Home

Details

Written by Michael Z Williamson

Created: 13 October 2013

At $42.8 billion per year, the Federal Highway Administration costs a smidge under $200 per person.  You benefit from roads, because you drive on them, and everything you buy or use is delivered on them.  There are other aspects of Federal transportation, and they're paid for by a combination of excise tax, income tax, etc.  Ultimately, all those taxes are a cost of doing business, and are passed on from shipper to user to consumer—you. 

http://www.dot.gov/mission/budget/fy2013-budget-estimates

What about schools?  Department of Education has a budget of $69.8 billion (it's doubled in four years, by the way), which costs about $326 per person.  Schools provide a skilled workforce that generate GDP, and it reduces the amount of scavenging, looting and other activity that we commonly consider crime.

http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/index.html (also see Wikipedia for an easier summary).

So, these are things you pay for, and derive benefit from.

Now, let's move on to health care.

The uncomfortable fact is, few individuals affect you.  Immediate family, a few friends and coworkers, your employer.  And through Sept 30, 2013, we didn't have millions of people dying in the streets.  The system we had worked.  The worst case claims of the opponents conclude that 85% of Americans had adequate coverage, which means the real case is almost certainly over 90%, which is on par with any Western nation.  Let us dispense right now with (profanity for emphasis) any bullshit that "our life expectancy is 13^th" or whatever.  It's within a year of every other Western democracy, and that's without accounting for lifestyle issues like diet and exercise, which health care can't fix.  More people come here for health care than go elsewhere.

Please keep in mind there was no requirement for any employer to provide you with health care coverage.  It was entirely a choice on their part, and those who could afford to generally chose to.

They can still choose not to, and you get the bill.  But now, that bill is mandatory.

So how much are you willing to pay for a human life?  If it's your own, and you have 50% odds, you'd likely sell all your possessions, because they're no use to you dead.  You’d probably do this for your immediate family.  For a close friend, you might sell a used car or take a loan on your house.  For a coworker or a local child with cancer, you might throw in fifty bucks.  For the homeless guy in Pasadena who's about to die in the gutter of liver failure, you don't give a shit.  Nor should you.  Millions of people get sick and die every year, with no real effect on you.  Close down a road, you suffer.  Close down a school, you'll suffer in twenty years.  Someone dies of cancer?  If they're not a close acquaintance, it doesn't affect you at all.

Be honest.  Would you pay $200 to save some homeless guy?  You might.  Once a year.  What about $326?  Possibly.

Would you pay $1000?

What about $10,000?

What about $100,000?

At some point we passed the threshold at which you care about another human being's life.  If you want to pretend we didn't, write a check for $5000 payable to Health and Human Services, mail it to me, and I'll see that they deposit it.

Here's the problem:  You've told the government they get to set that value.  You no longer have a valid legal argument against paying.  It doesn’t matter if you can't pay it. It's tax.

Now, they insist there will be various means of moderating the system.  But liberals are notorious for having no clue how these things work.  Canada's gun registration program was supposed to cost a few million dollars.  It wound up over $2 billion.  On this, we've already found out that the morons didn't figure that a business would actually shift employment to part time to avoid a cost it could avoid.

Here's what it's likely to cost you, now, before they find more problems and realize that since it's cheaper for a young college person earning $25,000 to pay the fine (sorry, "tax") rather than get insurance ($2535) with an $826 subsidy taken out, which you'd pay, they're probably going to do that. Which means you'll STILL be paying for the ER care, just like now.  Same for the 64 year old on a marginal income ($7606).  They actually pay $1729, getting a subsidy of $5877, which you pay.  For every one of them getting a subsidy, one of YOU has to pay that subsidy. The money doesn't magically appear from nowhere.

http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/

You will be paying $5000 a year for someone else.

It may only be $2000.  It may be $10,000.  But YOU will be paying for some random stranger's care.

At what point does your employer decide they can't afford it?  Keep in mind, in the real nonliberal world, a company's assets are limited, and most companies are fairly small.

