WWTBAM Bored

Two interesting articles on the upcoming Obamacare case before the Supreme Court:

Big surprise in this one (NOT!):

http://insurancenewsnet.com/oarticle/20 ... N4S4M90yP8

Those most likely to lose coverage if the tax credit provision is thrown out: lower to middle class white working southerners. I wonder if they realize what they're doing to themselves when they continue to vote Republican.

Also, in this one, there's a question whether the named plaintiffs have standing in the case (a plaintiff challenging a federal law has to show that he or she is actually harmed in some measurable way by this law, not just that they're upset about it).

http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stories/ ... ews=855648

Money quote from one of the plaintiffs:

Plaintiff Brenda Levy, who will qualify for Medicare in several months, told Mencimer she couldn’t remember how she came to be recruited for the case and said she had never met the lawyers behind it. Also, she was surprised to learn that so many people stood to lose their insurance if she won in court. “I don't want things to be more difficult for people,” she said. “I don't like the idea of throwing people off their health insurance.”

Those most likely to lose coverage if the tax credit provision is thrown out: lower to middle class white working southerners. I wonder if they realize what they're doing to themselves when they continue to vote Republican.

"Themselves" is the key word. That's the difference. Most of them realize what they would be doing to the future of this country and the well being of future generations if they voted Democrat. Democrats are all about 'themselves'.

In the words of Margaret Thatcher, I think (and paraphrased): "Socialism is great until you run out of other people's money."

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Most of them realize what they would be doing to the future of this country and the well being of future generations if they voted Democrat.

Flock, if you really believe that, I've got some investment property in Florida I'd like to sell you.

Fixed that for you:

"Themselves" is the key word. That's the difference. Most of them don't realize what they would be doing to the future of this country and the well being of future generations if they voted Democrat. Republicans are all about 'themselves'.

Bob Juch wrote:Fixed that for you:

"Themselves" is the key word. That's the difference. Most of them don't realize what they would be doing to the future of this country and the well being of future generations if they voted Democrat. Republicans are all about 'themselves'.

No, you're wrong and you know it. Democratic voters, for the most part, are "What can the government do for me?". Conservatives, the majority who vote Republican are "What should the government be doing and what should it not."

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:Fixed that for you:

"Themselves" is the key word. That's the difference. Most of them don't realize what they would be doing to the future of this country and the well being of future generations if they voted Democrat. Republicans are all about 'themselves'.

No, you're wrong and you know it. Democratic voters, for the most part, are "What can the government do for me?". Conservatives, the majority who vote Republican are "What should the government be doing and what should it not."

Apparently the government should be regulating the wearing of yoga pants.

I know that most Republicans (as well as most Democrats) view that particular proposal as a joke, but it does illustrate a larger point. It's always seemed to me that Republicans are much more willing than Democrats to regulate private conduct in ways that infringe people's liberty on a day-to-day basis. Democrats, in contrast, are more willing to regulate on economic issues. --Bob

BackInTex wrote:
Democratic voters, for the most part, are "What can the government do for me?

That's if you view the issue of whether affordable health care is "what the government can do for me" as opposed to something that's in the national interest. Having a healthy productive work force is in the national interest. Obamacare may not be the best way to go about it (I don't think it is either), but there's no question that having people who are healthy, working, productive and earning a decent living so they can support themselves and their families is in the national interest.

You might just as well say that the government building roads is a matter of "doing something for me."

There's plenty of countries where the government adopts a hands off policy towards its people. Africa and Asia are full of them. I don't think that's what we want here.

silverscreenselect wrote:

BackInTex wrote:
Democratic voters, for the most part, are "What can the government do for me?

That's if you view the issue of whether affordable health care is "what the government can do for me" as opposed to something that's in the national interest. Having a healthy productive work force is in the national interest. Obamacare may not be the best way to go about it (I don't think it is either), but there's no question that having people who are healthy, working, productive and earning a decent living so they can support themselves and their families is in the national interest.

You might just as well say that the government building roads is a matter of "doing something for me."

There's plenty of countries where the government adopts a hands off policy towards its people. Africa and Asia are full of them. I don't think that's what we want here.

The current government policies do not promote a productive work force. Quite the opposite. The government incentivizes people to be unproductive. Those who are productive are punished. And the more productive they are, the more punished they are, and the more they are forced to support (and thereby incentivize) the unproductive.

The best thing a government can do to establish a productive work force is stay out of the way.

I just did the first pass of my taxes.

BackInTex wrote:The current government policies do not promote a productive work force. Quite the opposite. The government incentivizes people to be unproductive. Those who are productive are punished. And the more productive they are, the more punished they are, and the more they are forced to support (and thereby incentivize) the unproductive.

The best thing a government can do to establish a productive work force is stay out of the way.

