Obamanation Re-election MegaThread

[EvilMonkey]

I continue to think that the GOP proposal of me paying for my healthcare with a couple of chickens seems impractical...

Nice tangent, although in some rural areas people DO pay for medical services that way. Bartering existed before states were even a concept.

[StrangeSox]

Considering they don't really advertise the President is going to be somewhere like they used to do, I would tend to agree.

still...ewwww...

[StrangeSox]

Nice tangent, although in some rural areas people DO pay for medical services that way. Bartering existed before states were even a concept.

 

That is not how people interacted historically. You lived in small communities and things were not handled with one-for-one spot trades of "I need 1 cow, here's 20 chickens."

 

Think of how you interact with your friends and neighbors. Do you demand immediate recompense if you lend them a hand? Do you say "sure, I can hold that ladder for you, but it'll cost you 3 eggs and a cup of flour!" That's not to say that barter never happens, but it never formed the basis for a market economy.

 

to quote from my link I posted earlier:

 

3) I never argued that the moneyless spot trade (barter) did not exist in human history, only that

a) both the historical and anthropological record confirm it occurred almost exclusively between strangers, or those with whom one has no moral relationship

b) it does occasionally occur on a more widespread level in places where some relatively generalized form of money has existed, but where that money disappears or becomes unavailable.

Edited August 14, 2012 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

They're already running on an "Obama cut Medicare!" campaign. A candidacy with Paul Ryan on the ticket is running against Medicare cuts.

 

 

It's not true, but Mitt is already simultaneously embracing and running. from Ryan's Medicare plan, which includes an identical part to Obamacare.

[EvilMonkey]

That is not how people interacted historically. You lived in small communities and things were not handled with one-for-one spot trades of "I need 1 cow, here's 20 chickens."

 

Think of how you interact with your friends and neighbors. Do you demand immediate recompense if you lend them a hand? Do you say "sure, I can hold that ladder for you, but it'll cost you 3 eggs and a cup of flour!" That's not to say that barter never happens, but it never formed the basis for a market economy.

 

to quote from my link I posted earlier:

You claimed markets do not exist without states. And that the first markets sprang up from taxation. You didn't quantify it, just stated it as fact. Whereas bartering has existed without the state for quite a long time. Your snide insistence that bartering was an immediate quid pro quo is just more you trying to be snippy. If you needed new shoes for your horse and you were a farmer, you got them from the blacksmith in return for some of your crops when they came up. And you example of holding a ladder is just f-ing stupid. Do you refuse to hold a ladder for a neighbor unless he pays you? If so then you are truly a tool. When I interact with friends and neighbors, I don't demand payment to be a nice person.

 

You then implied that they only form from failed economies or in prisons. Tex works on the border down there, I bet there is a lot of bartering going on down there. And unless your definition of a failed economy is poor people, you are wrong. And there are people in businesses that barter all the time. There are whole associations set up for it. I had many people wanting me to do that when I had my own business, but the franchisor really didn't like that since they couldn't get their slice from it. I don't think Bloomingdale, IL was a failed or restricted economy.

[StrangeSox]

You claimed markets do not exist without states. And that the first markets sprang up from taxation. You didn't quantify it, just stated it as fact. Whereas bartering has existed without the state for quite a long time. Your snide insistence that bartering was an immediate quid pro quo is just more you trying to be snippy. If you needed new shoes for your horse and you were a farmer, you got them from the blacksmith in return for some of your crops when they came up. And you example of holding a ladder is just f-ing stupid. Do you refuse to hold a ladder for a neighbor unless he pays you? If so then you are truly a tool. When I interact with friends and neighbors, I don't demand payment to be a nice person.

 

There was not a "market" to trade goods and services like this in pre-state societies. My ladder example and your response is an excellent example of this because almost all interactions were between friends and neighbors until relatively recently. Daily interactions were based around moral relations exactly like being "a nice person" and you wouldn't want to be seen in the community as the asshole who never helps out--when your time comes to need help, you'll find less helpful hands. There wasn't something like a big bazaar with people trading chickens for goats in stateless societies. This is backed up by the historical and anthropological record; did you read the link I posted that detailed quite a bit of this?

 

The records support the contention that the first actual markets sprang from taxation. That doesn't mean that there weren't personal trading relationships in local communities, but they weren't in any sense a market.

