patrick.net

freak80 says

An example of people with money buying political power, so they can rule over people without money.

You can fix that with campaign finance reform if you wanted to, not with taxes, esp. with not with taxes for incomes starting at 200K, try the 0.1% instead. However be prepared for capital flight.freak80 says

Sounds like libertarian paradise to me.

This is the result of current politics since inception, so far almost exclusively democratic and republican politics. I prefer a 'Bourgeois liberalism' with a, ample and wealthy middle class.

freak80 says

Why do you complain?

I'm not complaining about the shutdown, only about this guy's hypocrisy, or maybe rather senile ignorance ;)

HydroCabron says

For that billionaire will use the extra money to create a job for the ranger!

...in Pakistan.

mell says

You can fix that with campaign finance reform

LOL. Good one. ;-)

mell says

esp. with not with taxes for incomes starting at 200K, try the 0.1% instead.

I completely agree. $200k is chump-change and nowhere near enough to buy a politician. My beef isn't with them, it's with the multi-billionaires who DO have enough $ to buy politicians. I don't hate wealth (unless it was ill-gotten), just the mis-use of it.

mell says

I prefer a 'Bourgeois liberalism' with a, ample and wealthy middle class.

How are we going to get an ample and wealthy middle class with libertarian policies? With unregulated capitalism, the wealth "trickles up" to the top 0.1% (it's been happening for the last 30 years). Said wealth is then used to buy politicians to further cement their power at the expense of nearly everyone else below them. Everybody else is stuck with stagnant or declining wages, heavier work-loads, reduced job security, worse safety & environmental
standards, etc.

History proves me correct. I don't want to go back to the Gilded Age. The top 0.1% sure does. Unless you are a member of the top 0.1%, why would you support such a policy of unregulated capitalism?

It's nothing personal. I just don't understand it.

freak80 says

How are we going to get an ample and wealthy middle class with libertarian policies? With unregulated capitalism, the wealth "trickles up" to the top 0.1% (it's been happening for the last 30 years). Said wealth is then used to buy politicians to further cement their power at the expense of nearly everyone else below them. Everybody else is stuck with stagnant or declining wages, heavier work-loads, reduced job security, worse safety & environmental

standards, etc.

I'd argue that you have seen the wealth trickle up because of regulations. The Fed, the MBS buying, interest rate fixing, those are all regulatory actions. I am not advocating getting rid of all regulations, in fact one of the most important principles to adhere to is the rule of law, that means to apply and enforce existing laws and regulations, even if I don't agree with them. None of that happened during the crisis, the rule of law was abolished, no prosecutions for existing regulations took place and new regulations in disguise "for the better of main street" were enacted without much legitimacy, enriching the crony capitalist sectors even further. The wealth disparity was greatly reduced during the crisis, and then resumed its rise again with the bailouts/regulations. I am in favor of simple banking regulations as I have laid out before, not a society completely free of regulations. Btw. nothing taken personally, I like the discourse here on patnet, no matter if anybody agrees with me or not.

mell says

I'd argue that you have seen the wealth trickle up because of regulations.

Ah, the standard libertarian line. It's also the standard Republican line.

It's also bullshit, historically. There were huge disparities in wealth before safety and environmental regulations. Rockefeller and Carnegie didn't amass their vast fortunes from government regulations, they did it by working people to death for in hellish conditions for very low wages.

Your ignorance of history is alarming and dangerous. It may be a cliche, but it's true: those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

thomaswong.1986 says

... you mean they are generously allowed to be extorted by organized crime from back home ...

extortion, human trafficking, drug trafficking kidnapping, murder etc etc. It is not possible to have illegal aliens contribute to so called Social Security.

