Where the heck is the New POLITICS Thread?

by **The Nightman Cometh** » Fri Apr 02, 2010 15:04:08

The way I see it is that the difference that is argued between Medicare and SS to the HCR bill is that they require you to buy from a private company, but I see nothing in the constitution that would make it logical for the line to be drawn at the government can't mandate you to pay for something if its private. If there is a fallacy here, please point it out. srsly.

by **Werthless** » Fri Apr 02, 2010 15:21:25

Here's a good article defending the Constitutionality of the bill.

by **Rococo4** » Fri Apr 02, 2010 20:47:50

i was gone for like 3 months. I am glad I wasnt here for the health care debate. I would have either killed myself or been banned. I had more trouble sleeping that fateful Sunday night we passed that monstrosity than I did the night Obama won

by **Bucky** » Fri Apr 02, 2010 21:40:33

Werthless wrote:Here's a good article defending the Constitutionality of the bill.

The individual mandate taxes people who do not buy health insurance. Critics charge that these people are not engaged in any activity that Congress might regulate; they are simply doing nothing. This is not the case. Such people actually self-insure through various means. When uninsured people get sick, they rely on their families for financial support, go to emergency rooms (often passing costs on to others), or purchase over-the-counter remedies. They substitute these activities for paying premiums to health insurance companies.

by **drsmooth** » Fri Apr 02, 2010 22:44:14

jerseyhoya wrote:The comparisons to Medicare and Social Security aren't valid. The government is mandating me, John Q. Citizen, to buy health insurance from a private company.

You have the option of buying from an exchange, which is sort of like buying your hootch from a package store in New Hampshire.

I'm very pleased that you're digging into matters of policy here, rather than merely the scorekeeping. I continue to believe your input will be better for all of us, informed as it is likely to be by your high caliber grasp of the pragmatic aspects of what will play and what won't.

But be careful about your sources of policy talking points on this topic. As you (I believe) have pointed out in other places, Republicans simply have not been up on their health care policy specifics for the past generation or so.

by **drsmooth** » Fri Apr 02, 2010 22:55:07

Rococo4 wrote:i was gone for like 3 months. I am glad I wasnt here for the health care debate. I would have either killed myself or been banned. I had more trouble sleeping that fateful Sunday night we passed that monstrosity than I did the night Obama won

oh, so you don't know anything at all about it then

by **dajafi** » Fri Apr 02, 2010 23:00:28

jerseyhoya wrote:Jobs

Barack was so good at being president that he made started the road to recovery before any of his policies were implemented

Was this a misread on your part? The graph seems to show job loss maxing out in January '09.

As I think I've written before, I dislike the whole idea of blaming or crediting presidents overmuch for economic circumstances. They have some impact, but it's always overstated. That said, I believe it'll only get harder to argue that both the ARRA and the bailout didn't ensure that the recession was shallower and shorter than otherwise would have been the case. And the Republican criticism of the ARRA is pretty rich considering that their proposed alternative of all tax cuts, all the time comprises about a third of the measure that was passed, and has been shown to be by far its least effective component.

It should be interesting to watch the politics of an economy with both strong growth and high unemployment, which I think might be our story for the next couple years.

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Apr 02, 2010 23:06:53

I was more referencing that nothing he did in his first few weeks in office was immediately responsible for the downward trend. If any policies were causal at that point for the gradual decrease in job loss numbers, it would have been the saving of the capital markets which was a bipartisan bit of action.

I think it's stupid too, but pacino, who is of course above such partisan games, posted the dumb chart. I was compelled to respond.

by **dajafi** » Fri Apr 02, 2010 23:23:55

I'm kind of happy over what I see as the likely demise of CNN. It's not even the ostensibly nonpartisan blandness that I mind so much as the predictable Beltway bs, from both sides, that they spout day after day--as well as the destructive focus on "how issue x is playing" rather than the substance of the issue itself. On some gut level I feel like it deserves to die on aesthetic as well as business grounds.

It would be cool, though, to see them go down swinging with something like this.

7 pm: Leave Jon King in prime time and rename his show Politics is Broken. It should be an outside-in show. Make it entirely about bringing into the conversation dominated by Beltway culture and Big Media people who are outsiders to Beltway culture and Big Media and who think the system is broken. No Bill Bennett, no Gloria Borger, no “Democratic strategists,” no Tucker Carlson. Do it in the name of balance. But in this case voices from the sphere of deviance balance the Washington consensus.
8 pm: Thunder on the Right. A news show hosted by an extremely well informed, free-thinking and rational liberal that mostly covers the conservative movement and Republican coalition… and where the majority of the guests (but not all) are right leaning. The television equivalent of the reporting Dave Wiegel does.
9 pm: Left Brained. Flip it. A news show hosted by an extremely well informed, free-thinking and rational conservative that mostly covers liberal thought and the tensions in the Democratic party…. and where the majority of the guests (but not all) are left leaning.
10 pm: Fact Check An accountability show with major crowdsourcing elements to find the dissemblers and cheaters. The week’s most outrageous lies, gimme-a-break distortions and significant misstatements with no requirement whatsoever to make it come out equal between the two parties on any given day, week, month, season, year or era. CNN’s answer to Jon Stewart.