When they decide they can't afford it, you pay out of pocket.  If you're lucky.  If you're unlucky, they say they can't afford to keep you on, and you have no job, and STILL pay out of pocket.  Of course, you're then eligible for "free" care, which is good, because all the people who were getting it free were being paid on your dime.

The cold, hard fact is that public health is a matter for epidemics and immunizations, and your horrifically painful liver cancer matters not at all to 214 million people.

Nor should it.

Details

Written by Michael Z Williamson

Created: 12 October 2013

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100240554/for-generations-radical-leftists-fought-for-press-freedom-why-have-they-abandoned-it-now/

Peter Reynolds: 2 days agoI'm a right wing libertarian and I want freedom of the press and freedom from a self-serving, dishonest press which is what we have now. 
The clearest example of this is the Daily Mail's inverse relationship with the Editors' Code where its editorial policy and business plan is to publish "inaccurate, misleading and distorted" information.
I'm very disappointed that the Telegraph is competing with the Mail in a race to the bottom. Increasingly, the only difference between the two papers seems to be the size of the page.
Implement Leveson in full. The Fleet Street mafia needs to be broken up so that true journalism can flourish.

MichaelZWilliamson: "Right wing libertarian" is like a "militant pacifist."So it shouldn't be surprise that you want state control of the media for "freedom." You're just a right winger.All press has a bias inherently. People are human beings. It's up to the educated reader to determine which is accurate, and which suits their agenda.
Clearly. you fear that your position will suffer if you can't cram it down people's throats.5 hours ago · Like · 6

Seth  Everybody is in favor of Freedom of the Press when they believe that the press would publish stuff they like if it could. They tend to oppose such freedom when they come to believe that the press would publish stuff they don't like.4 hours ago · Unlike · 3

Ray I think the word you were looking for is "Authoritarian." The Press, having service its purpose, is now to be controlled so that no one else can use it at the Left did. It is called "Pulling up the Ladder."4 hours ago · Like · 2
Seth Breidbart You can't have freedom of the press and freedom from a dishonest press; who gets to define "dishonest"?4 hours ago · Unlike · 5

Mike L MiniTru, of course4 hours ago · Unlike · 2

Phill I thought it was Snopes or Huffingtonpost that decided what was true & what is dishonest.4 hours ago via mobile · Like · 2

John Our "Betters" want to control tge information we get, for our own good of course...4 hours ago via mobile · Like &

Details

Written by Michael Z Williamson

Created: 08 October 2013

The House today sent its tenth dinner menu to Harry Reid and Barrack 0bama.

"We'll try carrots," John Boehner said.  "Harry absolutely refused to open his door to brussels sprouts or fried cabbage.  Barrack gathered up his toy soldiers and ran bawling when we said we were having broccoli.  We've tried stir fried squash, celery with peanut butter and even deep-fried okra.  There's only so much left in the grocery."

Harry Reid said if dinner wasn't cake and ice cream, he wasn't coming to the table.  He said he was willing to consider strawberry, but wouldn't even respond if it wasn't at least vanilla, with the cake having chocolate frosting.

John Boehner said, "He's not being realistic.    They get to vote on the menu, but we do the shopping and the cooking.  At some point, they're just going to have to eat their vegetables.  Whining to their friends is not going to change that."

