We told you so!

From The Washington Post:

Obamacare’s scorekeepers deliver a game-changer
By , Published: February 4, 2014

For years, the White House has trotted out the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to show that Obamacare would cut health-care costs and reduce deficits:

Live by the sword, die by the sword, the Bible tells us. In Washington, it’s slightly different: Live by the CBO, die by the CBO.

The congressional number-crunchers, perhaps the capital’s closest thing to a neutral referee, came out with a new report Tuesday, and it wasn’t pretty for Obamacare. The CBO predicted the law would have a “substantially larger” impact on the labor market than it had previously expected: The law would reduce the workforce in 2021 by the equivalent of 2.3 million full-time workers, well more than the 800,000 originally anticipated. This will inevitably be a drag on economic growth, as more people decide government handouts are more attractive than working more and paying higher taxes.

This is grim news for the White House and for Democrats on the ballot in November. This independent arbiter, long embraced by the White House, has validated a core complaint of the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) critics: that it will discourage work and become an ungainly entitlement. Disputing Republicans’ charges is much easier than refuting the federal government’s official scorekeepers.

More at the link.

It will be recalled that a banned former commenter kept telling us just how good the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is for everybody, how it would “bend the cost curve downward,” cover almost everybody and save us money, and how the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that to be so.

As it happens I just saw this brief story from Robert Stacey Stacy McCain:

Unemployed Magazine Executives
Posted on | February 5, 2014 | 11 Comments

Time, Inc. — which publishes Time, Fortune, People, Sports Illustrated and In Style magazines — is laying off hundreds of employees, and the hit list includes executives in the company:

Gone in the cutbacks are David Geithner, an executive vice president who was in charge of the style and entertainment group that included No. 1 moneymaker People and top monthly In Style. Geithner is the brother of former Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner.

Good news: He’ll qualify for ObamaCare.

RELATED: “Students Are Tired of Hearing There’s Never Been a Better Time to Be a Journalist.”

That’s actually the whole story — one far briefer than one normally sees from the esteemed Mr McCain, but there are plenty of good and amusing comments to read at the original.

Mr McCain is documenting — or perhaps mocking — the job losses amongst those professional journalists in the print medium, something I have characterized as 18th Century Technology many times before. What I see as the obvious question, however, is why all of those professional journalists had decently-paying jobs, and were all so wrong about Obaminablecare, while so many of us unpaid bloggers got it right? We have previously pointed out that we cannot add 30 to 40 million people who cannot afford health insurance, maintain high quality for those covered, and still cut costs.1

The liberals, both in the (now shrinking) professional media and in the unpaid blogosphere, including our banned former commenter, were wrong all along! We knew it, we told them so, but they kept sticking their fingers in their wax-filled little ears and chanting, “CBO, CBO, CBO.”

It didn’t take a professional economist and Nobel Prize laureate like Paul Krugman to see this. This wasn’t graduate school stuff, but Economics 101: you cannot add tens of millions of people to the system,2 mandate greater health insurance benefits, prohibit insurance companies from rejecting applicants based on pre-existing conditions, and not make the system cost a lot more money. All of those things have costs, costs a man with a doctorate in economics like Mr Krugman should have been able to see, and all of those additional costs would have to be paid, somehow, some way. How is it that a working-class, unpaid blogger with a baccalaureate degree, who runs a concrete plant for a living, could see that, while all of the super-geniuses in the Obama Administration couldn’t?

There are really only two choices:

  1. The liberals really are so dumb that they cannot see what is plainly obvious; or
  2. The liberals are so pernicious that they want to pass what they want to pass, even knowing that it will be harmful, and that they are lying about it.

Eric would vote for the latter, and I’m beginning to think that he’s right.
_____________________________
Related Articles:


_____________________________

  1. Those links are just from The First Street Journal, or our predecessor, Common Sense Political Thought. Check the other conservative sites on our blogroll, and you’ll find that they were saying the same things.
  2. And they haven’t even accomplished that part yet.

47 Comments

  1. “There are really only two choices:

    The liberals really are so dumb that they cannot see what is plainly obvious; or
    The liberals are so pernicious that they want to pass what they want to pass, even knowing that it will be harmful, and that they are lying about it.

    Eric would vote for the latter, and I’m beginning to think that he’s right.”

    You can actually split the difference and make both answers correct simply by recognizing that you and liberals have divergent interests and loyalties, and are referring to different “countries” when you assess benefits and destructiveness.

    Forget the one America crap. It’s dead.

