The Next President of the United States of America

Bush's prescription drug program wasn't 'conciliatory'. It was flat out crony capitalism. That was a far right program, not a 'liberal' one.

 

Oh I see. OneJ perpetuates his Bush fantasies by ignoring any actual events that are presented before him.

Well, that's one way of forming an opinion about Bush's rehabilitation I guess.

 

You're always so hostile, but on this one, I think you're wrong.
Medicare D and the ACA were some impressive rent-seeking coupes. I think that liberal policies are, in general, at greater risk of generating a rent-seeking coupe. The only exception would be resource extractions, which 'feel' more rightwing but aren't really (since it's the allocation of common property, which the rightwing doesn't really have a system for, and needs to use centrist policies to even play in the field).

Crony capitalism isn't rightwing by any stretch. It's just corruption, pure and simple. It happens in any system that allows lobbying. And, lobbying is essential, well, at least, having a system that brings experts to policy-makers is essential.

Now, I'll not deny that Medicare D and ACA were crony capitalism - Medicare D more obviously so. But, can you really see any Hayekian(etc.) agitating for anything similar to Medicare D? I don't think so. I think calling any corruption 'rightwing' to be unfair, it limits the debate. Subsidies are leftwing. Even rentseeking coupes are leftwing, because the right doesn't even have a system to award rentseeking behaviour - even when it's win/win.

 

Bush bashing is a waste of time and effort. The guy is gone with practically universal disapprobation, though I honestly don't know what that means. Spell checker gave it to me as an option and it sound really bad. Anyway, lets bash the current guy, if you are capable of bashing a fellow leftie. Good practice for free thinking.

The leftists are all the same, can never get enough.

 

Bashing Bush should be a bipartisan afair.

Not that I expect some third world island dweller like you would understand such a complicated concept

 

I think it's more accurate to say that part D was an attempt to curry favor with older voters, while at the same time throwing the majority of the benefit to corporations, and not the nominal beneficiaries. But at the same time there was no efforts made, deliberately so, to fund the program. So the cost of part D had to come out of a reduction of other social spending. Or more debt, until it forced a reduction in other social spending.

And while political corruption is not a partisan issue, it is certainly modus operandi of the Republican party in recent years.

 

Okay, we both acknowledge that Medicare D is a trainwreck of badness, a major win for lobbyists. BUT, the general idea "use tax funds to help out a poorer segment of society" is if anything a liberal policy. It is really true that pharma prices are rising faster than economic growth in general, so some assistance here is fine. I mean, Medicare D would've been fine to come out of a general taxation base, it didn't even need to be funded specifically, if it had only been allowed to negotiate prices.

I agree that it was designed to come out of general budget (or, deficit spending if necessary). I'm not sure that's not rightwing or not leftwing. I mean, deliberately funding a policy is just a 'makes sense' policy.

Consequently, it's definitely going to play out as a Starve the Beast play, no disagreement

 

The only Bush bashing going on in this thread is in response to the revival of Bush cheerleading. Normally, Bush bashing should be reserved for the MRA threads though.

 

Other than the pharma companies, the primary beneficiaries aren't poor. They're middle and upper middle class elderly.

 

Even a third world island dweller like myself gets tired of beating a dead horse.

Thanks Ziggy, I always wanted to use that smiley.

JollyRoger, come on, everyone needs a friend, even...him.

 

Yeah, it's not perfectly counter-regressive by any stretch. But it does catch a swath of the elderly that would appear to be 'poor' next to nearly any member of the working class.

Really, I think that no matter the program you set up, you'll always find someone poorer that cannot qualify (if only due to circumstances). The advantage of Medicare D is that it does have a diminishing benefit - there's only so much pharm you're going to buy under such a plan. edit: so, the richer you are, the less you actually benefited. And the poorer you are, the more you did.

 

You're welcome, as always

But consider when someone points at the dead horse and goes: he might win that race. In that csse I think pointing out the decomposing nature of the horse is called for.

 

The dead horse c o u l d win the race if all the other horses are dead as well and there's an earthquake to get them moving...



"...and their off!"

 

I would totally vote for an actual dead horse over the current field

At this point I just want someone who understands how to be a non-imperial president and how to actually work with a legislature and a dead horse might be able to do that. Bush didn't have to even try to do it for the first 6 years with legislative majorities and Tom Delay strongarming people and Obama doesn't have a clue how to work with legislators on anything. I need to dig up the Ron Fournier article where senior Democrats are basically telling him Obama makes them want to ragequit

 

IMO low voter turnout demonstrates that senior pols of any sort tend to make everybody want to ragequit.

I'm not saying Obama isn't particularly frustrating, but I am experiencing some schadenfreude.

 

Have you tried electing Rick Perry? As we all know, only centrist politicians are born solely from Texas, and nowhere else.

 

Rick Perry has been getting a lot more dumbassish since his failed presidential campaign a couple years ago.

 

I thought Tolni was being sarcastic.

 

Probably was.

 

Incitatus for President!

He has prior political experience, so he's pretty competitive.