Claims Of Obama Spending Binge False

If you want health care prices to be affordable then the last thing you should want is government involvement. You also do not want insurance involvement for anything other than major expenses. Free market forces will force pharmaceutical companies to price so that their products are affordable to the masses.

Liberals have a hard time rebutting the truth without lying. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

There hasn't been any truth we've needed to rebut.

The mere fact that you're going on and on about this... Originally Posted by Doove

I'm the one going on and on about this? Puh-lease! You've devoted so many posts over the last few months to calling me a narcissist that counting them all would be a difficult task. If you keep harassing me, don't be surprised if I respond by making fun of your ignorance. The only reason I suggested that you start a thread on the issue was to ridicule your obsession. Good grief, do you never get embarrassed?

Or maybe there comes a point where you just bore me with your incessant whining about me. Originally Posted by Doove

You're the one who's done all the incessant whining. Everyone who reads this forum knows that. How about dropping all the narcissism crap and making an effort to learn something about this issue? It might be good for you.

At least Doove is keeping it real in between the straw man arguments... Originally Posted by Little Stevie

LMAO!

Doove is keeping what real? All he ever does is annoy and insult, since he obviously doesn't understand the topic.

And speaking of not understanding the topic, Little Stevie, do you think no one noticed all your schoolgirl-style giggling (in post numbers 28 and 34) when you agreed with Doove's claim that he "debunked" my debunking with a non sequitur posted two posts before it?

Stevie, instead of hijacking the thread with a bunch of prattling about an unrelated topic, why don't you try to rebut the points I made in the above-referenced post #14 from that other thread?

That's not a "straw man" argument, Stevie, it's the simple truth. But I think we all know that if you felt you could effectively rebut it, you would have done so. Dodging, weaving, and deflecting isn't going to work any better for you than it has for Doove.

When I read some of the stuff you clowns post, I wonder how in the hell you figured out how to make a good enough living to be able to afford the P4P world!

Your posts in this thread, directed at me, or simply about me.

Really?

I'm not impressed by confused non sequiturs served up by those who have demonstrated no understanding of the subject under discussion, and I doubt that anyone else is either.

If you truly believe that you "debunked my debunking", then why didn't you respond to post #14 in that thread? Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Doove, you completely failed to debunk anything.

You're the one who posted non sequiturs, but they hardly even rise to the level of being classifiable as "tangential."

Since you couldn't respond in a cogent way to post #14, you didn't even try. When your ignorance is exposed, all you usually do is resort to hurling little barbs. Typical.



Little Stevie, is there some point you were trying to make? If so, I suggest that you try expressing yourself in an adult manner, if that's possible. If you disagree with anything I posted, how about telling us why?

Perhaps you could make an attempt to post something showing that you actually have some understanding of this issue. (Of course, I doubt that you will do anything of the sort.) Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

How about a reality check?

Everyone who read that other thread realizes that Doove debunked nothing. The post to which he referred (#12) was simply an incoherent non sequitur. The meat of the matter was contained in post #14, to which he did not respond, choosing instead to characterize it as being filled with "mumbo jumbo" and "fancy phrases." Nothing I wrote involved any phrases or nomenclature that you wouldn't see in widely circulated publications such as Business Week and Fortune, which are obviously not written for sophisticated professional investors and fund managers. If Doove couldn't understand it, then it's no wonder that he's confused by this topic. If he wants to respond, perhaps he can get someone to dumb it down to a 4th-grade level so that he can at least get the gist of it.

Perhaps Doove assumes that calling people "narcissists" will deflect attention from the obvious fact that he posted something he doesn't understand and can't figure out how to defend. Posting a non-answer and then declaring victory might work on ignorant simpletons, but a lot of people here are capable of critical thinking.

I'm not sure what Little Stevie's problem is, but I imagine that joining Doove's "hallelujah chorus" by giggling like a schoolgirl with all that Marshall-style "ha ha ha ha" stuff really made a wonderful impression on everyone! He can hardly go a half-dozen posts without calling those with whom he disagrees "dumb shits" or "morons", often using thread-polluting, brightly colored, and ridiculously oversized fonts. That sort of behavior is a hallmark of someone suffering from insecurity or other personality disorders. Stevie's insults are usually accompanied by a rebuttal (or supposed rebuttal) to someone else's claim, but in this thread he didn't even attempt that, probably because he realizes that my statements are fully correct. If he could have countered them in a cogent, reasoned manner, does anyone doubt that he would have done so?

