Perfection
The Great Head.
I've learned long ago to never post anything with the expectation of convincing anyone of anything.
Affordable Care Act
- Thread starter onejayhawk
- Start date
Gori the Grey
The Poster
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,363
For me, it's a combination of 3 and 2. I think he really believes in some things (that there are public servants who try to serve the public, that there are ways the senate ought to operate in serving the public (open hearings, regular order)) and that knowing he's not long for this world, he wants to go out fighting for things that matter.
metalhead
Angry Bartender
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 8,031
A reasonable expectation (or lack thereof), surely. But it's nettlesome when you can't even get an explanation out of someone for why they think a certain policy outcome is better than the status quo. I don't expect to change anyone's mind, but I do expect people to have an articulable rationale for their opinions. I guess maybe that expectation is out of whack with reality.
If one believes in limited government, that's fine, but I discovered a long time ago that adherence to that belief makes life unnecessarily more difficult for most people, and easier for people for which it would be pretty easy anyways. Making a few people a little less comfortable in exchange for making a lot of people significantly more comfortable is an outcome that many people argue against, but are never willing to own the simple terribleness of it.
Last edited:
Lexicus
Deity
J is actually right here. I know, I'm amazed too. But it is trickle-down economics to give any sort of economic subsidy (whether in the form of an actual subsidy or a tax cut) to the providers of a service, in the hope that they will provide the service more cheaply. The only reason this trickle-down stuff in Obamacare "worked", though, was that it came combined with the requirement that insurance plans actually cover things. If those insurance regulations had not been part of the package, the insurers would have taken the subsidy, offered cheaper plans that covered nothing, and pocketed the difference.
My theory is that he thought the Republican health care bills would be political suicide, and given the cancer diagnosis he makes (made? hopefully this is past tense but I have a feeling their crusade to destroy Obamacare isn't over yet) the best "fall guy", so to speak.
metalhead
Angry Bartender
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 8,031
It's not really "trickle-down" if the trickling is forced by regulations, though, is it? "Trickle" connotes flowing down on its own accord, where the subsidies would never flow down to the consumer level unless they were made to. Voodoo economics claims that trickling is aided by having fewer regulations as opposed to more, therefore I don't think this really fits as a case that proves the efficacy of trickle-down theory.
Lexicus
Deity
Well, sort of. Effectively regulating how the money is used makes it pretty different from the tax cuts, that much is certainly true. But it''s also true that the core philosophy motivating this Obamacare policy is not all that different from the core philosophy motivating the tax cuts. The Democrats are very much on board for this kind of stuff, for example as I recently argued in a different thread the Democrats' policy document "A Better Deal" contains several items that are essentially trickle-down economics. In many ways Democrats have become the party of "effective" trickle-down in that they still want to give money to rich people, but they actually do tend to incorporate policy measures that ensure the money really does end up creating a more broad-based benefit, unlike the Republicans who basically just give money to rich people, no strings attached or questions asked.
This is certainly true. Indeed, what I was moving towards was that this trickle-down aspect is a criticism of Obamacare, rather than an argument in favor of trickle-down generally. Since, afaik, J really does believe in trickle-down it seems that his motivation in bringing it up here was mainly to troll rather than to create any substantive point of discussion. Most of us here who support Obamacare, to my knowledge, would have preferred things like the public option to be added to it, generally we wanted it to be less friendly to the private insurers. But as I said quite recently to J, while I would dearly like to see the total destruction of the private health insurance industry, human lives are more important to me than my utopian dreams in the meantime. If I have to support stuff in the interest of the private insurers I'll accept that if it means better outcomes for people, while still working for a system change that makes that sort of compromise unnecessary.
Perfection
The Great Head.
where the heck did you pull that rediculous definition from?
I mean look at the wiki page on it:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics
Lexicus
Deity
Wikipedia's definition is no different than mine. Fixation on tax-cuts as the specific form of the subsidy granted is your problem, not mine.
EDIT: to elaborate a bit the point is improving the balance sheets of "investors", whether that means wealthy individuals or large corporations. The economic theory that if you coddle the rich, you will induce investment is the same whether you call it trickle-down, supply-side, or whatever. And it doesn't matter whether that coddling comes in the form of tax cuts, subsidies, deregulation, or what have you. What matters is the balance sheet effect, not the specific method of bringing about the balance sheet effect.
Last edited:
Perfection
The Great Head.
