The scary woman from Queens

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Yes, I am just like that.

I know I am kidding. I don't care who you are, that guy is looney tunes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

George F. Will: Ocasio-Cortez could learn a thing or two about socialism from Trump

By George F. Will | The Washington Post
·
Published: 1 day ago
Updated: 21 hours ago
Washington • For three months in 1917, Leon Trotsky lived in the Bronx, just south of the congressional district where Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently defeated a 10-term incumbent in a Democratic primary. Because she calls herself a democratic socialist, the word “socialism” is thrilling progressives who hanker to storm the Bastille, if only America had one. And the word has conservatives darkly anticipating the domestic equivalent of the Bolsheviks storming St. Petersburg’s Winter Palace 101 years ago, if there is an equivalent building in the eastern Bronx and northern Queens. Never mind that only about 16,000 voted for Ocasio-Cortez’s version of “Arise, ye prisoners of starvation!”

A more apt connection of current events to actual socialism was made by Sen. Ron Johnson, the Wisconsin Republican, when Donald Trump decided to validate the conservative axiom that government often is the disease for which it pretends to be the cure. When the president decided to give farmers a $12 billion bandage for the wound he inflicted on them with his splendid little (so far) trade war, and when other injured interests joined the clamor for comparable compensations, Johnson said, “This is becoming more and more like a Soviet type of economy here: Commissars deciding who’s going to be granted waivers, commissars in the administration figuring out how they’re going to sprinkle around benefits.”

Concerning Johnson’s observation, the Hoover Institution’s John H. Cochrane, who blogs as The Grumpy Economist, says actually, it’s worse than that: “It’s a darker system, which leads to crony capitalism.” Cochrane is just slightly wrong: Protectionism, and the promiscuous and capricious government interventions that inevitably accompany it, is, always and everywhere, crony capitalism. But he is spot on about the incompatibility of America’s new darker system and the rule of law:


“Everyone depends on the whim of the administration. Who gets tariff protection? On whim. But then you can apply for a waiver. Who gets those, on what basis? Now you can get subsidies. Who gets the subsidies? There is no law, no rule, no basis for any of this. If you think you deserve a waiver, on what basis do you sue to get one? Well, it sure can’t hurt not to be an outspoken critic of the administration when the tariffs, waivers and subsidies are being handed out on whim. This is a bipartisan danger. I was critical of the ACA (Obamacare) since so many businesses were asking for and getting waivers. I was critical of the Dodd-Frank Act since so much regulation and enforcement is discretionary. Keep your mouth shut and support the administration is good advice in both cases.”

Now do you see what Friedrich Hayek meant when he said that socialism puts a society on the road to serfdom? Protectionism — government coercion supplanting the voluntary transactions of markets in the allocation of wealth and opportunity — is socialism for the well connected. But, then, all socialism favors those adept at manipulating the state. As government expands its lawless power to reward and punish, the sphere of freedom contracts. People become wary and reticent lest they annoy those who wield the administrative state as a blunt instrument.

Tariffs are taxes, and presidents have the anti-constitutional power to unilaterally raise these taxes because Congress, in its last gasps as a legislature, gave away this power. What do the members retain? Their paychecks. Certainly not their dignity.

Noting that some Trump protectionism is rationalized as essential for “national security,” Cochrane, who clings to the quaint fiction that Congress still legislates, suggests a new law stipulating that such tariffs must be requested — and paid for — by the Defense Department: “Do we need steel mills so we can re-fight WWII? If so, put subsidized steel mills on the defense budget. If defense prefers to use the money for a new aircraft carrier rather than a steel mill, well, that’s their choice.” Actually, the Defense Department, unlike much of the rest of the government, has serious responsibilities and has not trafficked in “national security” nonsense about protectionism.

In 1932, three years into the terrifying Depression, the Socialist Party’s presidential candidate, Norman Thomas, received fewer votes (884,885) in the presidential election than the (913,693) Eugene Debs won in 1920 when, thanks to the wartime hysteria Woodrow Wilson fomented, he was in jail. Now, however, there is a Republican president who can teach Ocasio-Cortez a thing or two about the essence of socialism, which is 10-thumbed government picking winners and losers and advancing the politicization of everything.

You have this curious way of defending your position with something that contradicts it. Here you post an article by George Will, which you apparently approve of, that we are supposed to somehow believe supports Ocasio Cortez (I assume it is in defense of her against Jim's attack of her credibility). But what Will writes utterly destroys what she stands for.