Details

Written by Michael Z Williamson

Created: 02 October 2013

Senate Democrats passed a bill that would fund the government, including Obamacare, through Nov. 15, and vowed to accept nothing less.

~~~~

Because they're reasonable and want to compromise.

Senate kills latest shutdown offer as effects begin to be felt
www.washingtontimes.com
Senate Democrats on Tuesday voted to refuse to enter into official negotiations with the House on a spending bill, saying there can be no talks until the GOP agrees to end the shutdown that began Tuesday morning.
Want to see more from WashingtonTimes.com?

COMMENTS ON MY WALL:

Natasha: I am so sick of all these Politburo bastards. How do We the People go about withholding THEIR pay, instead of the pay of civil servants who actually had real jobs to do.
~~~
Eddie Garcia: What the fuck is there to compromise on? Nothing. Not one goddamn thing. It's settled fucking law, legitimately enacted, and upheld by the Supreme Court. When a 3 year old throws a tantrum in the store because he can't have his Hot Wheel car, I don't compromise with him. I paddle his ass and stick him in the shopping cart. And when terrorists take hostages, I don't compromise with them either. Fuck the Tea Party Republicans. This is one hundred percent on them. That's a fact. And now all your right wing buddies are going to come flying in here and bitch-whine, I don't give a fuck. It is what it is. This is irresponsible, inexcusable behavior on the part of the teahadis, and you watch and see if it doesn't cost their sorry asses dearly at the polls.

~~~
Mark: Don't forget all the memorials and such that're normally open 24/7 WITH NO PERSONNEL that have been 'closed due the shutdown'. Just to make life as messy as possible.

"He says they are considering going ahead with the trip even if the government is still on shutdown, but when he called the parks service, he was told they would face arrest. "I said, are you kidding me? You're going to arrest a 90/91-year-old veteran from seeing his memorial? If it wasn't for them it wouldn't be there. She said, 'That's correct sir.'"

When Armstrong asked for her name, he says she did not give it to him and then promptly hung up the phone."
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/176917/
~~~
Michael Z. Williamson: And Eddie Garcia demonstrates the maturity of a Democrat.
Immigration is established law. 0 doesn't want to enforce that.

The 2nd Amendment is established as a right by SCOTUS. The Dems don't want to abide by that.

You have no moral credibility to claim, "But it's a law!" Especially as funding for any law IS the purview of the House.
~~~
Mark:  If you don't give a fuck, why are you bitching and whining and blaming it all on the Stupid Party?

Mark:  Yeah, like the 'teahadi' thing. Of course, he's following the lead of the Pres and such
~~~
Lane: Bipartisan compromise means...
~~~
Robert: Actually, I don't think anyone up in D.C. even understands the concept of compromise, and I bet they can't spell it either!
~~~
Michael Z. Williamson: So, we're up to, "Anarchist," Terrorist," "Teahadi," Vandal." But the GOP are unreasonable.