The point of trickle down theory is to provide general economic/wage growth/etc. not to lower the costs/increase the availability of a specific service.
Lexicus
Deity
This is a distinction without difference. Economically speaking, lowering the cost of a specific service means growth because it means people will have more money to spend on other stuff. But even more simply, lowering the cost of/increasing the availability of a bunch of different services is economic growth.
Perfection
The Great Head.
If the DMV orders toilet paper rolls from Costco is that trickle down economics?
Are you saying that it was a sort of wink-nod situation between the Republicans rather than McCain acting alone? If it was, Mitch McConnell really sold it on the Senate floor, he's got my vote for the Academy Award.
I know this is an RD thread, but that was laugh-out-loud funny. Good one. And when I thought about it some more... it made me laugh again for a different reason. Well played good sir
Lexicus
Deity
If the state provided a toilet paper subsidy to Costco so that it could supply the DMV with toilet paper rolls at reduced cost that would be trickle-down economics.
Of course, it would be a lot more trickle-down if you just provided a 'blank check' type subsidy in the blind hope this would reduce toilet paper costs than if the subsidy came with some regulatory provisions to ensure that it actually went into reducing toilet paper prices.
No, I would guess McCain made that calculation alone.
Last edited:
Perfection
The Great Head.
i am not asking about those scenarios, I'm asking about my scenario.
Lexicus
Deity
No, I wouldn't say the DMV getting toilet paper from costco is trickle-down economics.
Perfection
The Great Head.
Why not?
Lexicus
Deity
Does the DMV buying toilet paper from costco attempt to induce investment by giving money to rich people?
So McCain fell on the grenade/sword to preserve the electability of the Republicans?
If that's your take I'll have to think about whether that constitutes praiseworthy conduct. I mean if all he was doing was trying to save the Republicans from themselves politically, rather than actually trying to do what was best for the county/people, then I'm not sure he helped the situation at all. I'm gonna think about it.
Lexicus
Deity
So McCain fell on the grenade/sword to preserve the electability of the Republicans?
If that's your take I'll have to think about whether that constitutes praiseworthy conduct. I mean if all he was doing was trying to save the Republicans from themselves politically, rather than actually trying to do what was best for the county/people, then I'm not sure he helped the situation at all. I'm gonna think about it.
Keep in mind this is just a tentative take on the situation, I don't really know all the details and I would readily retract my theory if presented with facts that disprove it. I'm a big believer in evaluating actions in terms of their consequences, so I would be inclined to like what McCain did regardless of whether it was a purely political move or because he just couldn't bring himself to support such horrible bills, but my opinion of McCain is generally quite low and I'm really trying to prevent myself looking more fondly on "normal" Republicans in light of Trump's utter vileness.
metalhead
Angry Bartender
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 8,031
John McCain has always been a pretty staunchly conservative Republican loyalist. He's cultivated an image of a "maverick" that doesn't at all jive with reality.
However, he is also a traditionalist when it comes to procedure and institutions. It's consistent with his character and experience that he would find the process by which the various ACA "repeal" bills were crafted to be untenable and likely to lead to terrible policy. So I think his calculus arrives somewhere in the neighborhood of the intersection of "Protect the Republican Party from its worst instincts," and, "Protect the people from the very likely terrible policy that will result from such a terrible process." This is also consistent with his statements on the matter.
I and many, many others have been shouting for months that this process is a farce and that making very consequential legislation in such a manner not only further corrodes faith in democracy, it likely would create chaos and lead to significant amounts of unnecessary pain and suffering for millions of people. So no matter how you feel about John McCain, he appears to have listened to that specific appeal and taken it to heart and then acted accordingly. That deserves plaudits.
However, he is also a traditionalist when it comes to procedure and institutions. It's consistent with his character and experience that he would find the process by which the various ACA "repeal" bills were crafted to be untenable and likely to lead to terrible policy. So I think his calculus arrives somewhere in the neighborhood of the intersection of "Protect the Republican Party from its worst instincts," and, "Protect the people from the very likely terrible policy that will result from such a terrible process." This is also consistent with his statements on the matter.
I and many, many others have been shouting for months that this process is a farce and that making very consequential legislation in such a manner not only further corrodes faith in democracy, it likely would create chaos and lead to significant amounts of unnecessary pain and suffering for millions of people. So no matter how you feel about John McCain, he appears to have listened to that specific appeal and taken it to heart and then acted accordingly. That deserves plaudits.
Similar threads
