Karl Rove's column the other day joined the many conservatives expressing their hurt and anger that President Obama would depict Paul Ryan's budget as harming sick and vulnerable citizens:
In fact, Obama has never accused Ryan, or anybody, of having a "special delight" in targetting seniors and autistic children. But he has accused them of pursuing policies that would harm, among others, seniors and autistic children. That's because it's incontrovertably true. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities delves into the details of Ryan's plan to slash Medicaid by more than a third over the next decade, and in half over the next two decades:
Now, Rove appears to be a pathological liar, or at least so deeply enmeshed in partisan spin it's not clear that a distinction exists in his mind between objective truth and claims that are useful to his side. But many other conservatives have likewise expressed what has the ring of genuine outrage that Obama would accuse Ryan of snatching medical care away from people in nursing homes, very poor families, special needs children, and so on. I think it reflects, in part, an inability or lack of desire to think with any specificty about the concrete ramifications of imposing extremely deep cuts to Medicaid. Who do they think is on Medicaid? Prosperous, healthy people?
No, Medicaid is a bare-bones program throwing a lifeline to people who are in bad shape. Cutting Medicaid may be the politically easiest way for Ryan to clear budget room to preserve Bush-era revenue levels, as Medicaid patients have little political clout. But it is, well, deeply immoral. I'm actually surprised that conservatives not only can't seem to imagine (or care about) the consequences of such policies, but they can't even imagine that people like Obama would actually feel moral outrage at their plan. They can't imagine a liberal objection as representing anything other than an attempt to score political points. It's bizarre. I mean, of course Obama finds it morally objectionable to take away medical care to people in nursing homes and children with special needs. That's why he's a Democrat.
Very well put, but I don't think conservatives will ever be persuaded by a moral argument. I would argue that the inability of a large segment of the population to be able to afford medical care is a failure of capitalism that requires government correction if capitalism is to continue on its current course. Moreover, I only like reading what Rove says when Chait repeats it, otherwise I wouldn't be able to stand it.
Very well put, but I don't think conservatives will ever be persuaded by a moral argument. I would argue that the inability of a large segment of the population to be able to afford medical care is a failure of capitalism that requires government correction if capitalism is to continue on its current course. Moreover, I only like reading what Rove says when Chait repeats it, otherwise I wouldn't be able to stand it.
"It means depicting opponents as indecent, heartless people who take special delight in targeting seniors and autistic children." For a fat bald headed piece of shit like Rove, yeah, I can imagine he would take special delight in doing so. In fact, I have it on good authority that Rove likes to lather himself up with peanut butter and have his dog service him. (the local dog pound in his area is overrun with runaways with Jiffy breath and dog tags with Rove's name on it)
I honestly think we have to fight that lump of shit in a brooks brothers suit with the same hatred that he shows us.
So yes, I am certainly happy to call Paul Ryan an EVIL rat bastard who is in service to Satan and who c ... view full comment
"It means depicting opponents as indecent, heartless people who take special delight in targeting seniors and autistic children." For a fat bald headed piece of shit like Rove, yeah, I can imagine he would take special delight in doing so. In fact, I have it on good authority that Rove likes to lather himself up with peanut butter and have his dog service him. (the local dog pound in his area is overrun with runaways with Jiffy breath and dog tags with Rove's name on it)
I honestly think we have to fight that lump of shit in a brooks brothers suit with the same hatred that he shows us. So yes, I am certainly happy to call Paul Ryan an EVIL rat bastard who is in service to Satan and who calls it good, is it entirely true? I can't be sure but judging by his actions what choice do I have to think?
Yeah, I largely agree with Nusholtz, especially given how many on the right today are Randites. To them it is amoral to use the government to throw lifelines to the poor in the first place.
Yeah, I largely agree with Nusholtz, especially given how many on the right today are Randites. To them it is amoral to use the government to throw lifelines to the poor in the first place.
"Because the Ryan plan would require such deep cuts in federal Medicaid funding, it would inevitably result in less coverage for nursing home residents and shift more of the cost of nursing home care to elderly beneficiaries and their families. A sharp reduction in the quality of nursing home care would be virtually inevitable, due to the large reduction that would occur in the resources made available to pay for such care."