How's that again?
~~~
Eddie Garcia: Nice try, Mike. It is what it is, and anyone with enough brains to blow their goddamn nose and not blinded by a failed ideology can see that.
~~~
Robert: What is is is a President who used to make his "living" in a job that demands confrontation instead of calm deliberation.
~~~
Eddie Garcia: like I said, watch what happens to the fuckers next election. I hope you like gun control.
~~~
Michael Z. Williamson: Eddie Garcia: You speak of the Dems now?
~~~
Eddie Garcia You're an idiot, Robert.
~~~
Michael Z. Williamson Name-calling. Another sign of liberal tolerance and reason.
~~~
Eddie Garcia: Nice try blaming it on the Dems. You'll find you're in a very tiny minority. The Republicans own this 100% and it's them people are pissed at.
~~~
Myer: Eddie: Oddly enough, the same arguments were made about slavery. A long, bloody war, based in part on that premise, followed.
GAME ON!
~~~
Eddie Garcia: Yeah, when political assoles throw a temper tantrum and cost 780,000 people their paychecks, I'll call them assholes.
~~~
Michael Z. Williamson: So you ARE speaking of the Dems.
~~~
Eddie Garcia: Oh, that's a really valid comparison. Not.
~~~
Michael Z. Williamson: FYI, my wife is one of those who is not getting paid...due to the temper tantrum of the Dems.
~~~
Myer: Did you fail History, too, Eddie?
~~~
Eddie Garcia: No, I'm speaking of the ones who are responsible for this,and it is NOT the Dems, no matter how much you would like it to be.
~~~
Eddie Garcia: http://www.delawareliberal.net/2013/10/01/for-america-to-survive-the-republican-party-must-die/
~~~
Mark:  Oh, of COURSE not. For instance, that medical device tax that most DEMOCRATS want to get rid of, but "We will not change anything!" says Obama and Reid. All the Stupid Party fault, of course. Because the Evil Party is without spots.
~~~
Eddie Garcia: Y'all going full retard. Never go full retard.
(I WONDER IF EDDIE IS LOOKING IN A MIRROR—MIKE)
~~~
Michael Z. Williamson Eddie: Wow, wishing for the destruction of the entire opposition, but they're "full retard." HINT: I am not a Republican.
~~~

Martin C:  what I would like to know is how the republicans could possibly be benifiting from the shut down as every democrat says...the ACA only benefits the people who have not earned it
~~~
Mark:  You really ought to take your own advice
~~~
Myer: Eddie, you're projecting again.
~~~
Eddie Garcia: I didn't write it, and you obviously didn't read it.
(BUT WE DID READ IT. AS TO THE OTHER, HE POSTED IT, SO HE STILL SUPPORTS IT.  THROWING IT OUT THERE WITHOUT COMMENT, GIVEN HIS DIATRIBE, IS PRETTY CLEAR ENDORSEMENT, NOT CRITICISM—MIKE)

~~~

Mark: Oh, of course not! Just because the New Republic wants Obama to do a Boris Yeltsin on the house, doesn't change that the Evil Party and the socialists are of pure reason...
~~~
Eddie Garcia: I already told you what I thought.
~~~

Barry:  Yknow what else is 'the law'? The budget bill that's been in place for almost 40 years, that the Senate failed to obey for years in a row.
All of this would have been avoided if the Senate had simply passed 12 appropriations bills over the past 5 years, but they didn't even hear a single one of them.
~~~
Wick: Here's a fact. If Boehmer allowed a vote on the Senate version of the continuing resolution, it would pass the House. He refuses.
~~~
Eddie Garcia: I was just getting ready to say that.
~~~
Mark: Gee, you mean he's acting just like Reid?
~~~
Michael Z. Williamson: Wick: So, if they agreed with the opposition, it would pass. Axiomatically.
But only one party is intransigent. Got it.
~~~
Oliver:  Eddie, if a democratic congress had used the power of the purse to withhold funding for W's War in Iraq, and shut down the government, would that have been a "temper tantrum", too?
~~~
Jonathan: "Immigration is established law. 0 doesn't want to enforce that." But he did. Better than his predecessor.

"the 2nd Amendment is established as a right by SCOTUS. The Dems don't want to abide by that." But they have. Barely, and kicking and screaming mind you.

But do you remember when the Democrats shut down the government as part of an attempt to blackmail the Republicans into immigration reform and gun control? Yeah, me neither.
~~~
Matthew: So Congress should only vote to defund things only if you disapprove of them. If you approve, then they should rubberstamp everything because it is the law. If it's the law, then why do they need to vote on it?
confused
~~~
Michael Z. Williamson: Jonathan: I remember the three previous times the Dems shut down the government and blamed the GOP quite well.

When it's always the other guy's fault, it's probably not.
~~~

Wick Deer Mike: that is not what I said. If the Senate version of the Continuing Resolution, the proposal would attract enough Democratic AND REPUBLICAN votes to pass.
~~~
Tamara Keel I don't know about y'all, but I'm taking advantage of the anarchy in the current government vacuum to go out and buy a real flushing toilet and a conex full of incandescent bulbs.
~~~
Michael Z. Williamson http://twitchy.com/2013/10/01/the-new-republic-has-some-advice-for-obama-from-boris-yeltsin-involving-tanks/
Who's the unreasonable side?
~~~
Davis Jr.: But the Senate Bill is illegal.
They cannot originate spending bills. If a spending bill starts in the Senate it cannot be put into law. Funny that. There's that thing called the Constitution, may want to brush up on it.
~~~
Michael Z. Williamson: Wick: That's exactly what you said. "If they accept the other side's proposal, there will be agreement."