I just did the first pass of my taxes.

I read this as you saying that the more money someone makes, the more productive they are in the overall scheme of things.

LOL!!!!!

I'd be willing to bet I'm more productive than half the people on this Bored who earn more than I do...

lb13

littlebeast13 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:The current government policies do not promote a productive work force. Quite the opposite. The government incentivizes people to be unproductive. Those who are productive are punished. And the more productive they are, the more punished they are, and the more they are forced to support (and thereby incentivize) the unproductive.

The best thing a government can do to establish a productive work force is stay out of the way.

I just did the first pass of my taxes.

I read this as you saying that the more money someone makes, the more productive they are in the overall scheme of things.

LOL!!!!!

I'd be willing to bet I'm more productive than half the people on this Bored who earn more than I do...

lb13

You're reading it backwards. The more productive someone is, typically, the more money they make.

And don't confuse being busy with being productive. Or simply working hard. That does not necessarily translate in to more productivity.

But, my comment above is the simple construct of productivity -> increased earnings. Not true all the time, but more often than not, especially in a macro sense.

Your mileage may vary.

BackInTex wrote:

littlebeast13 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:The current government policies do not promote a productive work force. Quite the opposite. The government incentivizes people to be unproductive. Those who are productive are punished. And the more productive they are, the more punished they are, and the more they are forced to support (and thereby incentivize) the unproductive.

The best thing a government can do to establish a productive work force is stay out of the way.

I just did the first pass of my taxes.

I read this as you saying that the more money someone makes, the more productive they are in the overall scheme of things.

LOL!!!!!

I'd be willing to bet I'm more productive than half the people on this Bored who earn more than I do...

lb13

You're reading it backwards. The more productive someone is, typically, the more money they make.

And don't confuse being busy with being productive. Or simply working hard. That does not necessarily translate in to more productivity.

But, my comment above is the simple construct of productivity -> increased earnings. Not true all the time, but more often than not, especially in a macro sense.

Your mileage may vary.

It does indeed vary, because I believe the inverse relation is more typical of the norm. Maybe it's just because I see a lot of counterproductivity at the management level, especially the higher up you go... and I'm not just talking about Mecca...

lb13

BackInTex wrote: The more productive someone is, typically, the more money they make.

And don't confuse being busy with being productive. Or simply working hard. That does not necessarily translate in to more productivity.

There are a number of very wealthy people in this country whose "productivity" consists solely of winning the gene pool.

And you're absolutely wrong when you say the government "incentivizes" people to be unproductive. The more you produce (by your definition), the more you make. You might not get to keep as much of it as you like, but there's no situation in which LB makes more money that the Walton heirs ... even though he's a hell of a lot more productive that most of them.

silverscreenselect wrote: There are a number of very wealthy people in this country whose "productivity" consists solely of winning the gene pool.

And you're absolutely wrong when you say the government "incentivizes" people to be unproductive. The more you produce (by your definition), the more you make. You might not get to keep as much of it as you like, but there's no situation in which LB makes more money that the Walton heirs ... even though he's a hell of a lot more productive that most of them.

You are not very good at looking at the big picture, are you. You always want to find some small portion of a population to make your points about the world. It doesn't work that way. Just as you can't point out the record snowfalls in the east disproves Global Warming.

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote: There are a number of very wealthy people in this country whose "productivity" consists solely of winning the gene pool.

And you're absolutely wrong when you say the government "incentivizes" people to be unproductive. The more you produce (by your definition), the more you make. You might not get to keep as much of it as you like, but there's no situation in which LB makes more money that the Walton heirs ... even though he's a hell of a lot more productive that most of them.

You are not very good at looking at the big picture, are you. You always want to find some small portion of a population to make your points about the world. It doesn't work that way. Just as you can't point out the record snowfalls in the east disproves Global Warming.

Actually the record snowfalls in the east prove Global Warming. The warmer water evaporates and comes down as snow.

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote: There are a number of very wealthy people in this country whose "productivity" consists solely of winning the gene pool.

And you're absolutely wrong when you say the government "incentivizes" people to be unproductive. The more you produce (by your definition), the more you make. You might not get to keep as much of it as you like, but there's no situation in which LB makes more money that the Walton heirs ... even though he's a hell of a lot more productive that most of them.

You are not very good at looking at the big picture, are you. You always want to find some small portion of a population to make your points about the world. It doesn't work that way.

SSS's comment was a very extreme example of my point, and not what I was thinking of at all. There are a lot of factors that determine what a person earns in their life, mostly influenced by the many factors that affect the supply and demand for certain jobs. What a person actually contributes to the overall good of society has surprisingly little to do with it...

lb13

BackInTex wrote:
You are not very good at looking at the big picture, are you.