Actually, that understands the case. You can't get Medicaid to pay for nursing care until you are nearly bankrupt. The people relying on Medicaid that I know of, at least, simply don't have other resources. They have sold their farms or businesses, or depleted their s ... view full comment
"Because the Ryan plan would require such deep cuts in federal Medicaid funding, it would inevitably result in less coverage for nursing home residents and shift more of the cost of nursing home care to elderly beneficiaries and their families. A sharp reduction in the quality of nursing home care would be virtually inevitable, due to the large reduction that would occur in the resources made available to pay for such care."
Actually, that understands the case. You can't get Medicaid to pay for nursing care until you are nearly bankrupt. The people relying on Medicaid that I know of, at least, simply don't have other resources. They have sold their farms or businesses, or depleted their savings, used that money for care, because if they still had real assets outside of an actual house, they wouldn't be eligible. These people don't have other recourse. They will end up in a cess pool of a "care facility", or uncared for.
This is an excellent post, Jonathan. Conservatives plump for policies that will take away peoples' lifeboats and then they get angry when Barack Obama and other Democrats point out the consequences of policies that the starboard supports. It is quite something to observe.
B., you usually are pretty sensible but here you exhibit roid-like Tourette's. What with you being in Mexico - Oaxaca, no? - I would think that maybe you would be able to bring a little perspective to US politics. But no, my hopes are dashed again. Such are the perils of being a quasi-optimist.
This is an excellent post, Jonathan. Conservatives plump for policies that will take away peoples' lifeboats and then they get angry when Barack Obama and other Democrats point out the consequences of policies that the starboard supports. It is quite something to observe.
B., you usually are pretty sensible but here you exhibit roid-like Tourette's. What with you being in Mexico - Oaxaca, no? - I would think that maybe you would be able to bring a little perspective to US politics. But no, my hopes are dashed again. Such are the perils of being a quasi-optimist.
So, you can't claim they favour the wealthy and privileged because the wealth "trickles down" and you can't claim they are targeting the poor and sick by cutting welfare for the poor and healthcare for the sick because...well, they just don't appreciate the sentiment.
Exactly how do you debate with these people? Or is that the point entirely, to just fillibuster until people get bored and switch over to the Royal Wedding and the media feel obliged to "present both sides" and end the TV report with a call for some "middle ground" from an exhausted presenter.
Why not try it?
Get some freshman congressman to propose funding free third level education for all with subsistence grants to be funded ... view full comment
So, you can't claim they favour the wealthy and privileged because the wealth "trickles down" and you can't claim they are targeting the poor and sick by cutting welfare for the poor and healthcare for the sick because...well, they just don't appreciate the sentiment.
Exactly how do you debate with these people? Or is that the point entirely, to just fillibuster until people get bored and switch over to the Royal Wedding and the media feel obliged to "present both sides" and end the TV report with a call for some "middle ground" from an exhausted presenter.
Why not try it?
Get some freshman congressman to propose funding free third level education for all with subsistence grants to be funded by four new higher tax bands and when Republicans accuse you of hating the rich, then just stamp your feet and cry and wail...until the next Royal Wedding pics.
What do you expect from an outspoken admirer of Ayn Rand? Ms. Rand's ethics are completely inverted, a mirror image of almost every other ethical system, certainly those of every significant religion. She argues sincerely that human beings have no responsibility to each other whatsoever, that no one has any claim at all on the property of anyone else, and that for government to tax those with more property to benefit those with less is not merely a bad idea, but immoral in the exactly the same sense that murder or rape is immoral. "Let 'em die in the gutters if they can't support themselves" is a fair summary of her ideas about poverty. The fact that a major political figure in the US ... view full comment
What do you expect from an outspoken admirer of Ayn Rand? Ms. Rand's ethics are completely inverted, a mirror image of almost every other ethical system, certainly those of every significant religion. She argues sincerely that human beings have no responsibility to each other whatsoever, that no one has any claim at all on the property of anyone else, and that for government to tax those with more property to benefit those with less is not merely a bad idea, but immoral in the exactly the same sense that murder or rape is immoral. "Let 'em die in the gutters if they can't support themselves" is a fair summary of her ideas about poverty. The fact that a major political figure in the US in 2011 believes this sort of stuff is frankly appalling.
