Obamacare: Even Better Than We Thought.

[JustRalph]

http://sharylattkisson.com/obamacare-fail-stories

She also has success stories

[mostpost]

Andrew Klavan's article has miraculously reappeared, which gives me the opportunity to tear it apart piece by piece.
Mr. Klavan's comments in bold; mine in regular font.

Whatever its pretensions, whatever its claims, statism — progressivism, leftism, socialism — is based on the idea that a small elite intelligentsia can run your life better than you can
The first error here is the belief that all those isms are the same. Statism is the belief in government control of industry. In a statist society the government owns most of the businesses in the country. Tell which corporations in this country are owned by the government. And don't tell me GM, because the government long ago relinquished all its stock in GM-at a profit. Progressivism is the belief that there can be new solutions to old problems and sometimes government is the best place to initiate those solutions-that is where I stand. Socialism means that the workers control the means of production. Notice that I said workers, not state. When the state controls the means of production that is communism. I am not in favor of either.

You do not have to talk to a statist very long before he will profess an intense dislike, distrust and even fear of ordinary people.
I don't know who Mr.Klavan has been talking to, but he hasn't been talking to me or any liberal I know. In fact, the evidence is overwhelming in the other direction. It is conservatives who have an intense dislike, distrust and even fear of ordinary people. Although they will never admit or profess it.

Otherwise, why would conservatives be constantly trying to keep them from voting; take away their retirement; deny them a fair wage; subject them to danger of the job; force them to send their children to private, profit driven schools; and just generally keep them down.

Ordinary people teach their children that God created the world rather than a random pattern of mathematic realities that came into being through another random pattern that came… well, the elite know: it’s random patterns all the way down!

I won't paint with a broad brush the way Mr. Klavan does because many ordinary people teach their children a more scientific theory of the creation of the universe, while many "elites" are fervent believers in creation as an elaborate parlor trick.

The truth is the Big Bang theory honors God much more than the abra Cadabra of Genesis.

In fact, ordinary people left at liberty to do as they will are actually better at running their lives and businesses and country than the geniuses in Washington. Central planning works great in the imaginations of the elite, but in the real world… not so much.

It is not an either or. WE do not have central planning in the United States, by any stretch of the imagination-except the imagination of the deluded Mr. Klavan. People should be allowed to run their lives as they see fit, except where their lives intersect with the lives of others. That is why we have rules and regulations. So that those interactions turn out well for all.

And the second problem is that the elite are stupid.
Mr. Klavan is not specific enough here. Republican elite are stupid; Ted Cruz, Charles Grassley; Jeff Sessions; George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and so on. So we agree here. and disagree.

Then there’s David Brooks, the so-called conservative columnist, who thought candidate Barack Obama’s “perfectly creased pant” leg was proof he would “be a very good president.”

If you actually look at the article referred to, you will find that the “perfectly creased pant” was not the reason Brooks thought Obama would “be a very good president.”

In the spring of 2005, New York Times columnist David Brooks arrived at then-Senator Barack Obama’s office for a chat. Brooks, a conservative writer who joined the Times in 2003 from The Weekly Standard, had never met Obama before. But, as they chewed over the finer points of Edmund Burke, it didn’t take long for the two men to click. “I don’t want to sound like I’m bragging,” Brooks recently told me, “but usually when I talk to senators, while they may know a policy area better than me, they generally don’t know political philosophy better than me. I got the sense he knew both better than me.”

The business about the “perfectly creased pant” was merely filler; used to set the stage. Klavan could not see that. Well, as they say, stupid is as stupid does.

I did not comment on the Paul Krugman and New York Times remarks because I am not familiar with those columns and it would take too long to find them. I will just say if Mr. Klavan's chacterizations of those columns is as inaccurate as everything else in his column I really don't need to.

ETA: So Clocker, does this address the content of the article to your satisfaction? Not that I actually care about your satisfaction.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by mostpost

Andrew Klavan's article has miraculously reappeared,

You must have taken your tin foil hat off. The link has been good all along.

In a statist society the government owns most of the businesses in the country.

I stopped reading after that. From Wiki:

In political science, statism is the belief that the state should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree.

Thanks for playing.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by Clocker

You must have taken your tin foil hat off. The link has been good all along.
The link did not work any of the several times I tried it late last night. So no, it has not been good all along.




I stopped reading after that. From Wiki:
The definition of statism from Merriam Webster:
concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry



Thanks for playing.

Again I say we do not have statism in the United States except in the minds of the delusional.

[Clocker]

[QUOTE=mostpost]: My dictionary can beat up your dictionary.

[dartman51]

Originally Posted by mostpost

And don't tell me GM, because the government long ago relinquished all its stock in GM-at a profit.

Actually, they LOST $10.5 BILLION. But, then, what's a few BILLION here or there? It's not like they could have used that money some where else.

