowest on record since the depression in contrast to the Democrats where predictions of a robust and rapid recovery from their tinkering (and Romer was the economic "voice" of the democrats from the White House). Facts are the recovery was anemic and the stimulous wasn't effective. (now I can hear your comments ....yeah but excuse, excuse, excuse).

Regarding the NRO....I thought they made some good points and there were some facts that supported their points. Are we only allowed to use democrat generated facts when making a point? That would certainly help the democrats in a political debate...it would pretty much make it so the only points allowed in a debate could be supplied by one side. It seems in your world any counterpoint to democrat propaganda is not "politically correct". Are you telling me it's your way or the highway? That's not a very enlightened philosophy.

I can read and I saw the definition that was posted for the IPAB. I was just quoting the article which was full of points about Democrats who don't support Obamacare. Are you going to try to tell me that in reality Barny Frank is an outspoken supporter of Obamacare? This unelected panel will have the decision authority to decide what programs are covered by the national medical community which, through the law, will dominate almost all of the medical segment of our society. I don't think so much authority should be concentrated in any small group of people. I'm not comfortable having so much central control and apparently, based on the article, there are many others who share my concerns.

You, on the other hand, seem to believe fervently that the stimulus worked (?????) and that central government control over virtually all of the medical segment of our society is a good thing (?????) and belittle anyone who disagrees with you.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Did he really just say that he cashed out his 401k for the safety of interest-bearing accounts - while also not touching his 401k?

Yes and here's how that happens.

As most of us know with 401Ks there are conditions on many of the accounts, such as you cannot touch them for so many years, you can only move a certain percentage each year, etc. If you weren't so fucking blinded by your hate and eagerness to destroy, something which Throb believes he is a master in, then he would not be able to make you look so partisanly stupid by taking a few random facts, out of order, and fitting them into that hateful Gollum-like internal dialog that grants him the moral authority to do that which he cries foul over like an angry schoolgirl; the use of personal information.

So it is easy to see that when I moved my money, I was not able to move it all out of stock, nor would I ever want to any more than I would want to put it all into gold.

Now, let's get back to you telling us how a corporation can be taxed and not have that tax passed on to the consumer.

Asshat.

Btw, we see that you lie on a regular basis...

So if other people 'lie' and you get your panties in a wad over it, does that not make you a hypocrite?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

You're so funny. You accuse me of following talking points, and yet, you're following the democratic talking points line by line (and counter to the reality we see all around us). You really do have to contort yourself to make them seem anything but hilarious. Then you tell me that when debating politics, quoting conservative thinkers is not allowed regardless of the content of their thoughts or facts. Are we to debate using only references sanctioned by the New York Times? lol.

The problem with the stimulus was the opportunity cost. Sure, it saved a few government jobs, but not much else and certainly didn't come anywhere close to achieving the promised goal (or are you going to try to tell me that we've been in a strong and roaring recovery with low unemployment these past three years?) The proof of this is the many studies that have shown that the "recovery" was the slowest on record since the depression in contrast to the Democrats were predictions of a robust and rapid recovery from their tinkering (and Romer was the economic "voice" of the democrats from the White House). Facts are the recovery was anemic and the stimulous wasn't effective. (now I can hear your comments ....yeah but excuse, excuse, excuse).

Regarding the NRO....I thought they made some good points and there were some facts that supported their points. Are we only allowed to use democrat generated facts when making a point? That would certainly help the democrats in a political debate...it would pretty much make it so the only points allowed in a debate could be supplied by one side. It seems in your world any counterpoint to democrat propaganda is not "politically correct". Are you telling me it's your way or the highway? That's not a very enlightened philosophy.

I can read and I saw the definition that was posted for the IPAB. I was just quoting the article which was full of points about Democrats who don't support Obamacare. Are you going to try to tell me that in reality Barny Frank is an outspoken supporter of Obamacare? This unelected panel will have the decision authority to decide what programs are covered by the national medical community which, through the law, will dominate almost all of the medical segment of our society. I don't think so much authority should be concentrated in any small group of people. I'm not comfortable having so much central control and apparently, based on the article, there are many others who share my concerns.

You, on the other hand, seem to believe fervently that the stimulus worked (?????) and that central government control over virtually all of the medical segment of our society is a good thing (?????) and belittle anyone who disagrees with you.

Exactly it was an attempt to avoid pain by trying to accelerate the future in the present, just as they do with low interest rates and premium cuts, but the problem is, you can only put off the pain for so long and as we see, it only prolongs and stretches out the pain thus giving us the longest, hardest recession with the weakest recovery in the history of this nation and even as people suffer with over 8% unemployment and 8% inflation, they are celebrating and popping champaign corks...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505144_162-57387655/inflation-not-as-low-as-you-think/

In all their accounting they are leaving off the books promised entitlements, the Post Office and FREDDIE AND FANNIE!

http://blogs.smartmoney.com/advice/2012/02/29/your-share-of-fannie-freddie-losses-1300/


To continue: The administration knows that raising interest rates and ending premium breaks will cause pain, so they keep trying to move that act past the next election being more concerned with short-term political gain that actual economic stability, let alone prosperity.

I think they actually hate prosperity.

They want someone else to be richer than us to assuage their adopted liberal guilt and the whine of the holy secular unending penance for the imagined sins of their fathers...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

As I understand it, you are a shrink. I suspect eventually you will land somewhere comfortable and decide to hang out your own shingle. At that point, you will know what I'm talking about. Have a glass of Merlot in my memory.

Go back and examine the quotes I posted from another thread.

He simply lies. He thinks it is justified if it is to his opposition.



He might be one of Hassan's group...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

More proof.



And the reason he cashed out his 401k was because Obama was a-commin' for it!

No, that was from a much longer time ago...

You and Throb need to get your lies and timelines straight (he's making you look mean and stupid, but then that might actually be nail on the head.)