Criticism of Progressives from the Free Bacon?

Criticism of Progressives from the Free Bacon? Who would have thought it. I assumed that the “Free Bacon”, a very liberal sounding name, would be hard over progressive.

The Biggest Myth of 2012 - Matthew Continetti, Washington Free Beacon

“I also know that every rationale uttered by Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz will advance their theological belief in the moral purity and benevolent intentions of modern day progressives. This foundational idea—that Republicans act out of self-interest while Democrats act out of the public interest—is the keystone to the self-conceptualization and self-idealization of your everyday Democrat. It’s simplistic and bogus. And it is the biggest myth of campaign 2012.”

“Mayer does acknowledge, in her fleeting encounter with Collegio, that Democratic campaigns are funded in part by “major unions promoting their members’ economic interests.” But there she drops the matter of labor influence in American politics. One presumes this is because Mayer is so credulous that she actually believes the unions are only “promoting their members’ economic interests,” when in fact unions actually do something quite different: They promote their leaders’ political interests, which are often unrelated and even inimical to the day-to-day life of the rank and file. (A fact which union members seem increasingly aware of: How else to explain Scott Walker’s strong showing among union households in June’s Wisconsin recall election?)”

Anyway, a good source for Republican talking points. To adopt, that is, they are surly not the authors.

Paul Ryan Tries To Revive the “Death Panel” Canard

Ryan Revives "Death Panels" Canard - Jesse Singal, The Daily Beast

"Ryan, the presumptive Republican vice-presidential candidate, told an audience at Florida's largest retirement development that Obama's health care law "puts a board of 15 unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats in charge of Medicare who are required to cut Medicare in ways that will lead to denied care for current seniors.""

"It's a wonkier variation of Sarah Palin's 2009 assault, which she's returned to since, on Obama's "death panels,""

"Of course, it's not true."  If that is not true, what do they do?

I looked in vain for some support for the "not true" conclusion. Is the author saying there is not some kind of 15 person panel.  And is that panel not supposed to lower health care costs. Were I to argue on the side of "not true", my argument would be that while restricting medical treatment will indeed result in some deaths, this has always been the case.  The only change is who does the deciding. Native Americans left there old to die when they became a burden on the community (but with the old persons agreement). I must not have my heart in it because that sounds lame to me, even. How much lamer is the "of course" assertion.

I assert there is in fact a law passed that in fact sets up a 15 person panel, whose ruling cannot be overruled.  A group that can't be overruled might well assign you to "end of Life" (if the "death" word is to harsh.)

 

 

 

Radical GOP Inhibits Progressives

Radical GOP Inhibits Progress -

 

Exactly, and that is good.  Movement is not necessarily progress, nor is sticking to the status quo.

“Radical GOP Inhibits Progressives” is more to the point.

 

“how to generate growth and upgrade the skills of every American in an age when the merger of globalization and the information technology revolution means every good job requires more education; how to meet our energy and climate challenges; and how to create an immigration policy that will treat those who are here illegally humanely, while opening America to the world’s most talented immigrants, whom we need to remain the world’s most innovative economy. ”

1. Education- remove the unions strangle hold
2. Energy and climate change- use facts not progressive religious concepts. Release the feds strangle hold on energy production, and defer climate challenges new rules until there is a true consisus.
3. immigration policy – be fair to the rest of the world, don’t give broader jumpers a place at the head of the line, and punish illegal entrants sufficiently so the practice is discouraged.
4. role of government- let us reason together, without the politics of personal destruction.

 

“We need deals on all four issues as soon as this election is over, and I just don’t see that happening unless “conservatives” retake the Republican Party from the “radicals””  Deals? Really.  Isn’t that the real reason we are in this mess.

 

Maybe the “conservatives” retake the Democrate Party from the “radicals”

 

 

All seniors need to know about Obama and Obamacare

Obama-care discontinues Medicare Advantage.

Alright, if that is not enough, Your doctor is going to no longer accept you as a patient, because Obamacare is lowering the payments to doctors. Doctors are already turning away new Medicare patients. If you have Medicare Advantage, you are not viewed as a Medicare patient, but that is going away.