 

You then implied that they only form from failed economies or in prisons. Tex works on the border down there, I bet there is a lot of bartering going on down there. And unless your definition of a failed economy is poor people, you are wrong. And there are people in businesses that barter all the time. There are whole associations set up for it. I had many people wanting me to do that when I had my own business, but the franchisor really didn't like that since they couldn't get their slice from it. I don't think Bloomingdale, IL was a failed or restricted economy.

 

That was a mis-statement on my part. What I said later and more accurately is that this sort of barter economy only forms in places with people who are already aware of and understand the concept of money and are numerate. After all, how can you barter if you cannot count and establish equivalent values?

[StrangeSox]

This is where i am drawing my claims from.

 

http://p2pfoundation.net/First_Five_Thousa...ther_way_around

 

Don't start by saying I've never heard of barter and then complain that I'm the one being snide.

[StrangeSox]

David Stockman, Reagan budget czar:

 

Paul Ryan’s Fairy-Tale Budget Plan

 

A true agenda to reform the welfare state would require a sweeping, income-based eligibility test, which would reduce or eliminate social insurance benefits for millions of affluent retirees. Without it, there is no math that can avoid giant tax increases or vast new borrowing. Yet the supposedly courageous Ryan plan would not cut one dime over the next decade from the $1.3 trillion-per-year cost of Social Security and Medicare.

 

Instead, it shreds the measly means-tested safety net for the vulnerable: the roughly $100 billion per year for food stamps and cash assistance for needy families and the $300 billion budget for Medicaid, the health insurance program for the poor and disabled. Shifting more Medicaid costs to the states will be mere make-believe if federal financing is drastically cut.

 

Likewise, hacking away at the roughly $400 billion domestic discretionary budget (what’s left of the federal budget after defense, Social Security, health and safety-net spending and interest on the national debt) will yield only a rounding error’s worth of savings after popular programs (which Republicans heartily favor) like cancer research, national parks, veterans’ benefits, farm aid, highway subsidies, education grants and small-business loans are accommodated.

 

Like his new boss, Mr. Ryan has no serious plan to create jobs. America has some of the highest labor costs in the world, and saddles workers and businesses with $1 trillion per year in job-destroying payroll taxes. We need a national sales tax — a consumption tax, like the dreaded but efficient value-added tax — but Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan don’t have the gumption to support it.

 

Ryan and his "plan" are a complete joke and so is anyone who takes is seriously.

[Balta1701]

The problem with what you just did is that you excerpted the few paragraphs of his op-ed you liked and then left off the bits that endorse other pretty obnoxious policies that pretty well should discredit the messenger. Favoring a higher interest rate after a collapse, complaining about the successful auto bailout, etc.

 

Oh, and "Means testing" Medicare and Social Security is something a person with no grasp of what Social Security and Medicare actually do would say. Especially since they cover so many retirees with limited incomes other than Social Security, if you want to extract real savings through means-testing, you have to start excluding people with yearly incomes that are incredibly "normal". If you means test out people still making >6 figures, the savings you extract are a rounding error.

[StrangeSox]

I liked the parts that mocked Ryan's plan for what it is: an incoherent joke. That doesn't mean I have to agree with every alternative policy he proposes.

 

edit: I excerpted part with the means-testing, not sure why you say I only picked the parts I liked? Also plenty of left-leaning economists have been exasperated by Bernanke focusing solely on one part of his dual mandate and not giving a s*** about unemployment so long as he can suppress interest rates. I also didn't excerpt other parts I did like, like this part about the banks:

 

The greatest regulatory problem — far more urgent that the environmental marginalia Mitt Romney has fumed about — is that the giant Wall Street banks remain dangerous quasi-wards of the state and are inexorably prone to speculative abuse of taxpayer-insured deposits and the Fed’s cheap money. Forget about “too big to fail.” These banks are too big to exist — too big to manage internally and to regulate externally. They need to be broken up by regulatory decree. Instead, the Romney-Ryan ticket attacks the pointless Dodd-Frank regulatory overhaul, when what’s needed is a restoration of Glass-Steagall, the Depression-era legislation that separated commercial and investment banking.

Edited August 15, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Y2HH]

I liked the parts that mocked Ryan's plan for what it is: an incoherent joke. That doesn't mean I have to agree with every alternative policy he proposes.