    Thus, liberals may in fact be intent on destroying the middle class in this country as it has historically existed without contradiction, while intending to preserve other “middle classes”.

    That is to say what they wish to destroy is a largely Christian bourgeoisie which both hails a God imagined to be higher than the collective as embodied by the state, and which also retains a kind of sentimental attachment to the libertarian forebears of much of that population. It obviously has to be managed out of existence.

    This doesn’t mean however that the progressives don’t have some notion of preserving a kind of “middle class”; if that is, you are willing to define a “middle class” as a kind of clerical class inhabiting various governmental and quasi governmental institutional settings. You might also add to this other lesser domains such as “manufacturing” or even “services”, which would seem to remain private but which would be for all legal intents and purposes transformed into part of a nationally harnessed infrastructure or employment opportunity pool, such as would fulfill the needs of a redistributive social solidarity (i.e., welfare state fascism) regime and bureaucracy.

    Thus the liberal/progressive does recognize that many such as they now exist would be harmed, but also expects that the progressive engineering of a social transformation will successfully take place on the backs of those being harmed … so that by the time the productive as they have heretofore existed are crushed out of existence, the traditionalist will have served its purpose as a seed bed and nutritious medium for the new pansexual polymorphous perverse collectivist whatever-they-are that progressives see humanity as properly evolving into.

    They will need you to defend them and cushion their lives for awhile, until their program is complete; but that doesn’t mean they are not out to destroy you, or that they care how hard it gets before that day comes.

    Now, they can certainly believe all that without any internal psychological conflicts.

    Not that it would necessarily work out that way … just that their believing it involves no obvious internal contradictions, once you grasp what the progressive aim is.

  2. The liberals really are so dumb that they cannot see what is plainly obvious; or
    The liberals are so pernicious that they want to pass what they want to pass, even knowing that it will be harmful, and that they are lying about it.

    One thing I try to do is be clear in my definitions, so I rarely use the terms “Liberal” or “Liberals” when I am referring to modern left wingers. And I refuse to use the term “Progressive” at all, not even in an ironic or sarcastic sense. As far as I’m concerned, American liberalism died the moment Kennedy was shot, and what we have today is an entirely different beast.

    It’s basically a mix of economic and cultural Marxism. The economic part really has come to the fore under Obama. He treats anyone who created and/or runs a business as a scoundrel (you didn’t build that) and those who are currently poor are merely “Victims” of said scoundrels. The cultural Marxism comes in the form of trying to tear down anything relating to traditional morality and Christianity in particular. I’m starting to think that pushing gay marriage has less to do with equality for homoes and more to do with further weakening the power of traditional religion to set social and moral standards. If they can make a mockery out of something as central to civilization as marriage, what WON’T they be able to do?

  3. Shockingly enough, the Delaware Liberals, big supporters of Obaminablecare, have still not managed to take note of the CBO report. Nor has the banned former commenter, the one who used to trumpet “CBO reports” to us so often, found time to write about it on his site, either.

  4. Noting that left wingers will lie to protect Obama and promote Obamacare is like noting that sewer rats do in fact live in sewers. Condition normal, in other words.

  5. They are not quite that dumb. The CBO scored it as saving money (mostly because of unrelated or semi-related tax increases I believe)

    They also believed (without examining it rigorously) or at leat Obama claimed, that “preventative care” that uninsured people would get would save money. He used to make that claim. It’s not true. And Emergency Rooms are probably one of the most cost-effective ways of delivering medical care – it’s just that hospitals charge a lot, and use it to cover overhead, in the same way they charge per bed-day.

  6. ” Moralist
    Thursday, 6 February 2014 at 14:09

    ‘That is to say what they wish to destroy is a largely Christian bourgeoisie which both hails a God imagined to be higher than the collective as embodied by the state, and which also retains a kind of sentimental attachment to the libertarian forebears of much of that population. It obviously has to be managed out of existence.’

    The key word above is “imagined”, as opposed to dealing with objective reality in order to make some sense in a debate.

    Those who choose to invoke imagined spirits in support of policy place themselves on shaky ground, for sure.”

    The stunning of hypocrisy of Perry’s appeals to an “objective reality”, aside …. we ask if this additional exhibition of deliberate obtuseness and misrepresentation of the proposition actually being mooted, is even needed, in order to further demonstrate the futility of treating leftists as moral fellows.

    The answer of course, is no.