It may be that your doctor will not turn you away... until he has to go out of business.

The issue of insurance is moot, if there is no doctor to serve you.
also see: ObamaCare vs. Medicare: The Bottom Line - Grace-Marie Turner, NRO

GOP's Triumph of Reality Over Ideology

GOP's Triumph of Ideology Over Reality - Jonathan Schell, The Nation

I originally misread the title, the version in my title is how I read it.

This seems to be a complete case of transference.  The Republicans are accused of the motives of  Jonathan Schell.

“The record of the last decade or so suggests that the party these days is animated by two main goals. First, it seeks unchallengeable, absolute power. Its modus operandi for achieving that goal has been to use institutional power—the power of corporations, courts and legislatures—to acquire more institutional power.” Substitute Democrat for the party, and it is correct.

The republican party is for decreasing the power of the federal government, in favor of the states and the people.

“A recent case is the drive in Republican-dominated states around the country to disenfranchise Democratic-leaning constituencies, such as the poor and minorities, by legislating onerous requirements for voting.”  Voter fraud is no reason to make the process more selective?  An yes, the Republicans have been successful in this area. The Democrats are very selective in thier logic: the Obama initiative to register the dream act kids is much more selective than Jonathan Schell would allow for the vote.

“Republicans have exhibited a strong desire to take up residence in an imaginary world, an alternate reality—one in which global warming is found to be a fraud perpetrated by the world’s top scientists, Obama turns out to have been born in Kenya and is a Muslim (and a socialist), budgets can be slashed without social pain, firing government employees reduces unemployment, tax cuts for the wealthy replenish government coffers, and so forth. Perhaps it seems odd to identify such an objective as a political goal, but past ideological movements of the left as well as the right offer many examples of the power of such a longing.”  The inverse of Jonathan Schell’s argument, seems perfectly logical. (It is too bad he gives no supporting evidence for any of these assertions.)

One exception “budgets can be slashed without social pain”  There will be pain, but it is necessary. “, tax cuts for the wealthy replenish government coffers”- this has been shown to work time and again, at least short term.  The wealthy keep money locked in investments and when taxes are cut, they rush into the bargin and transfer the deferred income into actual income.

“The career of Sarah Palin offers an illustration. She and reality were strangers, as the world saw in her first interviews and subsequently. Her mind was almost a blank slate in that respect, and she showed neither inclination nor aptitude to remedy the lack. To draw her into that world was a kind of cruel mistake. She soon withdrew from it, deciding, after protracted dithering, to stay out of this year’s presidential race and retreat into a world in which her talents and temperament were in fact stellar, the world of myth-making and spin on Fox News. (It is entirely in keeping with this choice that her husband, Todd Palin, has now turned up in NBC’s militarized “reality” show—that is, unreality show—Stars Earn Stripes.)”

“There was a lesson in Sarah Palin’s withdrawal. For all the triumphs of cash-fueled political manipulation, the sphere of policy and governmental decisions has its dangers for the addicts of unreality. Fantasies can be a path to power, but they can also become a costly self-indulgence”  Wait! Where did this come from.  I tend to use the mention of Sara Palin’s name as a litmus test.  People who routinely use the liberal “Sara Palin” narrative are either not too bright or are deliberately ignoring reality. In this case however, Jonathan Schell is a perpetrator of continuing character assassination that is the politics of personal destruction.

And Sara Palin is one of their failures.  She has survived and is a force on the national arena.   She won’t stay dead, she won’t be irrelevant, as is - Jonathan Schell

"Such is the case with Ryan.  ...  He is a major-league denier. All the most prestigious academies of science around the world, including the American National Academy of Sciences, agree that warming is real, man-made and well advanced. Ryan demurs. He has accused climate scientists of a “perversion of the scientific method, where data were manipulated to support a predetermined conclusion,” in order to “intentionally mislead the public on the issue of climate change.” He has voted against any and all measures to remedy the problem. He has suggested that the existence of snow in winter in Wisconsin is evidence against warming, which he has called “a tough sell in our communities, where much of the state is buried under snow.”"

