Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

whereaminow (73.77)

Having Fun With My Critics

Recs

25

November 17, 2012 – Comments (19)

Let's start this hit parade with a segment I like to call "Questions that Quickly Silence a Room Full of Obama Supporters."

1. What exactly was Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi guilty of?

2. What particular aspect of the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973, which gave us the health care system in place prior to ObamaCare, was a failure?

3. Why did defense spending rise from 2008-2010, when Democrats controlled both Congress and the Presidency?

4. Why is Guantanomo Bay still open?

5. What is the NDAA?

Crickets.....

Up next is Fun with Austrian School Critics:

1.  Before you insist that we are just a bunch of crackpots, coherently explain a single Austrian School economics concept.

2.  Often the Austrian School is accused of promoting impractical and unrealistic ideas.  However, given that mainstream economics uses unrealistic concepts, such as Perfect Competition, as their starting points for analysis, why is the Austrian's causal-realist approach less practical?

3.  Given that the most encompassing empirical study of depressions ever conducted showed no link between deflation and economic depressions, why do you continue to insist that deflation causes depressions?

4.  Given that there are no constants in economic science, why does the method of mainstream economics pretend they exist?

5.  How does one objectively quantify utility?

Crickets....

Our next topic is called Questions Whose Answers Will Annoy Me Because Republicans Never Fail To Tote the Party Line:

1.  Ronald Reagan is often held up as an example (diety) of a successful small government Presidency.  Why did government grow under his stewardship?  In nominal terms, government spending rose 60% under his 8 yr tenure.  As a percent of national income, it grew 3% over Carter's final year.  The Dept of Education saw its budget double.  He never cut a single budget!  (His cuts were the Paul Ryan-style "cuts in spending increases", not actual cuts.)  Gross Federal Debt tripled under his administration.  His so-called tax cutting ways are also a myth (though he was not the tax hiker Democrats claim either.)  As a percentage of national income, tax revenue under Reagan decreased from 25.1% to 24.7%.  Excuse me while I give a "golf clap."  So what exactly did Ronald Reagan do to deserve his status as the Champion of Small Government?

2.  In exactly what way was Mitt Romney more electable than Ron Paul?

3.  Mitt Romney's approach to ObamaCare was something called "Repeal & Replace."  Exactly what was going to Replace it?

4.  In Crisis and Leviathan, Robert Higgs detailed case after historical case where government used a crisis to expand its powers, yet never receeded power to pre-crisis levels once it had passed.  With this as your backdrop, why do you continue to support foreign aggression that will only lead to bigger government, while simultaneoulsy fighting big govenrment?  Related: do you ever wonder if you're bi-polar?

5.   The opinion molders of the Right: Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly, etc, have never displayed the ability to grasp a single fundamental economic concept.  Why do you continue to listen to them?

6.  In regards to defense spending, justify historical costing.

Unfortunately, I will not get crickets from this band of yo-yo's....

David in Liberty

19 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On November 17, 2012 at 1:32 AM, smartmuffin (< 20) wrote:

3. Why did defense spending rise from 2008-2010, when Democrats controlled both Congress and the Presidency?

 

I always preferred the inverse of this, asking why overall spending (and domestic and entitlement spending specifically) didn't go down when Republicans controlled all three branches.

Report this comment
#2) On November 17, 2012 at 1:38 AM, whereaminow (73.77) wrote:

I always preferred the inverse of this, asking why overall spending (and domestic and entitlement spending specifically) didn't go down when Republicans controlled all three branches.

Republican Party loyalists are like battered wives.  They convince themselves that, despite all the injuries the Party causes to their psyche, the Party still really really loves them and is doing their best.  So, beaten and bloodied, they do as daddy Limbaugh says, decry all libertarians as anti-Isreal wackdoodles and march to the polls to check the R's.  

And the process endlessly repeats...

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#3) On November 17, 2012 at 2:15 AM, thomgonz (< 20) wrote:

1. For being a terrorist? Doing terroist things?

 2. Access to medical care for those with pre-conditions, and the inability to know the price of a procedure before the operation. I know PPACA didn't fix the latter option, but the former is the only thing I've seen from the bill that is a good idea.  Our healthcare is great for those who can afford it, otherwise you are screwed. 

3 4 and 5. Democrats enjoy bombing/torturing brown people just as much as republicans. 

1. Because you are all crazy gold bugs who want to be greedy and hoard money? Also who is going to stop people from frauding the currencies if we don't have the Fed to do it?

2, 3 and 4. Because Krugman told us so? 

5. Batman, and the usefulness of it on his belt? 

1. Charisma, the same reason democrats love JFK, Republican's have a gay fetish centered on him. AKA He's a panty dropper. 

2. Because Paultards are crazy!

3. Romneycare? 

4. Because the crisis was there because they weren't there to protect you, why don't you want protection? 

5. Because they are on Fox news? 

6. For protection! Why do you hate America so much you want to see us not protected.

number 2 in healthcare is my only serious answer.

Gonzo

Report this comment
#4) On November 17, 2012 at 2:28 AM, whereaminow (73.77) wrote:

Access to medical care for those with pre-conditions

That sounds like something that, like the HMO Act of 1973, will raise health care costs - particularly in light of the reduced competition resulting from the mandate.  Democrats insist that ObamaCare will lower costs.

Are you insinuating that they are being dishonest?

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#5) On November 17, 2012 at 2:48 AM, thomgonz (< 20) wrote:

From the insurance perspective yes, it would raise rates. The price of health care would go down if you could negotiate a price at the hospital. Which with our current and previous health care laws you can't do. I had to get an ultrasound in ~2009 when I was clearing my bill they logged the procedure under no health insurance and the bill was like $100, I informed them of their mistake and when they charged it against the insurance it was like $600 because that was the agreed rate between provider and insurance company. So if you had honest competition, they wouldn't be able to charge $600 for a $100 procedure and pass those savings onto the policy holders. But that would never happen.