How are we supposed to "expand our horizon", as you suggest, by watching the Cortez video if you post an article that thoroughly vitiates what she politically believes?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

That's simple isn't it?
From The Grumpy Economist
https://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/
Single payer sympathy?
A July 30 2018 Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal, titled "The tax and spend health care solution"
Why is paying for health care such a mess in America? Why is it so hard to fix? Cross-subsidies are the original sin. The government wants to subsidize health care for poor people, chronically sick people, and people who have money but choose to spend less of it on health care than officials find sufficient. These are worthy goals, easily achieved in a completely free-market system by raising taxes and then subsidizing health care or insurance, at market prices, for people the government wishes to help.
But lawmakers do not want to be seen taxing and spending, so they hide transfers in cross-subsidies. They require emergency rooms to treat everyone who comes along, and then hospitals must overcharge everybody else. Medicare and Medicaid do not pay the full amount their services cost. Hospitals then overcharge private insurance and the few remaining cash customers.
Overcharging paying customers and providing free care in an emergency room is economically equivalent to a tax on emergency-room services that funds subsidies for others. But the effective tax and expenditure of a forced cross-subsidy do not show up on the federal budget.
Over the long term, cross-subsidies are far more inefficient than forthright taxing and spending. If the hospital is going to overcharge private insurance and paying customers to cross-subsidize the poor, the uninsured, Medicare, Medicaid and, increasingly, victims of limited exchange policies, then the hospital must be protected from competition. If competitors can come in and offer services to the paying customers, the scheme unravels.
No competition means no pressure to innovate for better service and lower costs. .....
...

As usual, I have to wait 30 days to post the whole thing. It synthesizes some of my earlier blog posts (here here here) on how cross subsidies are worse than straightforward, on budget, taxing and spending.

Let me here admit to one of the implications of this view. Single payer might not be so bad -- it might not be as bad as the current Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, VA, etc. mess.

But before you quote that, let's be careful to define what we mean by "single payer," which has become a mantra and litmus test on the left. There is a huge difference between "there is a single payer that everyone can use," and "there is a single payer that everyone must use."

Most on the left promise the former and mean the latter. Not only is there some sort of single easy to access health care and insurance scheme for poor or unfortunate people, but you and I are forbidden to escape it, to have private doctors, private hospitals, or private insurance outside the scheme. Doctors are forbidden to have private cash paying customers. That truly is a nightmare, and will mean the allocation of good medical care by connections and bribes.

But a single provider than anyone in trouble can use, supported by taxes, not cross-subsidized by restrictions on your and my health care -- not underpaying in a private system and forcing that system to overcharge others -- while allowing a vibrant completely competitive free market in private health care on top of that, is not such a terrible idea, and follows from my Op-Ed. A single bureaucracy that hands out vouchers, pays full market costs, or pays partially but allows doctors to charge whatever they want on top of that would work. A VA like system of public hospitals and clinics would work too. Like public schools, or public restrooms, you can use them, but you don't have to; you're free to spend your money on better options if you like, and people are free to start businesses to serve you. And no cross-subisides.

Whether we restrict provision with income and other tests, and thus introduce another marginal disincentive to work, or give everyone access and count on most working people to choose a better product, I leave for another day. It would always be an inefficient bureaucratic problem, but it might not be the nightmare of anti-competitive inefficiency of the current system.

This guy seems to believe in, and want, free market health care. Surprised you posted it.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You have this curious way of defending your position with something that contradicts it. Here you post an article by George Will, which you apparently approve of, that we are supposed to somehow believe supports Ocasio Cortez (I assume it is in defense of her against Jim's attack of her credibility). But what Will writes utterly destroys what she stands for.

How are we supposed to "expand our horizon", as you suggest, by watching the Cortez video if you post an article that thoroughly vitiates what she politically believes?

When did I say she was correct in her approach to healthcare and education what I do think is she will move public opinion
Just like the reporter who wrote the article Jim cited and said there but for the grace of God go I other people will say that’s a good idea how can we make that happen
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

This guy seems to believe in, and want, free market health care. Surprised you posted it.

What I believe in and what I think is possible are different things
I think this approach could work it seems similar to the uk model
“But a single provider than anyone in trouble can use, supported by taxes, not cross-subsidized by restrictions on your and my health care -- not underpaying in a private system and forcing that system to overcharge others -- while allowing a vibrant completely competitive free market in private health care on top of that, is not such a terrible idea, “
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

What I believe in and what I think is possible are different things
I think this approach could work it seems similar to the uk model
“But a single provider than anyone in trouble can use, supported by taxes, not cross-subsidized by restrictions on your and my health care -- not underpaying in a private system and forcing that system to overcharge others -- while allowing a vibrant completely competitive free market in private health care on top of that, is not such a terrible idea, “
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Isn't that exactly what the Repubs were arguing for as an alternative to Obamacare before it was passed--government pay for those that were truly needy and let everyone else have what they had? And isn't the UK model not as successful, or less costly, as other models?

And why would you believe in something that is not possible?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

When did I say she was correct in her approach to healthcare and education what I do think is she will move public opinion

Yes, the peaceful authoritarian way is to move public opinion. That is the purpose of propaganda. Or lies. Or giving goodies to get votes.

Yes, there is a large portion of modern folks who are very susceptible of having their opinion moved in the direction of some socialist form of fairy dust that will bestow the magic food, clothing, shelter, education, and lots of time to enjoy life, basically paid for and provided by "society."