Science does not reach consensus.  Every theory is subject to verification.  "All the most prestigious academies of science around the world," saying it is so, doesn't make it so. The theory of global warming has failed to realize its projected temperatures, time and again. "He has voted against any and all measures to remedy the problem.".  That the remedies suggested would solve the problem, is fantasy even if the theory were proven. I basically agree with Ryan, so that is now settled science.

"As for that budget, it promises to achieve balance while providing no such thing, instead calling for broad tax cuts without specifying spending cuts anywhere near the level that would be needed as offsets to bring the budget into balance. It depends entirely on one of the hoariest of false promises in politics, the free lunch, thereby contributing to what Paul Krugman rightly calls an economic “culture of fraud.”"

The republicans have the power to make cuts. Specifying which cuts is unnecessary.  Lets assume an across the board cut, or better yet, a reduction to 2008 levels. How about just removing the inefficiency of the federal government by letting the states do almost all of the social programs, and letting the federal government focus on the items actually specified in the constitution. The reduction in federal head count alone could achieve the the savings, and who better to make the ultimate sacrifice.

 "hoariest of false promises in politics, the free lunch" , what, like claiming the top 1% should carry the whole load?

And so forth and so on

Tea Party Movement's Magical Thinking

Tea Party Movement's Magical Thinking - Clarence Page, Chicago Tribune

“Among other "awesome news" about Paul Ryan, as my son would call it, we have learned that Mitt Romney's running mate was voted prom king and "biggest brown noser" by his high school classmates. Obviously, he was destined for success in politics.”  The translation for the willfully ignorant and democrats: Ryan was a hard worker, smart, and got good grades. The envious could accept that he earned his position, so he must be brown noising. (I hope that is not a reference to race Mr. Page, of course if it was, that would be good, right?)

“In other words, Ryan brings to the Romney campaign the tea party's style of magical thinking, a blissfully simplistic, ideologically driven world view that seems to think candidates can win votes by promising to reduce popular government services.”

“Put simply, Ryan's plan, proposed in a partnership with Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, would provide a federal subsidy or "premium support" to people now aged 55 and younger to purchase private insurance instead of Medicare as we now know it, if they so choose. If they want a higher-priced plan, they must make up the difference. But if they find a lower cost plan, they can defray the excess to other medical costs. Such a deal. The purpose, Ryan says, is to encourage people to shop around and provide an incentive for overall health care costs to go down. But what if health care costs rise faster than the size of the subsidy or "voucher," as critics call it, which Ryan would peg to the cost of living? In fact, health care costs have been rising much faster then the cost of living and Ryan's plan is vague about how it would slow that rise.”

This is the crux of the problem, democrats believe people are stupid.  In any other are of life, when people “can’t afford it”, they do without. But when people do without, the providers lose business.  The providers, to regain business, figure out how to reduce their costs so they can reduce their price. The providers that do this, grow, the providers that don’t shrink.  Te average cost of the service quits raising, or at least not as fast.  The key is doing without, or earning more.  That is the “Hidden Hand” which is the majic

The democrat solution is “Death panels”.  Health costs too high? Throw granny under the train. Protect the government form pushers at all costs, including throwing you under the train. In Great Britain this is happening today. Treatments are delayed, and people die.

“More immediate, from a political point of view, Ryan takes a third-rail issue, especially with seniors, and puts it in center stage. Even though his Medicare plan would not affect anyone now over age 55, a similar feature did not save President George W. Bush's much less radical Social Security proposal a few years ago. The more Bush talked about it, the more Americans hated it. It died without getting anywhere near the floor of Congress.   Sure, services have to be paid for, but nobody enjoys doing that. As the late Sen. Russell B. Long, a Louisiana Democrat, used to wax poetically, "Don't tax you/ Don't tax me/ Tax that fellow/ Behind that tree."”  I am not sure what Mr. Page is saying here.  It seems he is everyone can be bought so Ryan is an innocent. Maybe everyone can’t be bought, and maybe “that fellow Behind that tree” just moved to Singapore.