Of course their dishonest, the whole thing is a sham written by the insurance agencies with themselves in mind. It's very reminiscent of the Monster from Jekyll Island. 

 I was just saying that one provision is good for people. It's like getting a gilded t-urd, sure it's a t-urd but at least it's covered in gold.

Fool filters t-urd but not crap...Profanity filter is crap

Report this comment
#6) On November 17, 2012 at 2:49 AM, thomgonz (< 20) wrote:

Now I feel like an idiot, They're dishonest, not their dishonest

Report this comment
#7) On November 17, 2012 at 2:55 AM, whereaminow (73.77) wrote:

Gonzo,

I just assumed you had been drinking as much as I have.

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#8) On November 17, 2012 at 1:26 PM, kdakota630 (33.34) wrote:

2.  In exactly what way was Mitt Romney more electable than Ron Paul?

In only one way that I know:  Mitt Romney was simply way more hunky than Ron Paul.  (You asked for a way he was more electable, not a "good" way that he was.) 

5.   The opinion molders of the Right: Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly, etc, have never displayed the ability to grasp a single fundamental economic concept.  Why do you continue to listen to them?

I don't disagree with this one at all, except that I wouldn't consider Bill O'Reilly an opinion molder of the Right, or at least not to the degree of the rest on that list. 

Report this comment
#9) On November 17, 2012 at 2:26 PM, whereaminow (73.77) wrote:

kdakota630,

I could throw Michael "Israel before America" Medved into that group as well. 

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#10) On November 17, 2012 at 5:44 PM, motleyanimal (97.81) wrote:

kdakota630,

Mitt Romney is way more "hunky?" I guess so, but at best he looks like the guy modeling underwear in a Sears catalog.

And we could solve the economic crisis if people would only get out there and break more windows.

Report this comment
#11) On November 17, 2012 at 7:25 PM, whereaminow (73.77) wrote:

And we could solve the economic crisis if people would only get out there and break more windows.

Now now, the Keynesians make it quite clear that this only works if the window is somehow broken unexpectedly.

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#12) On November 17, 2012 at 7:47 PM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

Nancy Pelosi explains the broken window theory, this should be good for a laugh:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBrlWCpCQF4

 

Report this comment
#13) On November 18, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Melaschasm (88.99) wrote:

I am neither a republican or a democrat, but I will answer one of your questions.

Reagan was a big spender.  Theoretically spending big was the compromise with a democrat controlled congress that was necessary to win the cold war and cut taxes.  

Reagan cut the top marginal income tax rate in half, and reduced income tax rates across the board.  That we did not have a huge reduction in tax revenue is strong evidence that the USA was on the wrong side of the Laffer Curve.  While a bigger tax cut would have been better, he did move the USA in the right direction on taxes.  

Reagan also made some big reductions in regulations for certain industries.  While many areas of government saw increased regulation under Reagan, he was still better than most of the Presidents in the past few decades on regulation.  

When most presidencies are absolutely terrible from a libertarian standpoint, one that was not great gets high praise by comparison.

PS Conservatives and tea partiers opposed Romney, but the liberal wing of the republican party won again. 

Report this comment
#14) On November 18, 2012 at 9:43 PM, whereaminow (73.77) wrote:

Melaschasm,

That was an excellent answer. I will keep that in mind.  Thank you!

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#15) On December 07, 2012 at 8:44 AM, FreeMarkets (99.28) wrote:

Sorry for the late reply, but you wrote: "3.  Given that the most encompassing empirical study of depressions ever conducted showed no link between deflation and economic depressions, why do you continue to insist that deflation causes depressions?"

Can you link to the source?  Thanks. 

Report this comment
#16) On December 07, 2012 at 9:04 AM, dag154 (66.47) wrote:

Take a chill pill why don't you and enjoy the fact that you are living in one of the few growing economies in the developed world! 

All of Europe is in a recession, many countries suffer from abject poverty and lack the most basic things such as food and clean waters, and you guys keep on whining!  Yea, yea, dooms-day is just around the corner - which is exactly what was said when Obama was first elected 4 years ago.

As an MBA graduate I have a decent understanding of economic principles and I am indeed calling you a bunch of crackpot! 

Report this comment
#17) On December 07, 2012 at 9:28 AM, whereaminow (73.77) wrote:

FreeMarkets,

See here. At the bottom, there is a link to the original Atkeson and Kehoe study.

dag154,

I'm very happy for your upcoming graduation.  

I am glad you feel better now.

David in Liberty

Report this comment
#18) On December 13, 2012 at 5:54 AM, dag154 (66.47) wrote:

Hi David,

I was travelling and so delayed in answering you.  

You should stay away from such complicated articles as the one you referred me to.  These concepts are far too nuanced and complex to constitute part of your argument.

To state that deflation and depression are not statistically correlated is so obvious as to verge on the stupid.  Imagine for example a significant fall in energy and commodity prices.  Not only would this bring direct deflation, it would also reduce the cost of goods sold and as a result, would reduce the prices for most goods on the market.  This would in turn bring an economic boom. Deflation = boom .  YAY!

Don’t simplify ... life is more complicated.  These Austrian economists you make fun of, spent years of hard study to develop some truly valuable models and the fact that they have weaknesses in no way justify your superfial aproach to them.

Report this comment
#19) On December 16, 2012 at 11:20 PM, whereaminow (73.77) wrote:

^^^^

What in the heck are you talking about?

David in Liberty

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement