Romney's running mate energizes both sides... I bet it did.

This morning, Romney has introduced a unique stimulus package, where as selecting his running mate will create a wider sector for comedians, and thus generate more money for them, which will generate more tax revenue... 
It's called "Trickle Out Laughter Economics", where the steady pace of jokes will boost the economy...

As Romney and Obama, are pretty much identical in polices I didn't give a flying turd about who would win, short of not knowing if Ronmey is going to execute US civilians like Obama. Otherwise they are the same person, elitist, Machiavellian corporatists who works for the rich... Now I hope Romney wins, not for his policies or his beliefs because he can't make things any worse, but for the never ending jokes/memes to come.. If a president is going to be bad, at least let me have a good laugh for four years.. 

Think of all the no name cartoonists, that will be placed in the lime light for their clever work poking fun of a Mormon President, oh his policies are guided by his magic underwear..  Or the vbloggers who will move to doing stand-up comedy because they finally have prepackaged material for a 30minute stand-up set..

A Mormon President? what would the founding fathers think Mitt?!?! ah yes fixed by a Catholic VP...

Views: 280

Comment by JustNorrik on August 12, 2012 at 7:32pm

"Most of our current woes are a direct result of the Bush presidency."

You mean the housing and bubble that greatly contributed to our economics woes didn't take place under Clinton? that the deregulation of different areas such as "housing loans" so democrats could get elected were not a result of Democrats under Clinton, Bush Sr. and Reagan? You obviously are ignoring quite a bit of history to make the jump to the claim "It's all Bush's fault", but I rather think you're parotting Obama's campaign propaganda. I'm not a Bush supporter, his multiple wars did nothing to help, nor did his letting democrats run amuck in the last few years of him being in office, you know, when they had congressional majority,,,  

"If you think Obama caters to the wealthy, then explain why he expended so much political capital on health reform.  Who could he possibly have been trying to please with that?  Certainly not the wealthy."
Oh this explains a bunch, first yes the healthcare reform bill is directly setup to help the wealthy, how you ask? oddly it require EVERYONE to have insurance, who does that help? not people who do not need it or people who can't afford it.. It does helps the insurance companies (Obama loves the corporations) not to mention nothing in the health care bill sets up a system to reform healthcare costs to the average person ie: A $250, 10 minute doctor's office visit..  nah the insurance will pay, and you'll pay, but lets ignore any kind of restructuring of doctors fees to help fix the problem..  We'll just make more people buy insurance, sort of spread the debt load around more without making the doctors and hospitals reduce anything on their end.

The big argument is "affordable healthcare", yet attacking the major problem being "affordable" as in it's too expensive, so the democrat solution, make more people pay into the system so more people can get insurance so the insurance companies don't go under paying the huge fees that doctors choose to charge..  So yes Obama looks out for the insurance companies and the wealthy doctors/hospitals by making MORE people pay into the system, but very little to no change on the back end...  

Why not just regulate fees charged, a hospital room shouldn't cost a few thousand dollars a day, without the doctor and staff adding on their fees... seriously ever approach it from that perspective? I had a four day stay to have my gallbladder removed, I was visited by six different doctors for maybe 2 or 3 minutes each, and several of them I never even saw, yet I was charged for each visit, each day at around $200 - $600 a pop. I was visited by a urologist, why? because he could add on his charge without seeing me and who questions that?
After all that I am unable to question any of those charges or have them removed. yet making more people pay is looking out for the poor and needy who need insurance? making people get insurance doesn't make it cheaper...  

Comment by Unseen on August 12, 2012 at 9:51pm

Nate, is your comment in the right thread? I mean, I'm not sure what your comment has to do with Romney picking Ryan as his running mate.

Comment by Unseen on August 12, 2012 at 10:15pm

@Just Norrick

You're right, the Democrats and liberals have to own up to some of the blame. The Bush administration's unforgiveable guilt has to do with underregulation of the banks and ignoring the warnings of Brooksley Born, head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, about the dangers of derivatives. Read about her warning and how Alan Greenspan and other Bush Administration officials silenced her, saying, ironically, that she would cause a catastrophe. Greenspan has since admitted that heeding her might well have prevented the debacle.

Read about her stifled warnings here.

If "Obamacare" caters to the wealthy, please explain why the Republicans, who suck at the teat of the big corporations, are trying so hard to repeal it? Doesn't make sense does it? I can't wait to hear your explanation of this contradiction.

Want to really reduce the cost of healthcare. Go to a single-payer system and pay doctors based on outcomes instead of the piecework system we have now that encourages doctors to churn their accounts with unnecessary office visits, tests, and procedures. That should be tied in with serious sanctions on doctors who abuse the system. There's nothing in that system that would prevent patients from choosing their own doctor.

Republicans scare the public with talk of death committees deciding who lives and who dies. Well, in a sense that is standard practice when it comes to some treatments like transplants. If they have three patients needing a liver, one a 16 high school honor student, one a 40 year old male heroin addict, and one an 81 year old grandmother, who gets it? I think we can eliminate the heroin addict: the liver would most likely be wasted on him, the 81 year old woman probably only has 10 or 15 years ahead of her in a best case scenario, but the 16 year old probably has 6 or 8 decades ahead of her. The alternative is to give it to whichever one can pay the most, which might be the heroin addicts. When resources are scarce, who gets them should be rational not an auction.

Comment by JustNorrik on August 12, 2012 at 11:07pm

@Unseen, you seem hellbent on blaming this on a small group of politicians, namely Bush as if the rest sat back and did nothing. As if the democrats tried to stop wars and deregulation but failed.. That either shows they're incapable of doing their jobs, they're a failure at their jobs or they have an angle that benefits them. all I can say is pull your head out of your ass, BOTH parties are playing you off the other, just to keep you distracted..  

Why are you ignoring all the regulations that was stripped under Clinton, by the democrats to allow anyone, even people who could not afford to make house payments to buy houses from banks that the democrats knew would use predatory lending? Why is it you think what happens economically is a direct result of current affairs of the current or recent administration? I'm in awe of how you are ignoring history in favor of bashing one party, what purpose does that serve when both parties are equally at fault...

I could totally get behind "So-in-so's party wrecked everything!!" if only one party was in office and no other party provided resistance.. A good idea can look bad if somebody else comes along and mucks it up and then points the finger and says "see that was a bad idea!!" really? we won't ever know since other factors were push into the mix by both parties, so nobody can determine what went wrong..  See how it works? neither side wants you to think they're equally culpable for creating the mess.. You use hindsight bias and confirmational bias to reach the notion "Bush is to blame, not the democrats!!"  

"If "Obamacare" caters to the wealthy, please explain why the Republicans, who suck at the teat of the big corporations, are trying so hard to repeal it? Doesn't make sense does it?"

Of course it doesn't make sense, you busy pointing fingers than to stop, uncheck your bias and see if there are conflicting ideas that may allow you to see more of the mess..
The GOP opposes the heath bill because, the money is shift through the government rather than directly to the rich..  So this argument is really about how the rich gets their money, one party it's via the government, the other more direct..  it's pretty easy to see it, when you take the blinders off...  

An example is I'd rather women pay less directly for birth control, than to have it put on insurance. When you add "middlemen" the cost goes up, the more people, businesses and taxes in the chain more has to be pulled out of the cash stream, rather than women paying for very low cost birth control. What could cost $15 a month becomes much much more, since people, offices and taxes have to be paid from insurance collected.
One side will argue the government needs to be involved to pay for it through taxes, but who pays the taxes? we all do, so we all pay, but we'll pay more because bureaucracy cost money, lots of money.. The other side wants the status quo to remain the same, either way the end source gets to keep making more money over reducing or creating limits for the cost of BC. The debate is framed publicly so you'll waste your time focusing on nonsense. 

Your argument on scare tactics misses the point altogether. Both sides use it, both are masters at it, but you probably never ask why do they use it? because they know the other side isn't going to do what they're accusing them of going to do. I've heard the democrats threatening that the GOP wants to end Social Security for the past 30+ years, several times the GOP had enough control to do it. But they didn't why not? because they didn't plan on doing it. Just as the democrats won't create death panels as accused by the GOP, scaring people by but using or allowing bureaucrats to make medical decisions allows the government MORE power.

If you need a liver and the panel is filled with opposing political views that of yours and they know it, do you think they'll resist making a decision that's beneficial to you? what if it's the other way around, does somebody's life or survival get based on whether or not one decents from the people on the panel..  not to mention how do we put people on such a panel? through election? if so hows that working out for you?

It's easy to be a fearmonger, there's no requirement or burden of proof, and there will be plenty of people to keep the fallacious information going..  

Comment by Unseen on August 12, 2012 at 11:55pm


I don't dismiss the guilt of the liberals and Democrats. They did push through legislation making it possible for people to buy houses they couldn't afford. All I'm saying about the Bush Administration is that when one of their own officials foresaw the coming bubble burst, they didn't just ignore her, they pretty much shut her down.

There are indeed many possible ways of reducing medical costs and I don't know that the Obama administration wouldn't pursue them if he's reelected and has enough of a majority to put changes through,

Much of your arguments involve psychologizing those involved and there's no way to settle that.

Republicans talk about radically changing Soc Sec but never do anything about it perhaps because to do so would be political suicide.

Maybe I'm naive, but I think organ transplants are made, generally, on logical grounds. I see no reason to believe other decisions involving people's lives would become largely political.

Comment by JustNorrik on August 13, 2012 at 2:01am

"Maybe I'm naive, but I think organ transplants are made, generally, on logical grounds. I see no reason to believe other decisions involving people's lives would become largely political."

Your not naive to two it currently works, but I do think you are to how you'd like it to, and it's absolutely true if it remains in the medical practioners hands, it's a logical decision..  Allow bureaucrats to control it, which is what the single-payer system does because there is not unlimited funds, the bureaucrats will focus on them increasing their power and wealth while decreasing funds to medical needs..

When Nancy Pelosi was the House Speaker she spent millions throughout her career, where that money could have been spent on education, this goes for all of congress, the WH, DOD and others both GOP and DNC, bureaucrats love to spend other people's money, if you wanna fix something, stop them from spending endlessly...

As far as economists "predicting" anything, hindsight bias is 100% accurate, 100% of the time, that's why it seems so effective and so real of a prediction.. What about the economists around the Fed who mentioned the possible bubbles under Clinton and Bush Sr., they were right, but wrong on when it was going to pop, wrong predictions are ignored over the ones that came true.. Not to mention Clinton made no attempt at fixing any of the problems he left. Because he had a budget surplus as a result of two economic bubbles that were created so those in power could get stupid rich, Bush just kept that machine going..  9/11, two wars and a funky tax break didn't help, but the democrats went along with it pretending to kick and scream...  


You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service