Human trafficking second only to drugs in Mexico

Jesus H Christ, the typical illegal immigrant isn't a drug dealer or sex-slave dealer, s/he's the in the fields picking your food, manicuring a garden, sweating in a kitchen, etc. Of course they are criminals (by definition, since they don't have a legal right to be here), but they are also the hardest working and least rewarded segment of the labor market.

mell says

None of that happened during the crisis, the rule of law was abolished, no prosecutions for existing regulations took place and new regulations in disguise
"for the better of main street" were enacted without much legitimacy, enriching the crony capitalist sectors even further. The wealth disparity was greatly reduced during the crisis, and then resumed its rise again with thebailouts/regulations.

Do you think that *might* have something to do with the existing wealth concentration that allows the crony capitalists to own our government in the first place? How would libertarianism solve that problem? Lower taxes?? Less regulation?? How is less regulation going to help anyone *but* the crony capitalists?? It would only enrich them further, at the expense of everyone else!

I would advocate higher taxes on the crony capitalists. And/or a labor movement to give the 99% more bargaining power. Neither are libertarian solutions.

freak80 says

they did it by working people to death for in hellish conditions for very low wages.

I have not encountered any modern libertarian who is arguing for endangering workers lives in hellish conditions. Minimum wage is an entirely different topic and even "leftist" (for lack of a better term) patnetters have argued for and against it. Outside of union agreements (which are binding by law), Germany does not have a minimum wage regulation, did you know that (you can sue in court and may win though if the judge decides that it is "slave-work")?

freak80 says

There were huge disparities in wealth before safety and environmental regulations.

Again, I am not arguing against the necessity environmental/safety regulations. How do you explain the drastically declining wealth disparity during the 2008 crisis and the resume of its steady climb afterwards?

freak80 says

How is less regulation going to help anyone *but* the crony capitalists??

It depends on the regulations, a lot of regulations limit competition and skew the playing fields against small businesses, that is intentional. If you need an army of lawyers to comply with very complex laws you can be bankrupt before your small business ever had a chance to take off.

Fire those 800,000 govt employees or cut ALL public employee wages and benefits by 5-10% across the board every year for the next five years. Public employee wages and benefits are bankrupting USA.

To be fair, I wouldn't call MoJo an unbiased source either.

But at least it's a good counterweight to the overwhelming influence of AM radio and Fox News.

FortWayne says

I'm perfectly fine when government leaves me alone.

...to be enslaved by the top 0.1%.

How is the gub'mint not leaving you alone? I must say, the government doesn't really bother me. Unless I try to rob a bank or something...

FortWayne says

Jealousy is what liberals have, constantly "tax the haves" and give it to the "have nots".

Fear is what I have, not jealousy. I fear the next generation becoming slaves to a permanent aristocracy. If that makes me a "goddam liberal" then so be it.

EInvestor,

Or we could raise Warren Buffet's tax rate to 16% instead of 15%.

Oh wait, that makes me a socialist. Never mind.

mell says

I have not encountered any modern libertarian who is arguing for endangering workers lives in hellish conditions.

No person argues for endangering workers and hellish conditions. What sane person would? Unless there is money to be made by doing it.

Unfortunately, there *IS* lots of money to be made by doing it. That's why it was done. It is still done *today* in places like China. Higher pay and better working conditions negatively impact the bottom line. That's how capitalism works.

If there are no regulations for safety, hours worked, overtime, working conditions, etc...you get hellish conditions for the majority.

No, I'm not advocating for the abolition of capitalism. There has to be a profit motive. What I'm worried about is an ideology that wants to turn back the clock to the late 19th century.

We do have 19th century slave-labor like conditions for workers today.

It just doesn't occur here in the US. It happens in China, the Phillipines, etc.

When a $500 Iphone would only cost $530 if it were manufactured here in the US, you know where the benefit of "globalization" is going. It is not to the consumer.

Eliminate intellectual property rights for any product not manufactured in the US. Or deny them access to US markets. Watch how fast the number of jobs (and wages) rise.

mell says

It depends on the regulations, a lot of regulations limit competition and skew the playing fields against small businesses, that is intentional.