 

 

 

Liberal half truths, but better than the pants on fire liesThe Plutocrat Ticket - Paul Begala, The Daily Beast

Liberal half truths, but better than the pants on fire lies
The Plutocrat Ticket - Paul Begala, The Daily Beast
"Paul Begala: With Ryan, Romney Has the Plutocrat Ticket
by Paul Begala Aug 11, 2012 8:47 AM EDT
By choosing Paul Ryan—the guy who wants to slash taxes on the rich and gut the government—Romney shows he's decided to go nuclear in the class war."

Paul Beyala is doing a bit of transference, he represents the self appointed liberal elite. They deal with power and have successfully acquired it. They only have a problem with conservative rich, and at 200 million, Mitt and his father barely make the cut. now, the only problem with rich conservatives is their failure to kow tow to Berry's fanatics.

"In selecting Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney has doubled-down on the one thing he has never flip-flopped on: economic elitism. Romney, born to wealth, has selected Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, who was also born to wealth. As the former University of Oklahoma football coach, Barry Switzer, once said of someone else: both these guys were born on third and thought they hit a triple."

More transference. Barack (Berry) Obama has never had a situation he could not handle by voting "Present".




Sent from my iPad

Shame Joe Soptic

Obama the Uniter Has Diminished Himself - Pat Buchanan, Pittsburgh TR

“Speaking straight into the camera, Joe Soptic, 62, charges Romney with coldly shutting down the plant where he worked and cutting off his health insurance. This, says Soptic, left his wife without insurance to pay for her care, until, falling ill, she went to a doctor, who discovered stage 4 cancer, which killed her in 22 days.”

Why is it that Joe Soptic is not the person responsible for his wife’s death.  He was the breadwinner, and should have gotten the insurance needed. “He couldn’t afford it” doesn’t cut it. The fact that he complained about the bills after the fact revels his complete selfishness. Were I he, I would feel guilty, not pointing fingers at a convent national figure.

 

 

 

Really? He killed bin Laden?

Shouldn't Romney Be Ahead By Now? - Roger Simon, Politico

“Obama has had the advantage of taking national security — usually a Republican strong point — off the table with the killing of Osama bin Laden and America’s weariness for more lengthy wars of occupation.”

National Security is indeed off the table, in that Berry is paying no attention.  He exploited the actual killers, and betrayed them by exposing their methods.  Finally his campaign is challenging any advantage to the deployed service member since they know they get a smaller percentage of the military vote. That’s Berry’s world.

"Roger Simon is POLITICO’s chief political columnist." and Obama supporter.

Dumber than dirt, except when compared to other progressives

'President Romney'?

“Eric Alterman is a Distinguished Professor of English, Brooklyn College, City University of New York, and Professor of...”

This implies an intelligence not evident in the article.

“So while the Tea Party amateurs—the naïve and frequently ill-informed pawns of wealthy corporate funders like the Koch brothers and their ilk who served as foot soldiers for the lunatic candidacies of Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich—may have pined for a more “authentic” conservative than Romney, the pros always knew better. As Norquist himself explained, “We just need a president who can sign the legislation that the Republican House and Senate pass. We don’t need someone to think. We need someone with enough digits on one hand to hold a pen.””

He is complaining about the quality of the candidate being too low?  Actually this is what is called trash talk.  No need at accuracy, them’s just fighting words.  What it means is he is acknowledging Berry doesn’t have a chance. But let’s go back: Tea Party amateurs? They are electing their supporters unlike the Dem’s professionals. And “lunatic candidacies of Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich” Is there anything here but the ‘policy of personal destruction.’ Lunacy is doubling down on stupid.

If it doesn’t work do it some more.

“A Romney victory would likely bring with it a large majority in the House and quite possibly a Republican Senate as well, and hence a tsunami of regressive legislation.” Wait! Isn’t he reading this stuff?  Why would such an incompetent cause the sweep of both houses?  Like Lincoln who was told Grant was a drunk, “find out what he is drinking, and send some to my other generals”.

I get it he viewing the world upside down.  Good is Bad, Up is down, Liberal is smart.

Proposed anti judicial Activism Act

Proposed by the author.

All federal judicial decisions are to be reviewed and scored by congressional staffers, to determine the number of times extra constitutional standards are used in the determination or when the determination appears to violate the constitution. The findings are to be summarized yearly and the top one percent of offenders shall be scheduled for an investigation to determine if impeachment if warranted. If warranted, Bills of impeachment shall be submitted.

