| ThoughtsOnline |
|
Rambling thoughts on who knows what... Because not everything is as the conventional wisdom would have it... BLOGS I SORT OF LIKE... Volokh Conspiracy ProfessorBainbridge MarginalRevolution Patterico Powerline Ace Wizbang JustOneMinute XRLQ Betsy's Page HE WHO USED TO LINK ME EVERY NOW AND THEN InstaPundit Email Steve
|
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Whoa, people, slow down, this isn't the thugocracy taking aim or the empire striking back at companies who dare to disclose the incredible expenses Obamacare imposes on them...
No, if you bother to read the letters sent out by Waxman and Stupak, it reveals that our elected officials are genuinely concerned that they may have missed something. They believe (if you take them at their word) that Obamacare was supposed to SAVE billions of dollars, so they obviously were taken by surprise when company after company after company announced that they were taking hits to their income statement and balance sheet. And like good elected officials, when they see a constituent in trouble, they rush to the rescue. I have no doubt that once the CEOs of these companies testify in front of Congress about the devastation that Obamacare is wreaking on their financial position, showing Congress just how badly Congress missed the boat with its estimation of the impact of Obamacare, Congress will waste no time repealing Obamacare. Thursday, March 25, 2010
In an article on the unsurprising tendency of people receiving mortgage modifications defaulting again, the reporter says: "...homeowners are struggling to make payments as depressed housing prices leave them owing more than their properties are worth".
No, if they're struggling to make the payments, it is because they took on more mortgage than they could handle, in many cases because they lied on their mortgage application. Depressed housing prices make them less willing to make the payments. And of course, notwithstanding the fact that over half of those receiving a loan modification default again within six months, the Obama Administration is pushing lenders to expand the program. Nothing like learning from failure, right? Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Does Obama not realize that Democratic Congressmen who vote 'no' on Obamacare are doing so not just because their constituents are opposed to Obamacare but also because their constituents are not likely big fans of Obama himself?
Given that, isn't Obama's threat to not support Democrats who vote 'no' likely to be met more with sighs of relief and disappointment? Friday, March 12, 2010
Unlike fellow conservatives, I'm not that worried about the Dems using the 'Slaughter' rule, a process that supposedly lets them enact Obamacare while preserving some sort of ability to deny responsibility for having done so.
The reason I'm not worried? The public isn't going to fall for it and the Republicans aren't going to not charge the Democrats with having voted to enact Obamacare. No matter how a particular Democrat tries to spin it, they will be charged with having provided the necessary votes to enact a much-hated piece of legislation. Wednesday, March 10, 2010
I can answer Rachel Corrie's parents' questions.
She was stupid for standing in front of a bulldozer. What kind of person doesn't know to stand to the SIDE of a moving vehicle, especially a vehicle that doesn't provide its driver with a great field of vision? She was stupid for getting into the middle of the Israel-Palestinian battle. What kind of person doesn't know that absolutely nothing good would come of such misguided actions? And you are stupid for not teaching her to not stand in front of a bulldozer. And you are stupid for not teaching to not get into the middle of such things as the Israel-Palestinian battle. Most often, bad things happen to people who do stupid things. Maybe not the first time they do something stupid, maybe not the second or third time, but eventually the laws of nature catch up with people who do stupid things. And when that happens, the stupid person often loses their life. Rachel Corrie was stupid, it cost her her life. Monday, March 08, 2010
In criticizing insurance companies who place profits ahead of people, Obama provides a perfect example of why I so dislike liberals: the constant demand that other people bear the cost of doing something so liberals can feel good about themselves.
Companies are supposed to focus their efforts on making profits, doing anything else takes money out of the pocket of the company's shareholders and without their permission. If a company's shareholders want to take money out of their pocket for whatever reason, then they can decide to do so either collectively or individually. But it is NOT for a liberal to dictate that they do so no matter how much the liberal thinks it a good idea (nor is it right when management does things that make themselves feel good at the expense of shareholders). And there are plenty of other examples. Limiting what homeowners can do to their property in the name of 'preservation'. Forcing banks to lend money to uncreditworthy borrowers. Forcing everyone to pay higher prices for milk and sugar and other commodities in order to subsidize farmers. Forcing everyone to pay more for energy so they can feel environmentally pure.