 

edit: I excerpted part with the means-testing, not sure why you say I only picked the parts I liked? Also plenty of left-leaning economists have been exasperated by Bernanke focusing solely on one part of his dual mandate and not giving a s*** about unemployment so long as he can suppress interest rates. I also didn't excerpt other parts I did like, like this part about the banks:

 

Like most things political, I'm sure his plan has some good points. Taken as a whole, however, it would obviously be terrible...just like every bill/budget/submission by modern congress. The talking points sections of these bills are usually phenomenal, but the other stuff that nobody can understand until it's fought in court years later are the parts to worry about. History is replete with examples of bills passed into law that reform X, and for some reason, Z is granted a ton of "free" money for no reason, when Z had nothing to do with the purpose of the bill in the first place.

[StrangeSox]

No, don't play that "they all do it" s***. Ryan's been treated as a Very Serious policy wonk with a real plan to reduce the deficit. He's not and he doesn't have one.

 

The criticisms of his plan aren't about unintended or hidden consequences. They're either about the intended consequences and why they're terrible policy or about how the thing just doesn't make any damn sense at all and is filled with magic numbers and unspecified trillions in cuts to make it quasi-workable.

[Balta1701]

I liked the parts that mocked Ryan's plan for what it is: an incoherent joke. That doesn't mean I have to agree with every alternative policy he proposes.

 

edit: I excerpted part with the means-testing, not sure why you say I only picked the parts I liked? Also plenty of left-leaning economists have been exasperated by Bernanke focusing solely on one part of his dual mandate and not giving a s*** about unemployment so long as he can suppress interest rates. I also didn't excerpt other parts I did like, like this part about the banks:

This is not what the guy you're excerpting said. He thinks that the Fed has focused way too much on fighting unemployment and needs to accept higher unemployment rates than this, to give the important higher interest rates.

 

One can certainly argue that the Fed should be doing more...but complaining about interest rates being too low is not arguing that the Fed is doing to little about unemployment...it's arguing the Fed has done too much.

[StrangeSox]

Ok, but being wrong about that policy doesn't discredit everything else someone could possibly say.

Edited August 15, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

Ok, assuming you're correct, being wrong about that policy doesn't discredit everything else someone could possibly say.

Obviously not...but then throw in saying that the auto bailout is bad, random shot at environmentalists, and the foolish legit belief that means-testing Social Security and Medicare could make a big difference in the government's finances...and I've got plenty of reasons to not care what he thinks about the Ryan budget.

[Y2HH]

No, don't play that "they all do it" s***. Ryan's been treated as a Very Serious policy wonk with a real plan to reduce the deficit. He's not and he doesn't have one.

 

The criticisms of his plan aren't about unintended or hidden consequences. They're either about the intended consequences and why they're terrible policy or about how the thing just doesn't make any damn sense at all and is filled with magic numbers and unspecified trillions in cuts to make it quasi-workable.

 

They all do, so it's not a "play". For a guy that's been treated as a "very serious" policy wonk, you aren't taking him very seriously...meaning a lot of others aren't either. So you just contradicted your own attempt to refute what I said.

 

Anyway...

 

Back to reality...they DO all do that, so let's have you stop pretending they don't. We get it, you dislike Ryan. The issue is, you're going out of your way to be unfair in all of your criticism about him...and what's worse, you won't even admit it.

 

So, what your telling us all is every idea Ryan proposes in his plans are ALL bad. Every one of them.

 

When you say things like that, don't expect people to listen further.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

They all do, so it's not a "play". For a guy that's been treated as a "very serious" policy wonk, you aren't taking him very seriously...meaning a lot of others aren't either. So you just contradicted your own attempt to refute what I said.

 

Anyway...

 

Back to reality...they DO all do that, so let's have you stop pretending they don't. We get it, you dislike Ryan. The issue is, you're going out of your way to be unfair in all of your criticism about him...and what's worse, you won't even admit it.

 

So, what your telling us all is every idea Ryan proposes in his plans are ALL bad. Every one of them.

 

When you say things like that, don't expect people to listen further.

 

I enjoy the fact too that this was a proposed budget that would obviously be ripped apart and tweaked through the legislative process, but now both Ryan and Romney are 100% locked-in on that plan no matter what. It's become an all or nothing proposition.

 

 

[Balta1701]

I enjoy the fact too that this was a proposed budget that would obviously be ripped apart and tweaked through the legislative process, but now both Ryan and Romney are 100% locked-in on that plan no matter what. It's become an all or nothing proposition.