Reid is on record stating he will not compromise.
~~~
Myer:  Hey, Tamara, can I get in on that bulb score?
~~~
Mark: Hear hear!
~~~
Michael Z. Williamson: So the Dems in this thread are perfectly okay with a tax on hearing aids for children and prosthetics for disabled vets.

Michael Z. Williamson: And Congress being exempt from ACA.
~~~
Myer: It's only some other's money, Mike. Of course they're OK with it.
~~~
Cheryl: Eddie Garcia: what there is to compromise on is nothing the people are the ones in charge and we say DUMP ObamaCare we do not want it funded. So the GOP is right in doing what they are doing. Btw I am not a tea party follower. My parents which are DEMOCRATS are saying no ObamaCare. Funny thing is the ONLY reason ObamaCare passed was due I the fact he had a super majority in at the time but still couldn't get a budget passed.
~~~
Scott: The Tea Party are anarchists according to Reid. He really has NO understanding of The Constitution.
~~~

Cheryl: Eddie the only real gun control is hitting your target. Your type of gun control is making victims. I will say this your actions get a reaction. I just hope when reality bites you in the ass you don't take any innocents out with you.
~~~
Scott: ANYONE is free to NOT have a gun in their home. Don't you DARE tell me I cannot. You will lose.
~~~
Michael Z. Williamson: Now, read back at the rhetoric above.

Given that neither side is getting what they want at this moment, which side sounds more reasonable?

Thanks.

~~~

Cheryl: Wick: no it would not pass except in the fantasy world that runs in Reid's head or maybe Pelosi's.
~~~
Jonathan:  "I remember the three previous times the Dems shut down the government and blamed the GOP quite well."

I don't remember that and am not sure what you referring too. And it is difficult to easily look it up right now, due to the intertubes being chock full of the current issue. Can you send me some details so I can look that up a bit quicker? The only two shutdowns I can name are GOP backed.
~~~
Michael Z. Williamson: Jonathan: The Dems, as now, stated that AFTER the GOP agreed with them, they'd negotiate. Much like they're doing now.
Now matter how good your PR and press is, when you say, "First agree with us and then we'll negotiate," you're the intransigent one.
It was somehow Bush Sr's fault when the Dems refused a budget and shut things down, and it was somehow Congress's fault when Clinton refused a budget and shut things down.
Now, I'd be willing to compromise and call the rules one way, each accepting blame. But when the blame changes office but remains with a party, it's a pretty clear indication the other party is being unreasonable and moving the goalposts.

And once we agree on this, we can debate how much responsibility the Dems have.

~~~

Mark Brothers Congress IS getting special treatment on the ACA
http://washingtonexaminer.com/why-should-congress-get-special-exemption-under-obamacare/article/2536466

Illegally, unethically, disgustingly, and Obama's handprints are all over it
~~~
Cheryl Clark: Wick: oh yes they are exempt.
~~~
Mark: And Jonathan, check who many shutdowns happened when Reagan was President, who who was behind most all of them.

~~~

Michael Z. Williamson:  Oh, I also remember the Dem temper tantrum and walkout when they didn't like election results.

Yet somehow the other side are the mean poopyheads.

~~~
~~~
~~~

There's more, but what I'm going to point out here is that almost all the name-calling and anger is on the Dem's side, and almost all the blamethrowing is, too.

When you believe that every budget dispute is solely the work of one party, you're not being reasonable, you're brainwashed.  When your side starts comparing people who disagree with you in a political venue to terrorists, anyone with ANY ethics would say, "Woah! That's a bit strong!"

Think about it.  NONE of the Dem supporters in that thread called Eddie out for his language.

Another thread even featured a Mussolini comparison.

So, yes, it appears to me that debate is impossible, because one side absolutely refuses to debate.  Even if we accept that their position is correct, their defense of their position relies on name-calling, blame-throwing, violent rhetoric and threats.

Do we really want to follow a party that acts like spoiled children, and its cheerleaders who believe tantrums, name calling and threats are an appropriate response to disagreement, even if they do have a supportable position?