If the NFL wins and is able to finally suspend the players found to have used banned drugs, the Saints and the Vikings should be forced to forfeit their wins for 2009 - including the Super Bowl!
State law or not, the Vikings ownership agreed to abide by NFL rules and policies - one of which is that players get suspended for using drugs. They could have kept those players off the field but they chose to take advantage of the injunction. And the same for the Saints, who took advantage of the Vikings situation and used players who should have been sitting on the sidelines. It may have been legal but it wasn't right. But heck, all's fair when it comes to winning and losing, right? If it helps my team, it's okay. Thursday, March 04, 2010
There's an expression that goes something along the lines of "a castle built on sand, no matter how strongly built, is still built on sand"... and some of the arguments and theories being offered up in the health care debate are in fact built on sand.
For example, there's a consensus that a big part of the problem is that employers provide health insurance to employees, that this supposed separation of consumer and payer leads to more health care being used and with it, higher prices. According to this theory, forcing people to 'have skin in the game' will lead to less health care being used, lower prices and peace on earth. But there are a number of problems with this theory: (1) Employees do pay for health insurance in the form of lower wages. (2) Employees also pay for health care in the form of deductibles, co-pays, shared premiums and so on. (3) Even if employees had to pay health insurance themselves, there is a disconnect between the monthly bill from the insurance company and the usage of the health care paid for by that insurance. And the big problem is societal: people will be very unhappy if they end up with less medical care than they wish. They want to be the decision maker on what is and what isn't appropriate. They don't like doctors telling them that doing X or Y isn't necessary. They don't like insurance companies telling them that X or Y isn't covered and they're not going to be any less unhappy if they can't get X or Y treatment because they don't have the money to pay for it. And unhappy voters lead to politicians doing things that are politically wise but fiscally stupid, such as passing laws to provide coverage for care that cost more than one's ability (or willingness) to pay. Tuesday, March 02, 2010
There's a debate over the correct 'multiplier' to assign to government spending, with proponents of government spending arguing that a dollar of government spending 'produces' more than a dollar of economic activity and opponents arguing the opposite.
But for the most part, both sides make the mistake of viewing government spending is government spending is government spending... it isn't. There is government spending that produces a positive response (with positive defined as net economic growth) and there is government spending that doesn't produce a positive response. The distinction? Government spending that stimulates optimism produces growth while spending that either fails to stimulate optimism or reinforces pessimism results in no positive impact. So in analyzing any particular government stimulus effort (or, for that matter, any action of government), you have to look at both the sum and the pieces of that program to ascertain the public's reaction in order to predict the economic results. For example, with 'Cash for Clunkers', the public understood it was not only a short-lived program but it would also just accelerate the sale of cars from the period in which they would otherwise be sold... so the public was unimpressed and the program did nothing to lift spirits and thus did nothing to boost long term economic measurements. On the other side, with Larry Summers boo-hooing the negative impact of the big snowfalls last month, the public knows snowstorms are one time events and really aren't indicative of long term shifts so I don't anticipate a huge drop in consumer confidence when the snow-affected statistics are released. The problem with Obama's trillion dollar stimulus plan is that it didn't generate positive excitement. The public didn't view it as a wise expenditure, they didn't think they personally were going to benefit and given the huge budget deficit, they figured spending that much money was going to haunt them in the not-too-distant future... thus, and appropriately so, the public confidence wasn't boosted and Obama got precisely squat for all that money. It is not the amount of money that is spent, nor is it the specifics of what the money is being spent on, it is whether the public thinks spending that money is good. If they think that, they'll be happier and growth will occur. If they don't, they won't be happier and there won't be any growth.
|