If Governor Romney's campaign would like to put out listings of policies with anything approaching the level of detail of a normal campaign, we'd be happy to critique that instead.

[StrangeSox]

They all do, so it's not a "play". For a guy that's been treated as a "very serious" policy wonk, you aren't taking him very seriously...meaning a lot of others aren't either. So you just contradicted your own attempt to refute what I said.

 

That doesn't make any sense. My complaint that he's been treated as Very Serious by Very Serious People (in the media) isn't diminished because I realize he's a joke.

 

Anyway...

 

Back to reality...they DO all do that, so let's have you stop pretending they don't. We get it, you dislike Ryan. The issue is, you're going out of your way to be unfair in all of your criticism about him...and what's worse, you won't even admit it.

 

So, what your telling us all is every idea Ryan proposes in his plans are ALL bad. Every one of them.

 

When you say things like that, don't expect people to listen further.

 

I'm telling you that his plan is a joke and doesn't deserve serious consideration. That Ryan does not deserve his reputation as a "deficit hawk" or someone who is some big intellectual budget wonk truly concerned about balancing the budget.

 

You're making some silly, broad excuses instead of addressing the direct concerns about the budget plans put forward by the new VP candidate. I'm not being unfair in my characterizations of Ryan and his plan. Polite about it? No, but fair.

[StrangeSox]

I enjoy the fact too that this was a proposed budget that would obviously be ripped apart and tweaked through the legislative process, but now both Ryan and Romney are 100% locked-in on that plan no matter what. It's become an all or nothing proposition.

 

I'm fulling willing to discuss the Romney proposal if he actually puts something forward. While Ryan's plan contains a bunch of vague bulls*** as well, it at least had more detail than Romney's policy to make bad things stop happening and instead good things will happen. He's got a bunch of bullet points on his website, but that's it.

[CanOfCorn]

This morning on the Today Show, Reince Priebus called out Joe Biden for negative campaigning by saying the Romney-Ryan ticket will unchain Wall Street while putting the middle class back "in chains." Mr. Priebus then continued saying he would like to discuss only the issues and staying away from negative campaigning. This coming off of Mr. Priebus saying President Obama had "blood on his hands" regarding Medicare cuts.

 

Uuuummmm...I'm as sick as everyone else of negative campaigning, but until guys like Mr. Biden and Mr. Priebus stop, it ain't gonna happen. This situation reminds me of an old Henny Youngman joke (yes, I'm old):

 

Patient: Doctor, it hurts when I do this.

Doctor: Don't do that.

[Balta1701]

This morning on the Today Show, Reince Priebus called out Joe Biden for negative campaigning by saying the Romney-Ryan ticket will unchain Wall Street while putting the middle class back "in chains." Mr. Priebus then continued saying he would like to discuss only the issues and staying away from negative campaigning. This coming off of Mr. Priebus saying President Obama had "blood on his hands" regarding Medicare cuts.

 

Uuuummmm...I'm as sick as everyone else of negative campaigning, but until guys like Mr. Biden and Mr. Priebus stop, it ain't gonna happen. This situation reminds me of an old Henny Youngman joke (yes, I'm old):

 

Patient: Doctor, it hurts when I do this.

Doctor: Don't do that.

If it didn't work so well, no one would do it. It works great.

[StrangeSox]

It's never going to stop.

 

I'd like to distinguish between negative campaigning and dishonest, dumb campaigning, though. There's nothing wrong with describing negative impacts of your opponents' policies or past votes etc., but that's different from "put you in chains" or "blood on your hands."

[southsider2k5]

It's never going to stop.

 

I'd like to distinguish between negative campaigning and dishonest, dumb campaigning, though. There's nothing wrong with describing negative impacts of your opponents' policies or past votes etc., but that's different from "put you in chains" or "blood on your hands."

 

Then again, we have to make the assumption that Biden doesn't actually believe what he is saying... Which is a whole different story.

[CanOfCorn]

It's never going to stop.

 

I'd like to distinguish between negative campaigning and dishonest, dumb campaigning, though. There's nothing wrong with describing negative impacts of your opponents' policies or past votes etc., but that's different from "put you in chains" or "blood on your hands."

 

A thoughtful respectful approach with an actual answer to WHY it didn't work isn't negative campaigning, it's what you said. Describing negative impacts.