Stevie is simply an internet bully who enjoys picking on people he considers intellectually inferior. He's sort of like a shoolyard bully who delights in beating up weaker classmates, but doesn't know what to do when he encounters a much bigger, stronger kid. Typically, he hopes he can quietly sneak away while nobody notices his cowardice.

Little Stevie is also a plagiarist.

Check out this thread from last year:

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=246692

That's really quite embarrassing, don't you think?

I think everyone can see why I regard these two clowns with open contempt. All they know how to do is annoy and insult people.

But if anyone wants to have a reasoned discussion of this issue without all the deflections, I'm game! Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

If you had done that, your post count would probably be about 30! Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Here is the text of the previously referenced post #14 from the other thread on this same issue:

Consider the extent to which the FY2009 base was increased by measures initially intended to get us through the 2008 crisis. TARP, for instance, was passed in late 2008 (during FY2009) and was intended to be (and should have been) a burst of one-time spending. (I don't remember exactly, but think something like $300-350 billion from TARP was spent during that fiscal year.) The author notes that Obama should be responsible for about $140 of stimulus spending and a few other things, but doesn't mention that in normal times, a budget is put together before the start of a fiscal year -- and that's it. But there was a "reconciliation bill" Obama signed a couple of months into his term. There were objections that he had allowed congress to pork up the bill unjustifiably, but he was dismissive of those, saying that was "last year's business" and that we should move on. In other words, a number of bailout, stimulus spending, and reconciliation items were included that normally would not have seen the light of day.

Just a few weeks after taking office, Obama signed the ARRA, arguing that it was necessary to sustain a big spending binge in order to mitigate the severity of the recession and propel the economy to a robust recovery (although it obviously did no such thing).

So all in all, I don't think Nutting did a very objective job of painting a picture intended to show how Obama is supposedly not a big spender. The FY2009 surge should have been a one-off rather than part of something with which to form a new baseline.

My key point is that a president's fiscal record should not be judged simply on what his rate of spending increase over a certain base year may be. Rather, it should be judged on how he wants to spend the money, what the current fiscal outlook is, and what the prospects are for establishing a path toward fiscal sustainability.

By those criteria, I don't think Barack Obama deserves a very good grade.

(End of post.)

Doove failed to respond to it, offering the excuse that it contains "fancy phrases." Besides, in his mind, his incoherent non sequiturs in post #12 should be considered a blanket debunking of everything I posted before or after! Amazing logic.

And did anyone besides Doove see any "fancy phrases?" I think just about everyone knows what "TARP" is. And I doubt that many people who follow public policy don't know what the abbreviation "ARRA" stands for. If you don't know, google it.

The FY2009 budget was vastly greater than the prior year's, primarily because it contained a lot of "emergency" spending including the bailouts and "stimulus" package. (The bailouts should have been recognized as one-time events, not stuff with which to create a new baseline enabling and encouraging a permanently higher level of spending.) So the "base" year involved a jump over the prior year of a modern-era unprecedentedly large percentage.

Additionally, please note this: I posted earlier that a president's fiscal responsibility also ought to be judged on how he wants to spend the money. Even many economists who support fiscal stimulus gave the ARRA poor marks for squandering resources ineffectively. There's no evidence that the functional equivalent of paying one group of guys to dig ditches and another to fill them in does anything to create any lasting benefits for the economy.

Obama's neo-Keynesian advisors told us that all that debt-financed stimulus spending was going to produce a wonderful "fiscal multiplier" effect and propel us to a healthy recovery.

But just look what a sorry position we're in now, running a current budget deficit of about 9% of GDP while the year-over-year rate of GDP growth seems to be stuck at about one-quarter of that level. Put in simple, raw terms, that means that we're running up about four bucks of new debt for every dollar of real economic growth.

Does that really sound like a very good deal to anyone?

By the way, Glenn Kessler, the well-know "fact checker" of The Washington Post gave Jay Carney's statement three "Pinocchios."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...h6nU_blog.html Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Everyone can see what's going on here. You posted a link to a biased, disingenuous article that you don't understand and can't defend. If you were capable of offering a cogent (sorry, I know you hate that word!) rebuttal to my post, you would have done so. You can't, so you didn't even try.

Instead, all you can do is try to deflect attention from the exposure of your ignorance by means of making frequent charges of "narcissism", often accompanied by copied & pasted definitions. How many times (and in how many threads) have you done that lately? You're obviously obsessed with this.

So here's a suggestion for you, Doove:

Why don't you start a thread titled "CaptainMidnight is a Narcissist!" It's possible that someone missed seeing one of your many posts in which you made that claim. I doubt that, but it could be the case. If you started your own thread on the subject, you could bump it a couple of times every day with "Doove's Daily Narcissism Update", or perhaps links to an endless series of articles on the subject. I'm sure everyone would await your posts with bated breath.