And you're not very good at actually backing up your talking points with facts. Like the other day when you asked me to point out some lies that Fox News was spreading, and it took me about one minute to find some, you conveniently let that talking point drop.

So, give us some examples, real examples, not just your platitudes, of how our government punishes people for producing.

Writing for the Washington Post, Dana Milbank has some fun with a recent poll of Louisiana Republicans.

The question, asked by the robodialer Public Policy Polling, went: "Who[m] do you think was more responsible for the poor response to Hurricane Katrina: George W. Bush or Barack Obama?" I guess they had to give 2 names so they wouldn't write in Andrew Jackson

The response: 29 percent picked Obama, 28 percent picked Bush. One wouldn't want to make much out of Obama's one-point victory on the question, well within the margin of error. The question is why would anyone blame Obama for the federal response to a hurricane that happened in 2005 when Obama had just arrived in Washington as a freshman U.S. senator?

Of course, poll results that make the public look ignorant are a dime a dozen. But Milbank is struck by the fact that this poll was taken among Louisianans, who were the direct victims of Hurricane Katrina and of the botched federal response. This leads Milbank to suggest that "a substantial number of Republican voters will agree to something they know to be false if it puts Obama in a bad light."



I'm a little reluctant to join Milbank in believing that the Louisiana Repubs were knowingly giving a false answer. But it might be more reassuring to believe that than thinking through brain chemistry that would enable the plurality of Louisianans to push the button on their phones that blamed Obama. It's strangely more reassuring to note that 44 percent of the respondents to that question pushed the button for "not sure."

macrae1234 wrote:Writing for the Washington Post, Dana Milbank has some fun with a recent poll of Louisiana Republicans.

The question, asked by the robodialer Public Policy Polling, went: "Who[m] do you think was more responsible for the poor response to Hurricane Katrina: George W. Bush or Barack Obama?" I guess they had to give 2 names so they wouldn't write in Andrew Jackson

The response: 29 percent picked Obama, 28 percent picked Bush. One wouldn't want to make much out of Obama's one-point victory on the question, well within the margin of error. The question is why would anyone blame Obama for the federal response to a hurricane that happened in 2005 when Obama had just arrived in Washington as a freshman U.S. senator?

Of course, poll results that make the public look ignorant are a dime a dozen. But Milbank is struck by the fact that this poll was taken among Louisianans, who were the direct victims of Hurricane Katrina and of the botched federal response. This leads Milbank to suggest that "a substantial number of Republican voters will agree to something they know to be false if it puts Obama in a bad light."



I'm a little reluctant to join Milbank in believing that the Louisiana Repubs were knowingly giving a false answer. But it might be more reassuring to believe that than thinking through brain chemistry that would enable the plurality of Louisianans to push the button on their phones that blamed Obama. It's strangely more reassuring to note that 44 percent of the respondents to that question pushed the button for "not sure."

What a crappy poll. What if the respondents were sure of the culprit and that it wasn't "W?" Obama would be a good (nonsensical) choice to indicate that.

I'd wager that had they added the mayor of NO and the governor of LA, votes for Obama would have been near 0.

macrae1234 wrote:Writing for the Washington Post, Dana Milbank has some fun with a recent poll of Louisiana Republicans.

The question, asked by the robodialer Public Policy Polling, went: "Who[m] do you think was more responsible for the poor response to Hurricane Katrina: George W. Bush or Barack Obama?" I guess they had to give 2 names so they wouldn't write in Andrew Jackson

The response: 29 percent picked Obama, 28 percent picked Bush. One wouldn't want to make much out of Obama's one-point victory on the question, well within the margin of error. The question is why would anyone blame Obama for the federal response to a hurricane that happened in 2005 when Obama had just arrived in Washington as a freshman U.S. senator?

Of course, poll results that make the public look ignorant are a dime a dozen. But Milbank is struck by the fact that this poll was taken among Louisianans, who were the direct victims of Hurricane Katrina and of the botched federal response. This leads Milbank to suggest that "a substantial number of Republican voters will agree to something they know to be false if it puts Obama in a bad light."



I'm a little reluctant to join Milbank in believing that the Louisiana Repubs were knowingly giving a false answer. But it might be more reassuring to believe that than thinking through brain chemistry that would enable the plurality of Louisianans to push the button on their phones that blamed Obama. It's strangely more reassuring to note that 44 percent of the respondents to that question pushed the button for "not sure."

What did you expect? A quarter of the adult population of the U.S. thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth.

Reading between the lines of news reports, it looks like Kennedy is prepared, at a minimum, to avoid a constitutional issue by upholding the Administration's ability to interpret the Affordable Care Act as providing nationwide subsidies. Since the Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor all will likely vote to affirm the Administration's position, if I'm right, the Act will survive this latest challenge. I'll be interested in transcripts of the oral argument when they become available. --Bob