    Moralist, could have dealt with the point of Christian loyalties directly. Moralist, could have simply said that whatever Christians might imagine, there was no moral authority higher than the collective as embodied by the state. But leftists like Moralist don’t have the courage to do that. Moralist knows that, just like the selfsame Perry, he would be forced someday to choke down his own words if he were to say outright what he has been discovered to be implying.

    Confronted with a dilemma that inhibits him from arguing what he means to argue lest it be thrown back in his face, he engages in littering the forum instead.

    That is part of what makes Moralists of the leftist kind such sub-moral pests.

  7. “The key word above is “imagined”, as opposed to dealing with objective reality in order to make some sense in a debate.

    Those who choose to invoke imagined spirits”

    Gee, and one wonders just WHERE we got the notion that left wingers hate religion and religious believers …

  8. The dictionary:

    World English Dictionary

    moralist (ˈmɒrəlɪst)

    — n
    1. a person who seeks to regulate the morals of others or to imbue others with a sense of morality
    2. a person who lives in accordance with moral principles
    3. a philosopher who is concerned with casuistic discussions of right action, or who seeks a general characterization of right action, often contrasted with a moral philosopher whose concern is with general philosophical questions about ethics

    Oxford says:

    moralize
    Syllabification: mor·al·ize
    Pronunciation: /ˈmôrəˌlīz, ˈmär- 

    /

    verb
    [no object](often as noun moralizing)
    1comment on issues of right and wrong, typically with an unfounded air of superiority: ‘the self-righteous moralizing of his aunt was ringing in his ears’

    Why does this site still allow the banned, sock-puppeting, lying, threatening man who declared he mowed his lawn on Easter Sundays just to get under the skin of his Christian neighbors?

    To be a moralist, one must have absolute principles. To be a moralizer, one need only the desire to do what one wilt, and that be the whole of the law.

  9. Absolute principles? There is no such animal

    Just because YOU say there are no absolutes, that doesn’t make it so. You can say 2 + 2 = 5, but it is still 4.

  10. The presence of “Moralist” (the liar formerly known as Perry) is proof of only one thing – that left wingers are evil. Note how he and his fellow banned Troll-in-Trade seemed to be driven almost exclusively by msk

  11. It’s rather humorous that the banned former commenter would say that this is all a right wing interpretation, when the story I quoted — deliberately, because I had many, many choices — came from The Washington Post.

  12. Yorkshire asked:

    Why did Wile E. Coyote spend all that money on Acme Products, when it would have been cheaper to buy RoadRunners? Oh, that’s right, the Gummint runs the same way.

    Regulations against the purchase of live creatures?

    I am, however, awaiting regulations from the Obama Administration banning the Roadrunner cartoons, because they depict willful to our southwestern deserts!

  13. Has Moralist addressed the issue on the blog you are providing him, yet?

    Not that many here would leave comments; since we know we cannot trust him with an e-mail or ISP address – lest he be handed yet another opportunity to engage in more of his malice driven threatening and politically motivated “government informing”.

    But, at least he could make his argument there. If that is, making a sound argument is what really motivates him.

  14. DNW: As of now, he has not chosen to do so.

    Think Progress tried to address the issue, though not well:

    In fact, the CBO report explicitly states that the estimated reduction in labor “stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply, rather than from a net drop in businesses’ demand for labor” and that “there is no compelling evidence that part-time employment has increased as a result of ACA.” Those notions are further supported by economic data on full- and part-time employment trends over the last several years. Simply put, the report finds that Obamacare will reduce the number of people who are forced to work a job merely for the sake of health insurance.

    Elmendorf also noted that the ACA is actually expected to boost the economy in the near-term by making health insurance and medical care affordable for the poorest Americans, giving them the freedom to spend money in other areas of the economy. “On balance, CBO estimates that the ACA will boost overall demand for goods and services over the next few years,” states the report.

    That last is nothing but bovine feces. If the ACA ” will boost overall demand for goods and services over the next few years,” then there cannot be a net drop “in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply,” because if the demand for labor were increased, businesses would have to hire more workers if existing workers refused to work more hours.

    An economic argument could be made that such a drop could occur through increased productivity — something which also costs jobs, as workers are replaced with capital — but if the ACA increases the demand for health care, you are talking about a field which is fairly labor intensive.

  15. “Moralist
    Friday, 7 February 2014 at 12:22

    It has been demonstrated by the Editor of this site that honest debate is not permitted, instead deleted.”

    If a lefty with an interest in honest debate showed up, I am sure that the editor would welcome him. Hell, the editor even likes to debate “policy” in preference to principles; an approach which is straight up the typical lefty’s rhetorical alleyway (though I personally think is pointless when the ends and aims of policy are not even agreed upon) .