Just like the reporter who wrote the article Jim cited and said there but for the grace of God go I other people will say that’s a good idea how can we make that happen
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Cortez seems to think she knows the way. But people have been trying unsuccessfully to make that happen, including Cortez's way, for eons. Capitalism is the closest way we have come to achieve it. Cortez's way is contradicted by the article you posted by George Will. Why did you post Will's Article?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Isn't that exactly what the Repubs were arguing for as an alternative to Obamacare before it was passed--government pay for those that were truly needy and let everyone else have what they had? And isn't the UK model not as successful, or less costly, as other models?

And why would you believe in something that is not possible?

The problem with income qualified programs is that they end up being detrimental to people being able to get ahead, “I can’t make that much I’ll lose my (blank)
If everyone’s primary care was funded, two things will happen.
Emergency rooms will no longer be primary care providers (they are not efficient at that) and medical conditions will be identified at earlier stages where the costs are lower. We currently fund those things directly and indirectly in possibly the most inefficient way possible.
I should have said probable not possible
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Interesting view of Cortez and the Democrat party by someone who is not a "Republican" and who did not like Reagan and thought that those who loved him and his policies were idiots:

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Cortez seems to think she knows the way. But people have been trying unsuccessfully to make that happen, including Cortez's way, for eons. Capitalism is the closest way we have come to achieve it. Cortez's way is contradicted by the article you posted by George Will. Why did you post Will's Article?

We successfully fund primary and secondary education publicly and our society benefits from that, is it impossible to do more? Now I also don’t believe that further education is what everyone needs
George Will is a interesting writer. I thought his article drawing parallels between Cortez and Trump was interesting and important.
Politics in reality is not a straight line, trying to make it that has put us in the place we are today
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Interesting view of Cortez and the Democrat party by someone who is not a "Republican" and who did not like Reagan and thought that those who loved him and his policies were idiots:

I could only take a couple of minutes of him
He doesn’t vote except for himself but he’ll vote for Trump and he hates populist socialists and the current Democratic leadership
Cortez epitomizes everything wrong with the Democratic Party today and luckily she will have them all follow her like lemmings over a cliff in this election cycle.
Am I close?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

We successfully fund primary and secondary education publicly and our society benefits from that,

The vast bulk of funding for primary and secondary education is done by the states. As it should constitutionally be. There is also a very large amount of private funding for private schools. As it constitutionally should be. Our society benefits from both.

It is not a constitutional power for the federal government to intrude on state and private education. It is debatable whether society benefits or is harmed by that. Certainly, it needlessly adds to the national debt and enlarges Federal power. And it imposes dictatorial regulations on public education (and private as well) that weakens the states position as that pool of competitive ways of doing things which, in the long run, could create better results.

George Will is a interesting writer. I thought his article drawing parallels between Cortez and Trump was interesting and important.

Since you do not approve of Trump, I wouldn't think you'd want to draw parallels of Cortez to Trump unless you want to discredit her. Wouldn't the differences be what is important--if what Cortez says is supposed to "expand our horizon."

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Politics in reality is not a straight line, trying to make it that has put us in the place we are today

What "line" are you talking about? Would a crooked line make it better? Another one of your many cryptic statements. Please verify.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Since you do not approve of Trump, I wouldn't think you'd want to draw parallels of Cortez to Trump unless you want to discredit her. Wouldn't the differences be what is important--if what Cortez says is supposed to "expand our horizon."



Politics in reality is not a straight line, trying to make it that has put us in the place we are todayPolitics in reality is not a straight line, trying to make it that has put us in the place we are today

What "line" are you talking about? Would a crooked line make it better? Another one of your many cryptic statements. Please verify.[/QUOTE]
Try putting party in front of line

And politics is rarely a pure party line
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Try putting party in front of line

And politics is rarely a pure party line. Trying to make it that has put us in the place we are today.

If it is RARELY a pure party line, then how is "trying to make it that put us in the place we are today"? What "place" are we in today? Trump, obviously, does not follow a pure party line. The Repubs are split among factions. As well are the Dems, maybe even more so. Is there such a thing as a pure party line?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I could only take a couple of minutes of him
He doesn’t vote except for himself but he’ll vote for Trump and he hates populist socialists and the current Democratic leadership
Cortez epitomizes everything wrong with the Democratic Party today and luckily she will have them all follow her like lemmings over a cliff in this election cycle.
Am I close?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, you're not close. The reason for Lionel's repudiation of the Democrat party (which he seems to have liked more than the Republican Party in the past), and his desire to destroy it as it is, goes well beyond Cortez. It's similar to why JohnR left the party, except Lionel is far more disgusted with what the Dem Party has become.

Lionel is not voting for Trump because of the man per se, but because he is the vehicle through which the Democrat Party can be eliminated and, perhaps, be forced to return to what it once was.

If you watch the whole video, you might, as you say, expand your horizon. But I sympathize that you could only take a few minutes of him. I felt the same way about Cortez.