[classhandicapper]

I never imagined I'd live in a country where so many people almost seem anxious to commit economic, social, and political suicide.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by dartman51

Actually, they LOST $10.5 BILLION. But, then, what's a few BILLION here or there? It's not like they could have used that money some where else.

I was wrong. The government did lose money on the bailout. Let me ask you this. How many billions in tax collections would we have failed to collect if GM ceased to exist?

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by mostpost

I was wrong. The government did lose money on the bailout. Let me ask you this. How many billions in tax collections would we have failed to collect if GM ceased to exist?

GM would never have shut down. It would have been reorganized under new private ownership and it would never have missed a day of production. The US would have not lost the $10.5 billion in stock, and we would have likely collected even more in taxes. Only the last part about the taxes is speculation, the rest is a given. That's the way the private sector works when allowed to.

[tucker6]

Originally Posted by mostpost

I was wrong. The government did lose money on the bailout. Let me ask you this. How many billions in tax collections would we have failed to collect if GM ceased to exist?

Why isn't the govt going after the other $10.5B GM owes us?

[Tom]

The union won't give it back.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by tucker6

Why isn't the govt going after the other $10.5B GM owes us?

GM doesn't owe us anything. The government put about $51 billion into GM and got stock in the new company in return. We have sold the stock at a loss of $10.5 billion. We also lost about $1.5 billion in the former GMAC, now known as Ally Bank. More evidence of what happens when the government exceeds both its authority and its extremely limited competence.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by Clocker

GM would never have shut down. It would have been reorganized under new private ownership and it would never have missed a day of production. The US would have not lost the $10.5 billion in stock, and we would have likely collected even more in taxes. Only the last part about the taxes is speculation, the rest is a given. That's the way the private sector works when allowed to.

I'm not an economics professor but I do know how to read. I read the following at the Wikipedia page on General Motors Chapter 11 reorganization.

On June 1, 2009, the court gave interim approval to GM's request to borrow US$15 billion as debtor-in-possession funding, the company only having US$2 billion cash in hand. The United States Treasury argued in court that it was the only source of such debtor in possession funding, and that without the money from the loan General Motors would have no option but liquidation.
There was no private ownership available and without the government bailout General Motors would have ceased to exist. That is from sworn testimony in bankruptcy court. Along with General Motors, thousand of companies which supply parts and systems to GM would also have gone under.

Notice that Treasury did not say GM would have no option but Chapter 11. It said GM would have no option but liquidation.

Here is the definition of liquidated from Investopedia.
When a business or firm is terminated or bankrupt, its assets are sold and the proceeds pay creditors. Any leftovers are distributed to shareholders.

Assets for GM would include factories, assembly lines, etc. Explain to me how GM was not going to lose a day of production time with no assembly lines. Explain how they were going to buy parts with no cash.

The simplest things seem to escape you, blinded as you are by your ideology.

[mostpost]

The Centers on Automotive Research did a study on what would have happened if the government had not bailed out the auto industry. The study is summarized here and other places.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/1...-U-S-taxpayers

I will let the study speak for itself.
Our results show the U.S. government saved or avoided the loss of $105.3 billion in transfer payments and the loss of personal and social insurance tax collections--or 768 percent of the net investment. Additionally, 2.6 million jobs were saved in the U.S. economy in 2009 alone and $284.4 billion in personal income saved over 2009-2010.
In case anyone is unfamiliar with the term transfer payments, those are things like unemployment, food stamps, housing assistance and the like.

Even more impressive are the results of the GM scenario which did not even require the assumption of shutting down the supplier sector or other automaker employment. The only assumption was that other automakers could not replace GM capacity and employment until 2011. In this case, the U.S. government avoided the loss of $39.4 billion in increased transfer payments and lost taxes in just two years: 2009-2010. This is 334 percent of the projected $11.8 billion of Treasury funds not recovered on the public's investment in GM. We should add once again that in this scenario, the U.S. economy avoided the loss of 1.2 million jobs in 2009 and the loss of $129.2 billion in personal income in 2009-2010.

The above does not even address the negative effects on retirees.
Almost 600,000 existing GM and Chrysler retirees would have certainly seen their company pensions delayed and reduced (as was the case for Delphi salaried workers) and their retiree health benefits cancelled. The Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) would have been overwhelmed.

[tucker6]

Originally Posted by Clocker

GM doesn't owe us anything. The government put about $51 billion into GM and got stock in the new company in return. We have sold the stock at a loss of $10.5 billion. We also lost about $1.5 billion in the former GMAC, now known as Ally Bank. More evidence of what happens when the government exceeds both its authority and its extremely limited competence.

Thanks. How was that even possible when most investors in GM right after the crisis made a killing? Besides, govt should NEVER be in the business of owning stock. It should have been set up as a loan with interest.