I think Klavan sums it up pretty nicely.
June 16, 2011
Humor, klavan, obamacare, paul ryan, video
June 16, 2011 at 11:06 pm
The only problems with this, of course, are (1) if drastically cutting taxes on the rich led to a strong economy it would have done so when Bush did it a decade ago, (2) drastically cutting taxes on the rich and corporations lowers revenue which increases the debt, (3) jobs can't be created if we give corporations every incentive to keep them overseas, (4) health insurance companies either outright refuse to cover the elderly or charge them huge premiums which means that Ryan's voucher program would bankrupt the government, (5) encouraging saving is great but it won't stimulate the economy in an era where banks aren't willing to lend, and (6) death panels already exist in private health care where people are denied life-saving treatment every day (see the case of Kyler VanNocker, a little boy from my parish whose death because his parents' insurance refused him treatment was covered on national news).
Other than that, he's right on target.
June 16, 2011 at 11:37 pm
Yeah! Everyone knows that Bush had WAY higher unemployment! And it's not like raising income tax is associated with dropping returns; nor is it as if businesses have to look at the huge cost of regulation and taxes when it comes to hiring….
Great job at a shotgun approach to a response that managed to utterly ignore the points of the video with either counter-factual information, assumptions, misstating actions, ignoring the options, etc….
June 16, 2011 at 11:39 pm
Let's not even get started on the habit of, say, Oregon State's Medicare/Medicaid to offer to pay to kill you, but not treat you?
June 17, 2011 at 1:15 am
Bush's stifling tax cuts are the reason why we're in this mess. If given the chance industry will always relocate overseas because working Americans aren't weak enough (yet) to be forced into laboring for a low enough pay rate to satisfy shareholders. The solution is to make it more difficult for them to relocate, not to lower the minimum wage and eliminate OSHA rules. If unemployment was lower in 2008, it's because the economy tanked right before Bush left office. Things will always get worse the further into a recession you go, and he was only president during the initial phases. As for tax rates and prosperity, the upper bracket is lower than it's been at almost any point since the income tax was made permanent. Taxes were much higher during the periods of economic expansion when most of our infrastructure was created and lower during periods of economic contraction in the 1980s, early 90s and during the George W. Bush administration. Make of that what you will.
As for Oregon, that's a special case that has more to do with their assisted suicide law than it does with government healthcare. I'm sure that private healthcare companies are doing the same thing there to increase profits. At least government is accountable to the voters, corporations only care about raising profits.
The video was obviously biased in favor of one point of view, to the exclusion of nuance. Acting like private healthcare is perfect while demonizing government-run care is part and parcel of the economic right, as is insisting that the poor and weak shoulder the entire burden of "austerity" while the rich get richer. My point was simply that the Bush administration was a golden age for Randian conservatives, most of the debt increase from that era was from tax cuts and military spending which conservatives support, and yet the economy managed to crumble because of it. Perhaps we should try another economic theory since the conservative one failed so miserably.
June 17, 2011 at 1:39 am
The video was obviously biased in favor of one point of view, to the exclusion of nuance.
If you're the "nuance," you're using the wrong word– nuisance is closer.
Seeing as you can't be bothered to offer facts, let alone an actual response to the video, I see no reason to waste time with you.
June 17, 2011 at 2:17 am
You seem to be a textbook example of the addage "if you can't attack the message, attack the messenger." I've given you plenty of facts, you just don't agree with them so you choose to ignore them.
June 17, 2011 at 2:45 am
June 17, 2011 at 2:56 am
Really funny to have someone who's doing the standard combox "change the subject and throw out as many claims in different directions as possible" tactic accuse me of ad hominem for refusing to give chase.
June 17, 2011 at 3:10 am
How is what I said a "claim"? Taxes were much higher in the middle of the century when most of our infrastructure and many of the larger corporations in existence today were either being created or reaching the height of their expansion. Since 1932, the upper bracket was only lower than today's during the period from the mid 80s to the beginning of the Clinton administration, which was a period of economic stagnation and high unemployment (sound familiar?). These aren't claims, they're facts that you are free to look up if you don't believe me. I have not changed the subject, nor have I thrown out claims in all directions, all I've done is answer the claims put forward in the video which covers a great deal of ground on many aspects of the current administration. If my approach is scatters, then so is Klavan's.