I've never owned or operated a small business, so I don't know. You may very well be right.

Is there good evidence that regulations are written with the intent of gaining unfair advantage? Do you have an example of such a regulation? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just not aware of such a thing.

mell says

If you need an army of lawyers to comply with very complex laws you can be bankrupt before your small business ever had a chance to take off.

Good point. If that's the reality of the situation, I fully agree that regulations need to be relatively simple.

Then again, all laws are "gamed" which is why laws can be so complex. It's sort of an "arms race" between attempts to find loopholes and attempts to plug said loopholes. Just look at the ridiculous complexity our tax laws.

And of course lawyers will bitch and moan if laws are made simpler...they'd be out of work. ;-)

freak80 says

mell
says

It depends on the regulations, a lot of regulations limit competition and
skew the playing fields against small businesses, that is intentional.

I've never owned or operated a small business, so I don't know. You may very
well be right.

Is there good evidence that regulations are written with the intent of
gaining unfair advantage? Do you have an example of such a regulation? I'm not
saying you're wrong, I'm just not aware of such a thing.

These are barriers to entry, and as a small business owner, you should appreciate the protection they give to your profit margins.

Libertarians never see it that way. They think what they do is special or innovative. For the average Joe ladder truck, the requirement (regulation) for licensing, bonding and/or insurance for contractors allows them to charge more than minimum wage when they paint your living room. Hire a crew from the parking lot of home depot and compare prices to a licensed outfit if you don't believe it is true.

Say hey! This was in the Wall Street Journal on March 30, 1999. Note "... how much it will buy."

Holy cow/interesting/compelling ...!

And where is it up to date??? Right here ... see the first chart shown in this thread.
Recent Dow day is Friday, October 4, 2013 __ Level is 96.2

WOW! It is hideous that this is hidden! Is there any such "Homes, Inflation Adjusted"? Yes indeed, go here:
http://patrick.net/?p=1219038&c=999083#comment-999083

I see there are no counter arguments from the rabid left.. why debate what you can't defend?

I call BS. In California, even if she were making $40K, which is twice the poverty level of $19,530 for three in a household, her monthly premium for a bronze policy would be about $150-$160/month. If she were making $30K, her monthly premium would be $87 on HealthNet's bronze package.

If you are making 75% below the poverty level, you sure as hell aren't paying $250 MORE/month. You're likely not even paying $100/month.

Are you guys in another reality or what? This is what you get when you post crap from Breitbart.

OK, I will Call it Crazy.

I still have Vasoline left from being fucked for 8 years by G.W. Bush & Republicans.Reagan should have greased some money,it might would have trickled down by now.
I'm going to grease my tax money so it will slide(trickle up) into the healthcare program for the Socialist Rep/Con/Teas in Congress.

Waitingtobuy says

I call BS. In California, even if she were making $40K, which is twice the poverty level of $19,530 for three in a household, her monthly premium for a bronze policy would be about $150-$160/month. If she were making $30K, her monthly premium would be $87 on HealthNet's bronze package.

If you are making 75% below the poverty level, you sure as hell aren't paying $250 MORE/month. You're likely not even paying $100/month.

Are you guys in another reality or what? This is what you get when you post crap from Breitbart.

OK, I will Call it Crazy.

Software glitz ! the patch and upgrade to come shortly...

Did you expect the software to work right the first time ?

I expect it will work by version 5.. thats about how long it takes

to get it right..

so start your count down clock

for the next several years...

So, in other words, you have no explanation for the lady who is paying 3 grand a year more for the bronze plan for insurance under aca...other than to tell liberals favorite cornhole jokes...
I see...

sbh says

ObamaCare is unstoppable, children. And, oh, the Vaseline is for your O-ring, not mine. Try not to clinch. Just keep an image of Ted Cruz wearing eyeliner looming up behind you.....then you'll enjoy it.