Punishment for offending government organizations

It appears the Federal Government has departments which feel empowered to break the law.  I suggest we motivate those departments by declaring that a new administration (if Republican), will regard the department and all individuals within it as law breakers. As such, those departments would bear the brunt of the massive reductions which will be required to balance the budget.  Not that reductions won’t come anyway, but breaking the law will be regarded as volunteering to participate in the reduction in force(RIF).  The government employees may need to know the meaning of RIF, which the rest of us know from personal experience.

 

 

 

 

Doubling down on "stupid"

Doubling down on "stupid"

Palin's Star Gets Dimmer
by Noah Kristula-Green Jul 31, 2012 4:00 PM EDT


"Palin still wields influence within the party, her endorsements seem to affect some election outcomes and she is not yet regarded by everyone as a complete embarrassment (she was the keynote speaker at the most recent CPAC) but on the whole, even her die-hard fans concede that she should not be given actual power."

I find if frustrating to listen to arguments like that above, from stupid, ignorant, self-rigious, self appoint elites whom I will refer to as "Progressives". I have noticed they often make derogatory remarks concerning Sara Palin. This is a convenient litmus test for detecting progressives. Thus their thoughts can be ignored to avoid that queasy feeling and the urge to correct them.

I still find myself listening to progressives since the are so numerous, but I am working to keep my cool. I am unchristian to allow them to remain in a state of ignorance, but they are so many an there is so little time.


Sent from my iPad

A completely non functional federal government would be an improvement

Ted Cruz, GOP's Latest Right-Wing Purist - Gail Collins, New York Times

“The Senate seat in question is currently held by Kay Bailey Hutchison, a politically conservative and emotionally moderate Republican who liked working on undramatic issues like aviation safety. Cruz’s victory was the latest in a number of Tea Party triumphs in Republican primaries, and it certainly does suggest that next year the Republican Senate contingent will be composed almost entirely of right-wing purists and people who are afraid they’re going to be primaried by a right-wing purist.

It’s so ironic, people. The national electorate is totally turned off by partisan standoffs. You can almost hear the public imploring, will you guys please just make some back-room deals? And, at that same moment, the Republican candidates are being pushed into being more and more intractable. ”

 

Well they have to run hard to match the intractable Obama.

 

“Texas money and Texas politicians helped create the Tea Party movement, and the state does tend to treasure the extreme. The current Republican state platform calls for an end to the teaching of “critical thinking” in public schools. In the Texas primary this week, a member of the State Supreme Court lost renomination to a former county judge who had made his name fighting for the right to work in a courtroom with a picture of the Ten Commandments on the wall and a monument to the Bible in the front yard.

”

 

That explains it.  I was born Texan, so I recovered from my liberal days. That or my feeling that liberal thought is an oxymoron.

 

“federal agencies to abolish.”  Right on!

 

Destroy the large banks using creative destruction

Regulate, Don't Split Up, the Huge Banks - Steven Rattner, New York Times

 

If we remove the deposit insurance from the large banks, with warning and a reasonable upper limit to the total value of the bank and deposits, the banks themselves will conform to the new reality with no other government action. (they would need to understand they were not only “not too big to fail”, they are being encouraged to reorganize themselves into smaller pieces)

 

“Out of that disaster came significant improvements. Balance sheets and risk controls were strengthened. Regulatory scrutiny was beefed up. The Dodd-Frank overhaul of financial regulation became law in 2010. A shaken world exhaled.

But because of flaws in Dodd-Frank, the possibility of future catastrophic failures has not been eliminated, nor would it be by Mr. Weill’s proposal.”

So the current law is not sufficient.

 

“Most important, Congress buckled to vested interests and failed to revamp the dizzying and overlapping patchwork of an alphabet soup of agencies that regulate financial institutions. Just one minor agency was eliminated and a new, unwieldy oversight council was placed above the ungainly mess.”

Maybe reinstate the minor agency and remove the rest.

 

“Dodd-Frank did set out some sensible principles for dealing with systemically important banks that are endangered.”

Better, eliminate the systemically important banks.