That could be something of a catharsis for you, Doove. You could let out all sorts of repressed emotions and feelings. Another advantage is that you could avoid the embarrassment associated with people believing that you're simply engaging in behavior defined thusly:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...ead%20crapping

This is a lightly moderated forum, unlike the old "Diamonds and Tuxedos." So, Doove, I don't think the mods would assess penalty points against you for starting such a thread.

Go for it! Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Doove, I have a tendency do the same thing. I just call 'em as I see 'em!

This one's the easiest call anyone could ever make: You're an ignorant fool who got your sensitive little feelings hurt when your cluelessness was exposed for everyone to see, so you lashed out in the only way you know how. You don't even understand the article to which you posted a link, and now you realize that all the other thread participants know that. I'm sure this must be a bit embarrassing for you.

Why don't you start a new thread with the title I suggested? Then you'd be able to post about narcissism to your heart's content without engaging in thread-crapping (as defined in the urbandictionary.com link I posted above).

I don't think you have the cojones to do it. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

I'm the one going on and on about this? Puh-lease! You've devoted so many posts over the last few months to calling me a narcissist that counting them all would be a difficult task. If you keep harassing me, don't be surprised if I respond by making fun of your ignorance. The only reason I suggested that you start a thread on the issue was to ridicule your obsession. Good grief, do you never get embarrassed?



You're the one who's done all the incessant whining. Everyone who reads this forum knows that. How about dropping all the narcissism crap and making an effort to learn something about this issue? It might be good for you.



LMAO!

Doove is keeping what real? All he ever does is annoy and insult, since he obviously doesn't understand the topic.

And speaking of not understanding the topic, Little Stevie, do you think no one noticed all your schoolgirl-style giggling (in post numbers 28 and 34) when you agreed with Doove's claim that he "debunked" my debunking with a non sequitur posted two posts before it?

Stevie, instead of hijacking the thread with a bunch of prattling about an unrelated topic, why don't you try to rebut the points I made in the above-referenced post #14 from that other thread?

That's not a "straw man" argument, Stevie, it's the simple truth. But I think we all know that if you felt you could effectively rebut it, you would have done so. Dodging, weaving, and deflecting isn't going to work any better for you than it has for Doove.

When I read some of the stuff you clowns post, I wonder how in the hell you figured out how to make a good enough living to be able to afford the P4P world! Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

While i love the attention....dude.....move on already.

Laz, a lot of your advice is great. However, you have a narrow view of the market dynamics in state-regulated insurance products. Save the simple one-line "solutions" for other subjects or for the people who are voting for Ron Paul.

If you want health care prices to be affordable then the last thing you should want is government involvement.

Insurance has been regulated by state government for 50 years! The insurance companies simply buy whichever party is in control of that state. If the insurance commissioner is elected rather than appointed by governor, they just buy that election. Texas last had a consumer-oriented insurance commissioner under Ann Richards. Every once in a while, the Democrats DO listen to consumers rather than giant corporations but the Republicans ARE giant corporations. Insurance would be better regulated at the federal level but even better would be a single payer system AND the ability to buy prescription drugs at competitive market prices. (see * lower on the page.)

You also do not want insurance involvement for anything other than major expenses.

Actually, the inverse is true the older you get and less insurable you become. With medical bills rising at 18%-25% PER YEAR, there is NO WAY for the average citizen to "go bare". Hell, the co-pays, non-covered bills and premiums are the NUMBER ONE CAUSE of consumer bankruptcy in America and that includes people WITH GOOD (often referred to as a "Cadillac" plan) GROUP INSURANCE!


Free market forces will force pharmaceutical companies to price so that their products are affordable to the masses.

With the Bush sweetheart deal for Big Pharma on Medicare, they do not NEED to be competitive. There have been generic drugs on top of generic drugs listed on multiple CRITICAL shortage lists because manufacturers can make more money doing their brand names still-patented drugs and cutting back on generics. Instead of investing in more infrastructure to produce more generics, they opt for spending every cent they can on developing NEW patented drugs where they can demand a high price.

Big Pharma can charge ridiculous prices to Medicare by law but has to competitively bid on medicine they supply to the Veterans Administration. They sell far more drugs to Medicare patients than they do to the VA and, remember, they have lots of critical generic shortages.