So, in other words, you have no explanation for the lady who is paying 3 grand a year more for the bronze plan for insurance under aca...other than to tell liberals favorite cornhole jokes...
I see...

HEY YOU says

I still have Vasoline left from being fucked for 8 years by G.W. Bush & Republicans.Reagan should have greased some money,it might would have trickled down by now.

I'm going to grease my tax money so it will slide(trickle up) into the healthcare program for the Socialist Rep/Con/Teas in Congress.

That's one state out of 50. What about the other 49?

Waitingtobuy says

I call BS. In California, even if she were making $40K, which is twice the poverty level of $19,530 for three in a household, her monthly premium for a bronze policy would be about $150-$160/month

Call it Crazy says

....A single mother of two said she is in school and working full-time while living "75% below the poverty level." She said she was shocked to learn she did not qualify for a healthcare subsidy.

1. I wouldnt consider a facebook post by God knows who to have any relationship to reality.
2. Brietbart is a completely unbiased source. not hardly. Knowing them they made the posts up just to have something to write about.
3. The women, if the quote is real, is an idiot. At 75% of poverty level she should be elgible for medicaid or other existing program and pay very little with or without Obama care.
4. There are some people that are fucked and they are those at 100% to I believe 133% of poverty level in those Republican controlled states that did not expand medicaid coverage. That is due to the Surpreme Ct. decision allowing states to opt out of medicaid expansion and to the general republican attitude of doing everything they can to tank the ACA/Obamacare whilst fucking over their own people and hospitals

>Stop taxing the most productive, and tax the unproductive instead.

Who's the last guy who made land?

Funny how so many people profit from it tho; it's nearly everyone's largest life expense . . .but where does that money go?

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-09-29/marketplace/sns-201308022000--tms--realestmctnig-a20130809-20130809_1_hedge-funds-first-time-home-buyers-rental-units

SoftShell says

That's one state out of 50. What about the other 49?

It's even cheaper in states other than CA. I looked up New Mexico using $30,000. The woman would pay $0 for a bronze package plan. In Oregon, it is $50/month. Again, this is for $30K, not 75% below the poverty level (I think she means 75% of the poverty level).

sbh says

"If a party with such a modest electoral mandate threatens to shut down government unless the other side repeals a law it does not like, apparently settled legislation will always be vulnerable to repeal by the minority. Washington will be permanently paralysed and America condemned to chronic uncertainty."

America will be great again where laws get passed because there's overwhelming support for something not because it favors a small plurality's interests or even a majority intent on crushing a politically disfavored minority.

If something serious happens like terrorists blowing up the Twin Towers something will get passed. 98 senators and 357 representatives voted for the Patriot Act, 1 and 9 abstained, and 1 and 66 were opposed. What happened wasn't good but that's a separate issue.

Where we're not in pressing need of specific legislation nothing will get done.

Given a history of increasingly expensive programs and burdensome regulations which accomplish little positive that's a HUGE improvement over the historic situation.

It'd be better with three different parties controlling house, senate, and presidency but you have to start somewhere.

Waitingtobuy says

I call BS. In California, even if she were making $40K, which is twice the poverty level of $19,530 for three in a household, her monthly premium for a bronze policy would be about $150-$160/month. If she were making $30K, her monthly premium would be $87 on HealthNet's bronze package.

Right.

If you are making 75% below the poverty level, you sure as hell aren't paying $250 MORE/month. You're likely not even paying $100/month.

Wrong.

The legislation's intent was to expand state Medicaid programs to cover people earning up to 100% of the federal poverty level. Caveats there are that

1. The legislation doesn't force states to expand Medicaid, it merely provides subsidies for a few years to encourage that. Eventually the states will bear the full burden and some opted to keep their Medicaid programs the way they were. Some places the cut off remains about $100/month or $1200 a year which isn't 1/10th the poverty level.