    So the editor is pretty tolerant there.

    However, given the set of beliefs which virtually define the kind of persons who self-label as political “progressive” – i.e., their embrace of values relativism, of extreme subjectivity, and of rhetorical subversion rather than a self-consistent justification of their interpretive principles – it is unlikely that such a prospect will ever be realized by the editor.

    “In the meantime, flagellation of critics is permitted, even encouraged, thus, what positive outcome can one expect from this heavily biased right-wing blog? Answer: An exercise in meaningless futility!”

    No, not in futility. Actually the answer is that by continually honing our critiques of the freedom killing positions advanced but never really coherently or honestly defended by the organisms of the left, we more firmly ground and enable the moral resistance of those like-minded to us, to the coercive appropriation activities of collectivist miscreants.

    Increased intellectual clarity with regard as to where one stands in moral and existential relation to the organisms of the left and their destructive agenda, can be nothing but a plus.

  16. Hoagie
    Friday, 7 February 2014 at 15:37

    If you disagree, please give an example of an absolute moral principle.

    Murder is wrong.”

    Recall that Perry got into trouble once before when it came to his hedging on the unequivocal condemnation of sexual exploitation of children, and began instead yammering about other cultures.

    Sometimes, the passage of time obscures these points. Dana was right to eject the old swine. There is nothing to be gained from engaging a superannuated values nihilist on the topic of right and wrong other than to occasionally remind ourselves that there is nothing to be gained.

  17. There is nothing to be gained from engaging a superannuated values nihilist on the topic of right and wrong other than to occasionally remind ourselves that there is nothing to be gained.

    You called it DNW. At this point anyone still schilling for Obamacare is either woefully ignorant, completely brainwashed with leftist propaganda or a total communist stooge. In this case I vote for all three especially if said shill has not signed up for Obamacare himself, proving his own hypocrisy.

  18. Perry, it is purely your own damned fault that you have been banned (twice, with multiple warnings and several suspensions), so quit whining about a situation that you, yourself, caused.

  19. The only people who reject moral absolutes are those who intend to either commit or excuse evil.

    Or, as the old country song says:

    The bad guys always claim,
    Both sides are the same.

  20. Oh, Perry, you will be pleased to know that, thanks to Obamacare, my health insurance policy was CANCELLED. A policy I had had for over ten years, had been fairly pleased with, that I always paid on time, etc.

    Of course, that big, fat LIAR Obama promised that would never happen. And Republicans should trust (let alone cooperate with) this mendacious fool … ??

  21. DNW wrote, in response to a now deleted comment from the Situational Moralist:

    If a lefty with an interest in honest debate showed up, I am sure that the editor would welcome him. Hell, the editor even likes to debate “policy” in preference to principles; an approach which is straight up the typical lefty’s rhetorical alleyway (though I personally think is pointless when the ends and aims of policy are not even agreed upon) .

    I would point out here the (far too limited) participation of Mr Finkelman. Mr Finkelman has made no threats to disclose personal information concerning any other commenters here, nor to contact their employers to try to get them in trouble.

    In addition, my increased participation on the Delaware Liberal has been an attempt to draw liberal commenters here, though it hasn’t worked out that way. It’s also true that that is fishing in very shallow water.

  22. It’s also true that that is fishing in very shallow water.

    More like swimming in a sewer full of dead animals, turds, used rubbers, urine, vomit, cigarette butts, etc.

  23. The exchange to which DNW referred begins here:

    WW wrote:

    I am of the opinion that no document, not even the Bible and like tomes, not even the Constitution and like basics, could either cover or predict the evolution of culture over time, where said evolution involves, by its nature, an evolution in values as well. In other words, there are absolutely no absolutes, except for this one exception, which is to acknowledge reality for what it appears to be and actually is, in the eyes of us beholders.

    So, if I want to have sex with a woman, and she says no, that doesn’t absolutely mean no, right? And if I rape her, and am put on trial for it, it will be a legitimate defense for me to say that “reality” appeared to me that she really wanted it?

    I’m certain, of course, that I can find absolutes with which you will agree. Would I be wrong if I said that you believe there should be absolutely no restrictions on a woman’s right to have an abortion in the first trimester? If it is illegal to have forcible sex with an eight-year-old, is that not an absolute law, and would you not agree that it should be read absolutely?