Chaitless, maybe this will help
1. Depict not the same as accuse. And yes, Ostrawma does depict
2. Q: Why don't Conservatives don't believe Liberals are looking out the poor?? --A; Overwhelming empiricial evidence: a) Liberals don't give as much money to the poor as Conservatives b) The anti-poverty programs liberals embrace are unmitigated failures c) The underlying mindset of dependence on Gov, while useful for liberal votes, does long term damage to the poor
d) the road to hell is paved with good intentions
Chaitless, maybe this will help
1. Depict not the same as accuse. And yes, Ostrawma does depict
2. Q: Why don't Conservatives don't believe Liberals are looking out the poor?? --A; Overwhelming empiricial evidence: a) Liberals don't give as much money to the poor as Conservatives b) The anti-poverty programs liberals embrace are unmitigated failures c) The underlying mindset of dependence on Gov, while useful for liberal votes, does long term damage to the poor
d) the road to hell is paved with good intentions
David Remnick, in his recent post in The New Yorker on the killing of OBL, quotes from an article by Obama, when he was an obscure state Senator, published in the Hyde Park Herald shortly after the 2001 terrorist attack: "The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity"¦." It's empathy (which is the ability to imagine oneself in the shoes of anoth ... view full comment
David Remnick, in his recent post in The New Yorker on the killing of OBL, quotes from an article by Obama, when he was an obscure state Senator, published in the Hyde Park Herald shortly after the 2001 terrorist attack: "The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity"¦." It's empathy (which is the ability to imagine oneself in the shoes of another, and is different from sympathy) that distinguishes Obama from Ryan (as well as Rove and many others). And recall that empathy was a major issue at the time of his appointment of Sotomayor (when many commenters confused empathy with sympathy). This is not to suggest equivalence between a terrorist attack and defunding Medicaid, but it's interesting how empathy seems to be a major motivation of Obama in public policy matters.
David Remnick, in his recent post in The New Yorker on the killing of OBL, quotes from an article by Obama, when he was an obscure state Senator, published in the Hyde Park Herald shortly after the 2001 terrorist attack: "The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity"¦." It's empathy (which is the ability to imagine oneself in the shoes of anoth ... view full comment
David Remnick, in his recent post in The New Yorker on the killing of OBL, quotes from an article by Obama, when he was an obscure state Senator, published in the Hyde Park Herald shortly after the 2001 terrorist attack: "The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity"¦." It's empathy (which is the ability to imagine oneself in the shoes of another, and is different from sympathy) that distinguishes Obama from Ryan (as well as Rove and many others). And recall that empathy was a major issue at the time of his appointment of Sotomayor (when many commenters confused empathy with sympathy). This is not to suggest equivalence between a terrorist attack and defunding Medicaid, but it's interesting how empathy seems to be a major motivation of Obama in public policy matters.
I continue to be amused at how many of Rove's accusations make so much more sense if one presumes Rove is projecting himself onto his opponent. I can actually imagine him enjoying a steak even more when he thinks about all the people who will never afford to eat at the fancy restaurants he patronizes.
I continue to be amused at how many of Rove's accusations make so much more sense if one presumes Rove is projecting himself onto his opponent. I can actually imagine him enjoying a steak even more when he thinks about all the people who will never afford to eat at the fancy restaurants he patronizes.
There is this huge internet that penetrates the domain of the earth more than the roads that span the planet. A person can visit limitless places in cyberspace in an instant. Why is Ratless continuously drawn here to complain? I still think it's Chait in a Clark Kent alter ego disguise.
There is this huge internet that penetrates the domain of the earth more than the roads that span the planet. A person can visit limitless places in cyberspace in an instant. Why is Ratless continuously drawn here to complain? I still think it's Chait in a Clark Kent alter ego disguise.
"I still think it's Chait in a Clark Kent alter ego disguise."
Mr. Rationale? Nah. Chait would be wittier and would make better arguments.
"I still think it's Chait in a Clark Kent alter ego disguise."
Mr. Rationale? Nah. Chait would be wittier and would make better arguments.
Read Full Article »