Wednesday, October 30, 2019
Stop the Trump agenda?
A recent pop up ad is a sham and a shame. It confirms that Ds monger in fear and throw out red herring just as the Rs do. The ad urged me to vote Democratic in Virginia's election to stop Trump's lies and corruption.
Press coverage of Baghdadi
Rolling Stone opines that the coverage of the death of Baghdadi in the news media is a sham and a shame.
Stop the witch hunt?
This flyer I received in the mail is a sham and a shame. It urges me to vote Republican in the upcoming elections in Virginia. However, no one on my ballot has any role in the impeachment process. I am voting for a county supervisor, a member of the county school board, country treasurer, and delegate and senator to Virginia's General Assembly, not my Representative or Senator in Congress. None of the officials I can help elect are running against H. Clinton, Pelosi and Schiff (Pelosi and Schiff are pictured on the flip side of the flyer.) We need relevant information when determining for whom to vote, not fear mongering and red herrings.
Tuesday, October 29, 2019
Saturday, October 26, 2019
Rs focus on taxes when attacking Medicare for All
The focus by Rs on taxes when the attack proposals for Medicare for All is a sham and a shame. Yes, taxes will increase; the US is currently spending over $3 billion on health care and the government, therefore, needs about that much to pay for Medicare for All. However, Medicare for All would also eliminate most health insurance premia and payments to health care providers. We need an honest debate to solve the difficult problems we face, not scare mongering.
Rs and Ds switch positions re Russian Interference
The difference in how Rs and Ds treat Trump's interactions with Russia in the 2016 election and H. Clinton's interactions is a sham and a shame. My understanding is that
- Russia engaged in a misinformation campaign, Trump praised Putin, Trump asked Russia in a press conference to look for H. Clinton's email, and Mueller found no collusion.
- H. Clinton's campaign and the DNC funneled money to a lawyers, who paid Steele for a dossier, and Steele paid Russians for dirt on Trump.
How do Rs and Ds respond?
The Ds state that Trump has committed something terrible and that nothing is wrong with what Clinton did.
The Rs state that nothing is wrong with what Trump did and that Clinton has committed something terrible
The flip flop illustrates how expediency determines which position each side takes.
The flip flop illustrates how expediency determines which position each side takes.
Sunday, October 20, 2019
Warren's focus on who bears "costs" in her Medicare for All plan
Warren's focus on "costs" when she defends her Medicare for All plan is a sham and a shame. She is unwilling to state that taxes will increase for just about everyone and refuses to disclose why costs for anyone would decrease and by how much. We need honest debate to solve the difficult problems we face, not vague promises.
Why doesn't she say something like this?
The first reason to repeat endlessly that, "costs will increase for rich people and large corporations and costs will decrease for middle-income people" is that it might be a brilliant political tactic. At a recent debate, she got to repeat the line about six times. I suspect if middle-income people hear the line enough, they might believe that the plan would be good for them. If people simply want to know whether or not to "like" something and want to avoid cognitive load, her tactic may be the best way to build and maintain support for her candidacy.
A second reason to avoid clear statements about the plan is that they might reveal flaws in the plan. They might reveal that the analysis is flawed because the numbers "don't add up". They might reveal that her plan treats people who think she is talking about them when she says "middle income" as rich people.
The third reason for obfuscation is that clear statement reveal how little impact is has on people with middle incomes. I am having trouble finding big reductions in costs for middle-income folks in my back of the envelope calculations because middle income is where the tax revenue is. Bank robbers rob banks and politicians tax the middle class because that's where the money is. If the decrease is small, the middle income folks she is counting on to support her may say, "Why bother?"
The final reason for obfuscation is that details might reveal that individual outcomes differ from averages. For example, costs might decrease for most middle-income people but increase for others. Once the others recognize that the plan increases their costs, she begins to lose support. Moreover, even people with projected cost decreases may wonder if they will benefit when revision occurs, and they are smart enough to know that revision will occur.
Why doesn't she say something like this?
Costs for rich people would increase by $500 because their health insurance premia and health care payments would decrease by $1,000 but their taxes would increase by $1,500.
Costs for middle-income people would decrease by $200 because their health insurance premia and health care payments would decrease by $600 and their taxes would decrease by $800.I suspect that four reasons drive her to avoid such clear statements. First, repeating that, "costs will increase for rich people and large corporations and costs will decrease for middle-income people" may be a brilliant political tactic. Second, clear statements about the plan might reveal flaws in the plan. Third, clear statements might reveal how little impact is has on people with middle incomes. Fourth, individual outcomes differ from averages.
The first reason to repeat endlessly that, "costs will increase for rich people and large corporations and costs will decrease for middle-income people" is that it might be a brilliant political tactic. At a recent debate, she got to repeat the line about six times. I suspect if middle-income people hear the line enough, they might believe that the plan would be good for them. If people simply want to know whether or not to "like" something and want to avoid cognitive load, her tactic may be the best way to build and maintain support for her candidacy.
A second reason to avoid clear statements about the plan is that they might reveal flaws in the plan. They might reveal that the analysis is flawed because the numbers "don't add up". They might reveal that her plan treats people who think she is talking about them when she says "middle income" as rich people.
The third reason for obfuscation is that clear statement reveal how little impact is has on people with middle incomes. I am having trouble finding big reductions in costs for middle-income folks in my back of the envelope calculations because middle income is where the tax revenue is. Bank robbers rob banks and politicians tax the middle class because that's where the money is. If the decrease is small, the middle income folks she is counting on to support her may say, "Why bother?"
The final reason for obfuscation is that details might reveal that individual outcomes differ from averages. For example, costs might decrease for most middle-income people but increase for others. Once the others recognize that the plan increases their costs, she begins to lose support. Moreover, even people with projected cost decreases may wonder if they will benefit when revision occurs, and they are smart enough to know that revision will occur.
Saturday, October 19, 2019
Hypocrites on what to do if a SC judge retires next year
The views expressed by both Ds and Rs about what to if Trump nominates a Supreme Court judge in the 4th year of his term are shams and shames.
- Republicans
When Obama was President, Rs said that the best action was to wait to see how people voted in the next Presidential election. Now they say that the best action is to move speedily. - Democrats
When Obama was President, Ds said that the best action was to to move speedily. Now they say that the best action is wait to see how people voted in the next Presidential election.
The difference? The difference is that Obama was a Democrat and Trump is a Republican. Both sides say whatever to get a nominee selected by a President from their party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)