    To which Wagonwheel responded:

    Mr Editor, I believe I fully understand how a Roman Catholic like yourself, and like the five “dumb” Roman Catholic majority on the SCOTUS, think in terms of absolutes: Let me be brutal: You have been programmed to think this way from the earliest days of your youths, and you folks have yet to break out of your yokes.

    Let me repeat what I have opined before on your two blogs:

    Our First Amendment is not absolute, or we would not penalize someone whose free speech consists of yelling fire in a crowded church.

    Our Second Amendment is not absolute, otherwise we would have no firearms registration laws and restrictions.

    Our Fourteenth Amendment is not absolute, otherwise we would not have a woman’s right to choose, as in Roe, or we would not have a Grutter ruling, or we would not have had two centuries of legal discrimination against black Americans.

    So please stop insisting on absolutist interpretations of these stated Amendments, which you repeat at least once a week, about as often as you proclaim that our current President is a failure. It’s getting quite tiresome. (Besides, koolo might come on here again and accuse me of repeating myself. Of course, self-inspection on his part would result in his being guilty of that which he critisizes.)

    How hard it is for us all to be critical of ourselves when someone points out certain truths about oneself?

    You can continue on through that thread, and in no comment – and there were 169 of them on that thread — will you see Wagonwheel agree that rape and child molestation are always wrong, absolutely wrong.

  24. Perry’s a liar. He believes in plenty of absolutes. He absolutely believes in higher taxes, believes abortion should be legal, that Citizens United should be overturned, that Republicans are solely to blame for Obama’s problems, and on and on.

  25. Hube, Perry is the sum total of five decades of leftist propaganda. His inability to separate economic doctrine from Common Sense, his constant projection of his “feelings” and beliefs on others with whom he disagrees and his need to frame anyone with whom he disagrees as evil, racist, homophobic, deniers or any other name he can hang on them. If you don’t like Obama’s marxist policies it’s because your racist. If you disagree with gay marriage it’s because you’re a homophobe. If you don’t believe in man made glowball warming, it’s because you’re an ignorant flat-earther and denier. If you want to utilize our natural resources of oil and gas through drilling and fracking it’s because you want to pollute the earth and poison the children.

    Even when his own beloved, messiah president lies to him and us, repeatedly, he just can’t admit his leftist philosophy is old, dated and a proven failure. There is nothing “progressive” about returning to the policies of Soviet Russia. Yet somehow Perry thinks himself a “moralist”. I’d laugh if it weren’t so sad and so dangerous that people like him are actually running the show.

  26. You can continue on through that thread, and in no comment – and there were 169 of them on that thread — will you see Wagonwheel agree that rape and child molestation are always wrong, absolutely wrong.

    Rape and child molestation are both morally wrong!

    [Comment from previously banned commenter retained, solely because he has made the absolute statement he declined to make previously, and it would be improper to delete the record of that. -- Editor]

  27. Perry has earned every bit of the contempt expressed here – ten times over, and he alone is responsible for his reprehensible conduct, he knows it and he also knows there’s no excuse for it, none at all. Yet, he persists in worming his way around the filters even after he’s more than disqualified himself from participation in responsible debate.

    Perry’s absurd rationalizations demonstrate the diseased mind of a self-absorbed egomaniac at work. He claimed, in a now deleted comment, that his trespass was in response to the Editor’s call for a responsible voice from the American political left and felt it was his duty to respond. That he would try to pass off such transparently childish nonsense shows utter contempt for the intelligence of others. Perry’s not qualified to answer the call, and his duty is to respect the Editor’s ban and quit making a nuisance of himself.

  28. his trespass was in response to the Editor’s call for a responsible voice from the American political left and felt it was his duty to respond.

    Wonder what we’d get if the Editor called for an irresponsible voice? :-D

  29. I haven’t heard a “responsible voice from the political left” since Bush was elected. Hell, Bush was a damn leftist and they hated him. I still can’t understand why since Bush was a lot closer to Perry’s philosophy then any commentator on this blog.

  30. I noticed the Russians managed to work in a giant hammer and sickle into the opening ceremonies. Must have brought a tear to comrade Perry’s eye. Not to worry comrade, as long as Obama has his “pen and phone” there’s always the possibility of a hammer and sickle in our future. The hammer’s already here beating down the opposition and “fundamentally changing” American into a one party system. All you need is the sickle to cut down the productive among us and you win. I know, I know. There is no “room” in America with those of us who disagree with comrades Cuomo, DeBlasio, Obama and Perry. Just no room!

  31. Pingback: Former Russian Figure Skater’s Racist Obama Tweet and Weekend Links

Comments are closed.