I don't think it would work, because frankly I don't think there are enough people left watching news on cable who don't want their biases constantly validated and reinforced. If such an audience exists at all, they'd have to win it back to TV news. But it would be kind of fun to watch them try.

by **philliesphhan** » Sat Apr 03, 2010 01:24:15

Rococo4 wrote:i was gone for like 3 months. I am glad I wasnt here for the health care debate. I would have either killed myself or been banned. I had more trouble sleeping that fateful Sunday night we passed that monstrosity than I did the night Obama won

You have serious issues if you really lost sleep over the election of a president.

by **jerseyhoya** » Sat Apr 03, 2010 01:26:49

philliesphhan wrote:
Rococo4 wrote:i was gone for like 3 months. I am glad I wasnt here for the health care debate. I would have either killed myself or been banned. I had more trouble sleeping that fateful Sunday night we passed that monstrosity than I did the night Obama won

You have serious issues if you really lost sleep over the election of a president.

Why? Presidents are sort of important.

by **philliesphhan** » Sat Apr 03, 2010 08:59:51

Not enough to lose sleep over. I'm sorry, but that's moronic.

by **pacino** » Sat Apr 03, 2010 09:41:20

jerseyhoya wrote:I was more referencing that nothing he did in his first few weeks in office was immediately responsible for the downward trend. If any policies were causal at that point for the gradual decrease in job loss numbers, it would have been the saving of the capital markets which was a bipartisan bit of action.

I think it's stupid too, but pacino, who is of course above such partisan games, posted the dumb chart. I was compelled to respond.

there was nothing partisan about it. it was a chart showing jobs and showing where the presidency changed hands. of course things don't change overnight. i posted it because the first significant change happened in the past month.

the only problem is apparently we need to stay above like 140k just to keep up. so this is the first month where we were even slightly above break even!

by **TenuredVulture** » Sat Apr 03, 2010 10:01:54

I'm with Philliesphhhan. Presidents may be important, but America is too great a nation to be in serious trouble over one election. Frankly, I sleep better when the guy I don't like wins than when the guy I do like wins, since I'm excited.

I also rarely lose any sleep over sporting losses. It's not like tossing and turning is going to change the outcome.

by **VoxOrion** » Sat Apr 03, 2010 11:42:54

Little blurb on economic numbers from Rea Hederman at Heritage Foundation via National Review

The March jobs report contained some of the good news that analysts have been waiting for. First, private hiring increased by 123,000 jobs, with every sector except financial and information adding jobs. Second, revisions to the employment reports of the previous months were revised upwards. Third, the unemployment rate remained flat at 9.7 percent, despite a tick up in the labor force. (Often, the unemployment rate increases as workers return to the labor force after the worst of a recession has passed. In this case, the labor force increased by 398,000, with most of the workers finding jobs, according to the household survey.) Fourth, both the household and establishment surveys are pointing in the same direction — showing job growth. Finally, hours worked continued its upward climb, matching this recovery’s January high.

There is some volatility to these numbers, as teenagers accounted for almost a third of new entrants into the labor force. The teenage unemployment rate sharply increased to 26.1 percent as many of the teenagers were unable to find work. But 325,000 adult men also entered or reentered the labor force, and enough of them found jobs to keep their unemployment rate at 10.0 percent. Overall, the labor force participation has climbed for four straight months but is still well below the pre-recession level.

So, the good news is that hiring has resumed and job growth should be consistent throughout the rest of the year. The bad news is that job growth is not yet robust enough to lower the unemployment rate. While hiring is likely to increase as the recovery strengthens, the labor-market recovery is going to be quite slow, especially as compared to some of the previous recessions. Part of the slack of the labor market is indicated by the fact that nominal earnings per hour actually fell in March. This slight dip is due in part to the new hires coming in at entry-level positions with commensurately lower pay. Long-term unemployment is going to remain a problem as the average duration of unemployment now exceeds 31 weeks, a new high.

Assuming I'm reading this correctly - the next "step" is to see new job creation outpace lost jobs.

by **allentown** » Sat Apr 03, 2010 12:04:41

jerseyhoya wrote:
The Nightman Cometh wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:It's probably constitutional-ish, and I don't think the courts will or should overturn it because I think legislatures should be allowed to make laws. That said it's really a different sort of thing, since it requires citizens to buy health insurance from a private entity merely for being a citizen. But we all know the Nightman Cometh is a constitutional law scholar so debating the point with him is fruitless.
That said when a congressman looks like a tit like that it's funny. "Doesn't matter to me...either one." Hah

What's the deal? Why the need to be such a dick so randomly? It's not even as if we had a conversation along these lines before or even about the constitution in general.