By the way, I didn't accuse you of ad hominem for "refusing to give chase." Rather, I accused you of it for calling me a "nuisance" simply because I disagreed with you.
June 17, 2011 at 3:21 am
Rather, I accused you of it for calling me a "nuisance" simply because I disagreed with you.
You assumed that's the reason.
I called you a nuisance because you refuse to actually respond to the points in the video and instead go in a dozen different directions.
You are throwing out claims because you make a bunch assertions with shaky assumptions, and none of them are a decent response to the video.
June 17, 2011 at 3:41 am
Again, you're going to have to tell me how the history of taxation is a claim rather than a verifiable fact. You don't seem to be interested in providing this explanation. You didn't want to think about the fact that taxes have almost never been lower, and that rich people in fact have almost always paid more than they do now, so you just chose to pretend that I never mentioned it at all.
The video was about how "high" taxation is killing our country, how big corporations can be trusted with our well-being more than government, and how privatizing Medicare will be in the best interests of the elderly and lead to an economic recovery. I'm pretty sure that I addressed all of these issues. If there were other things in there that I didn't mention then I apologize, but there was a lot going on in the video and I couldn't remember it all.
June 17, 2011 at 3:47 am
1) You're still not responding to the video, AKA trying to change the subject.
2) You are not offering any support for your claims.
Lovely that you manage to put a flat out lie into the middle of the claim…but I'm still not going to chase after you.
You really aren't worth the time.
June 17, 2011 at 3:51 am
The video was about how "high" taxation is killing our country, how big corporations can be trusted with our well-being more than government, and how privatizing Medicare will be in the best interests of the elderly and lead to an economic recovery.
No wonder you can't respond to the video's points. You utterly missed them; possibly the humor simply went past you.
It was comparing Obamacare to the Ryan plan–thus the post title–with an intro explaining how 1) the government is in massive debt and 2) pointing out how silly the current "plan" to fix it is.
June 17, 2011 at 4:17 am
It really is tiresome trying to argue with you when you don't even read what I'm writing. I recognized the "humor" (actually bitter sarcasm) in what he said, but frankly what you call a comparison was really a hagiography of Paul Ryan placed up against a caricature of Obama. In the process it mentioned taxation, privatization, and death panels, which if you'll look at my original comment were all referenced therein. If you want to see what tax rates were in the past then just google "us income tax rates" and look at whatever website you consider trustworthy. You'll hopefully find one that shows you how tax rates have been much higher in the past.
I don't know about you, but I can't spend my entire night screaming at a brick wall so I'm going to stop now.
June 17, 2011 at 4:42 pm
re: "was really a hagiography of Paul Ryan placed up against a caricature of Obama. In the process it mentioned taxation, privatization, and death panels," is an opinion from which I differ. It presents the policies and principles in a plain and straight forward manner. The readers should watch and judge for themselves. I think it is good enough to repost. And of course, "a tree is known by it's fruits" so Obama's character (or lack thereof) is indirectly exposed through his "policies" (for want of a more accurate word).
June 17, 2011 at 7:44 pm
I'm pretty sure that I addressed all of these issues.
There's a difference between addressing something and factually refuting an argument. You succeeded at the first, failed miserably at the second.
June 18, 2011 at 2:08 am
He criticized Democrats for running ads pointing out that privatizing Medicare will hurt senior citizens, and then claimed that Obama's plan will allow fifteen wicked men in suits to determine whether you live or die (in a way that is somehow worse than how private insurance companies already allow wicked men to determine whether you live or die). That seems like a double standard to me. You can't condemn the other side for being a little hyperbolic and then do the exact same thing yourself. His commentary was neither "plain" nor "straight forward," essentially he spoke of Ryan's plan as if it was the best solution and of Obama's plan as if it would lead to the destruction of America.
Do Republicans think that allowing insurance companies to set prices for seniors (which they'll set high) and then covering those costs through vouchers won't bankrupt the government? They'll either end up paying what amounts to billions in corporate welfare to the industry (similar to what happened with Bush and Medicare Part D), or else they'll end the vouchers out of economic necessity and leave seniors to fend for themselves with high premiums and low benefits. Either way, it's not good for the country.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
© 2022 Creative Minority Report — Powered by WordPress
Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