2. There's no other help for people earning below 100% of the Federal poverty level. If their state didn't expand Medicaid they're screwed worse than they were before ACA due to increased coverage, young people paying for old, men paying for women, etc.

drew_eckhardt says

America will be great again where laws get passed because there's overwhelming support for something and not because it favors a small plurality's interests or even a majority intent on crushing a politically disfavored minority.

So by this, Im assuming you are in favor of ditching the current Senate composition, and giving bigger states more representation in the Senate, and smaller states less. If California has 45 million people and Wyoming 576,000, we should have many more Senators. (Wyoming and small states would be considered a small plurality that terrorizes the majority)

Your so called small plurality are people like me. White, making more than 6 figures, and with a preexisting condition, along with 35+ million other Americans. And likely your wife, girlfriend, or daughter when one of them tries to buy insurance while pregnant, after their company laid them off. ACA fixes this. It also fixes putting kids on parental policies until 26, and provides subsidies for the unemployed. Economic mobility too. Someone isnt afraid to go out and start their own business because they no longer would get coverage from their last employer. (that would be me too). Don't we want to encourage startups and entrepreneurship?

I seriously don't get the argument against allowing affordable PRIVATE health insurance.

As for people falling below the poverty level an Medicaid, those people affected are living in Republican states that refused Medicaid expansion. You cant blame Obama for this. I expect this to be fixed somehow before 2016.
http://inplainsight.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/03/20802757-how-can-somebody-in-poverty-not-be-eligible-for-subsidies-millions-of-poor-not-covered-by-health-law?lite

SoftShell says

So, in other words, you have no explanation for the lady who is paying 3 grand a year more for the bronze plan for insurance under aca...other than to tell liberals favorite cornhole jokes...

I see...

The explanation is that it's BS.

ForcedTQ says

Get rid of the giant sucking sound.

Agree.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/NETEXP

is money being pulled right out of the paycheck economy, never to return.

Krugman, DeLong, and other neoliberal centrists don't get this.

That's great!
Why don't you slather up your index finger and stick it up your ass?
Think of the savings you'll realize in self-inflicted prostate exams over the next 10 years...

HEY YOU says

I still have Vasoline left from being fucked for 8 years by G.W. Bush & Republicans.

Finally!
A liberal giving an answer with only a hint of rectal discourse....

tatupu70 says

SoftShell says

So, in other words, you have no explanation for the lady who is paying 3 grand a year more for the bronze plan for insurance under aca...other than to tell liberals favorite cornhole jokes...


I see...

The explanation is that it's BS.

Don't forget, as a nation of assholes, make sure the bill is spread out over 20,000 pages and make sure you pass it quickly so we can find out what's in it.

tatupu70 says

Straw Man says

Forget about nation of law. It's obvious that we ARE nation of assholes that second guess the laws we don't like. It happened before with, say, marriage and immigration laws, there is no reason this time should be different.

That's fine. There is a legal way to amend or change laws. Introduce a bill and get the required votes

Quickly? It took an entire year to get that bill.

And Pelosi's remark was referring to the legislative reality that the final bill would have to be hashed out in the conference committee, and not be what the House passed.

But being conservative, you are too stupid to understand any of this.

Please educate yourself or stop voting. You people are literally destroying my country.

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Comptroller says

Michelle Obama dragged the pensioners next door out on their front lawns and DEATH PANELED them with a rusty pitchfork. Fox News needs to report this.

What a waste of meat. She should held a barbecue and roasted them alive and served the meat to White House visitors!!

Heraclitusstudent says

Do you have an auto insurance? If yes, I guess you pay for someone else accidents, right?

Interestingly before Obama care, you would pay for emergencies incurred by other people.

By contrast, with Obama care, people actually have to buy an insurance to pay for their own care.

The free loaders that were not buying insurance but then showing up at emergencies for free care will now have to pay. That should make you happy.

You are making an argument with two logical steps in it and numbers. Not sure that some people can follow you. Sad really.

If there was a "love" button on your post, I would have clicked it.