Then, *if you'll remember, GWB also signed a bill preventing people from going to Mexico or Canada or, for that matter, anywhere but the U.S. to get their drugs*. Now the bill is unneeded because the drug companies are smart enough to cut off any of the Mexican or Canadian sources they catch selling to patients inside the U.S. The other countries are still wrought with a good deal of bad formularies or missing generic ingredients and therefore don't offer much real competition to the U.S. prices.

They RATION the drugs those foreign pharmacies can sell to keep demand higher in the U.S. Drugs like brand name Cialis are virtually the same price as the brand is here when you check the online Canadian prices from reputable online pharmacies. Originally Posted by Laz

....dude.....move on already. Originally Posted by Doove

Why don't you take your own advice? You're the one who posts incessantly about what a narcissist you think I am. After you do so, why are you surprised when I respond by exposing you as the ignorant fool that you obviously are?



Little Stevie, I see that once again you moved blithely on without bothering to address the topic that's the subject of this thread. You spent a few hundred post-hijack words babbling about health care after falsely referring to my posts as "straw man" arguments.

As I noted earlier in this thread, you have a nasty habit of calling those with whom you disagree "dumb shits" and "morons", often shouting with those brightly colored, ridiculously oversized fonts. Two guys who were objects of those childish insults PMed me and expressed delight that you have gotten a well-deserved comeuppance.

The subject of this thread is an article disingenuously claiming that Obama is not a big spender; it's not health care. If you want to prattle on about health care issues, why don't you start another thread? All you're trying to do is deflect attention from your failure to address the thorough debunking that I and others posted (including links).

If you feel that you're too clueless to construct an effective argument, why don't you just plagiarise something? The thread to which I linked way back in post #36 aptly demonstrates that you have no problem with doing that. You were the thread-starter, and virtually your entire opening post was plagiarised material.

I suggest that anyone who happens to be the object of your childish insults in the future simply post a link to this thread, where you shrunk from the debate like a cowardly little weasel. Maybe the specter of that will cure you of an obnoxious habit and avoid some visual thread pollution.

You two guys have different styles of annoying and insulting people, but you're the same in one respect: After all the crap is distilled away, there's not much substance left. A lot of people in this forum have had enough of both of you trolls.

You're nothing more than opposite sides of the same worthless coin.

Why don't you take your own advice? You're the one who posts incessantly about what a narcissist you think I am. After you do so, why are you surprised when I respond by exposing you as the ignorant fool that you obviously are? Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

What makes you think i'm surprised? You think i didn't know you'd respond even yet again in this thread? It's perfectly in line with everything i've been saying about you. When you don't respond by calling me an ignorant fool (or jackass, or asshole, or whatever names you want to use) is when i'll be surprised.

It is absolutely false, "Binges" end, crooked politicians buying votes and campaign contributions with tax dollars doesn't until you get them out of office.

Doofe has repeatedly been exposed as an ignorant fool. We've tried to help him out of it, but the condition is too entrenched. He needs some serious therapy.

It is absolutely false, "Binges" end, crooked politicians buying votes and campaign contributions with tax dollars doesn't until you get them out of office. Originally Posted by Iaintliein

Heaintliein!

Doofe has repeatedly been exposed as an ignorant fool. We've tried to help him out of it, but the condition is too entrenched. He needs some serious therapy. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Neither is he!

Predictable. No one on the left is going to try to defend this absurd level of spending.

we have a group of special interests who will vote themselves any benefit, seem struck in amazement that there are those who will vote "against their own interests", and attempt to hide and cover up their gaping open maws with obfuscations of doing things for the children or some other social "good" when what they are truly about is protecting their own place at the regular feedings.

we have politicians who will enchant, seduce and lie; who misuse words and change meanings and spin understandings far from common notions in support of these voters. they likewise care for naught but their own positions, having asserted them so constantly that they choose to convince themselves beyond all logical analysis the virtue of their positions. they demonize any logic, scorn any sense, pronounce virtue as meanness, look only to expedience and denounce self reliance as uncaring.

they truly harm the poorest and least able among us by wasting our bounty that could be so better used, retarding our productivity and tamping our growth under their marching boots.

Neither is he! Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Hypocrite.

Predictable. No one on the left is going to try to defend this absurd level of spending. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

See what I mean?

Looks like Paul Krugman's Hallelujah Chorus suddenly went mute!

Hypocrite. Originally Posted by Doove

:l aughing1:

See what I mean?

Looks like Paul Krugman's Hallelujah Chorus suddenly went mute! Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

The thread is 73 posts long.

And frankly, with your idiotic rambling nonsense about me, people probably tuned it out about 35 posts ago.