I generally think along the lines of Schaller at fivethirtyeight.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/03/constitutionality-of-mandatory.html

I look forward to your dickish response.

The comparisons to Medicare and Social Security aren't valid. The government is mandating me, John Q. Citizen, to buy health insurance from a private company. If I do not, the government will penalize me by taking more of my money. This is unprecedented, which is not the same thing as unconstitutional. I said the bill will be upheld as constitutional, but your examples of other things that are equally "unconstitutional" as this bill aren't good ones.

Schaller is an idiot, an embarrassment to FiveThirtyEight, and if you read even the first few comments you get better arguments on both sides of the issue.

Here is an instance of Republicans and the Right being totally disingenuous. First, the public option was awful socialism in which the government would unfairly compete with the free-market insurers. Now, they're telling us public option is the only way that the healthcare expansion can constitutionally cover an additional 32 million uninsured Americans. Well, perhaps they'd like to help the Dems perfect this law to meet their unreasonable constitutional quibbles and amend to add a public option alternative, so nobody is required to purchase their insurance from a private company.

by **dajafi** » Sat Apr 03, 2010 13:44:25

VoxOrion wrote:Little blurb on economic numbers from Rea Hederman at Heritage Foundation via National Review

The March jobs report contained some of the good news that analysts have been waiting for. First, private hiring increased by 123,000 jobs, with every sector except financial and information adding jobs. Second, revisions to the employment reports of the previous months were revised upwards. Third, the unemployment rate remained flat at 9.7 percent, despite a tick up in the labor force. (Often, the unemployment rate increases as workers return to the labor force after the worst of a recession has passed. In this case, the labor force increased by 398,000, with most of the workers finding jobs, according to the household survey.) Fourth, both the household and establishment surveys are pointing in the same direction — showing job growth. Finally, hours worked continued its upward climb, matching this recovery’s January high.

There is some volatility to these numbers, as teenagers accounted for almost a third of new entrants into the labor force. The teenage unemployment rate sharply increased to 26.1 percent as many of the teenagers were unable to find work. But 325,000 adult men also entered or reentered the labor force, and enough of them found jobs to keep their unemployment rate at 10.0 percent. Overall, the labor force participation has climbed for four straight months but is still well below the pre-recession level.

So, the good news is that hiring has resumed and job growth should be consistent throughout the rest of the year. The bad news is that job growth is not yet robust enough to lower the unemployment rate. While hiring is likely to increase as the recovery strengthens, the labor-market recovery is going to be quite slow, especially as compared to some of the previous recessions. Part of the slack of the labor market is indicated by the fact that nominal earnings per hour actually fell in March. This slight dip is due in part to the new hires coming in at entry-level positions with commensurately lower pay. Long-term unemployment is going to remain a problem as the average duration of unemployment now exceeds 31 weeks, a new high.

Assuming I'm reading this correctly - the next "step" is to see new job creation outpace lost jobs.

I think the next step is to see job creation outpace the number of entrants into the job market, including both the 120-150,000 new ones every month and the formerly discouraged workers who decide to start making calls and sending out resumes again because they hear the economy is adding jobs. What I gather is expected is that this won't happen for awhile--so we might add 100k-200k jobs per month, yet see the unemployment rate go back over 10 percent because the denominator gets bigger.

It's the opposite problem (and a better one to have) from what we saw last year, when the economy lost a couple hundred thousand jobs but the rate held steady or even declined slightly because so many folks just stopped looking.

What really concerns me is that even as we're starting to add jobs again, the long-term unemployment rate (>6 months) is close to an all-time high. Between the obsolescence of skills, the gaps on resumes and the less quantifiable but very real damage to self-confidence, a lot of these folks will have a hard time ever really getting back on their feet. It doesn't help that this was a "structural" recession, in which the action was destruction of old jobs and creation of new ones, rather than a cyclical one where workers are laid off and then rehired. Many of the firms that employed these people in the mid-'00s are now gone.

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Sat Apr 03, 2010 13:52:31

allentown wrote:Here is an instance of Republicans and the Right being totally disingenuous. First, the public option was awful socialism in which the government would unfairly compete with the free-market insurers.

You forgot about the death panels :!:

by **pacino** » Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:43:21

I knew it!

by **VoxOrion** » Sun Apr 04, 2010 11:02:32

News!

No one in my neighborhood got a Census questionnaire. We're all assuming that our development (2007-2008) didn't exist in the database. Fifty or sixty families uncounted! I'd care if if the gerrymandering wasn't going to be strictly Democrat in nature.

Archived

Where the heck is the New POLITICS Thread?