Sure, it seems the Republicans have lost clout and the Democrats have gained it. From my vantage point it seems that the most significant growth in party alignment is among those who are independents. I am not particulary up to snuff on the stats to back my opinion up. I have seen some in California among registration that would suggest it is the case. Mostly I'm being subjective since I lost interest in pledging allegiance to the dems or repubs long go. Looking at a possible second stimulus is a cloudy endeavor. Like stated in the diavlog the health care proposal wiill probably crowd it out. Granted, so far it seems not to be doing a whole lot of good. Then again, some say it has been given enough time and it wasn't big enough. Well, it wasn't front loaded so maybe they are correct and we should wait till the middle of '10 to properly evaluate it. However, by that time some many other things will be happening the only ones to do that will be financial types who write books that very few people read. With all the

The Obama deficit has permanently changed the federal system in the US. You cant have small government and still pay off the debt that is being piled on by this guy. To service the debt and provide what has become accepted as basic government services you need high taxes. High taxes are like kryptonite to conservative governance. Since you need high taxes to service the debt, you cant have conservative government. On another side, you have an economy being destroyed by democrat governance. Democrat voters have no understanding that what matters in an economy is the production of stuff that people want and need. When the feds pay people to build bike paths or change all the light bulbs in a building or mandate wheelchair ramps or, worst of all, stay idle by extending their unemployment payments .... the production of useful stuff is being decreased in favor of the production of less useful stuff. The end result is the useful stuff costs more ( by definition there is a demand for it ), there is less useful stuff to go around ( standard of living

Quoting bkjazfan: With all the government spending going and mounting debt it seems the big question now is it in our best interest to be running deficits in the trillion dollar range every year. Again, I look at it personally. My grandmother once said "don't spend what you don't have." She wasn't a college person but handled what little money she had very well. At the time I thought little of it but now see the wisdom of her words.

I agree that minimizing personal debt makes sense, but I think that demonstrates the error in equating personal and public debt. Personal debt only benefits the creditor, but government debt benefits everyone by making bonds available and manipulating the money supply.

Quoting pampl: I agree that minimizing personal debt makes sense, but I think that demonstrates the error in equating personal and public debt. Personal debt only benefits the creditor, but government debt benefits everyone by making bonds available and manipulating the money supply.

When the government goes into debt, everyone is adversely affected to the extent that everyone has to pay back their share of the debt. I cant make a case that all government debt is bad, although I am inclined to think that way. The economy grew quite well up until a few years ago despite years and years of deficit spending.

Quoting pampl: I agree that minimizing personal debt makes sense, but I think that demonstrates the error in equating personal and public debt. Personal debt only benefits the creditor, but government debt benefits everyone by making bonds available and manipulating the money supply.

I have never taken economics course. I have read some on it but it gets confusing. Someone once said or I heard the following: "economics is nothing but politics with numbers attached to it." A conservative will say the national debt is a disgrace and a liberal one will say it may be but no biggie. That's about as much as I know. Oh, and the other day Glenn Loury said "there is no free lunch." I think that one for many is "hard to swallow." John

Quoting bkjazfan: I have never taken economics course. I have read some on it but it gets confusing. Someone once said or I heard the following: "economics is nothing but politics with numbers attached to it." A conservative will say the national debt is a disgrace and a liberal one will say it may be but no biggie. That's about as much as I know.

John

That's not really true, though. Conservatives say the national debt is no biggie when they're in power just like liberals. Out of power they say it's a biggie. The national debt quadrupled under Reagan and was reduced under Clinton, for example.

Quoting pampl: That's not really true, though. Conservatives say the national debt is no biggie when they're in power just like liberals. Out of power they say it's a biggie. The national debt quadrupled under Reagan and was reduced under Clinton, for example.

Yes, you are right about that. Also, it seems that the presidents who mouth the fiscal restraint mantra are the violators of it. Reagan and GW come to mind. I think Obama says it will come into line somewhere down the road which isn't convincing. No wonder some become cynical with elective politics. John

The bloggingheads medium has its limitations. I had a hard time maintaining attention to this conversation, because I can't stand the way these two talk. Matt sounds like a Martian from Mars Attacks; Megan sounds like a semi-pro Valley Girl. One distracting voice I can take, but two bowl me over.

If Megan McArdle seriously sees no problem if we decide to spend 50 percent of our GDP on healthcare a generation hence "as long as we get good value" you have to wonder if she is afraid of dying. Either that or she is completely out of touch with the realities of working class life.

Quoting BornAgainDemocrat: If Megan McArdle seriously sees no problem if we decide to spend 50 percent of our GDP on healthcare a generation hence "as long as we get good value" you have to wonder if she is afraid of dying. Either that or she is completely out of touch with the realities of working class life.

Both.

Quoting Ray: The bloggingheads medium has its limitations.

I had a hard time maintaining attention to this conversation, because I can't stand the way these two talk. Matt sounds like a Martian from Mars Attacks; Megan sounds like a semi-pro Valley Girl.

One distracting voice I can take, but two bowl me over.

Yes, their voices are a bit strange. I'm sure their writing skills are much better or I hope they are since I have never read their works. I could only handle the first two segments. John

If Megan McArdle seriously sees no problem if we decide to spend 50 percent of our GDP on healthcare...... She's a conservative so of course she has no understanding of the working class!!
I'm sure that Megan was speaking about worse case with her tongue in her cheek, refering to the possibility that if the government takes over this will occur. Besides, isn't it the Dems who always say 'damn the cost, we need this thing or that'? I thought these two were great, and I liked their gen x way of speaking.....It was an absolutely honest exposition of the dilemmas with which we are faced. Neither offered solutions because, as they alluded to, with our current situation there are none. I thought it was interesting that they agreed that the time for sweeping change is just about over. FDR got away with it, but things have gotten too complex for that to ever happen again...unless we kill all the tax lawyers. I loved the Maxine Waters slam....no justice no peace no credit cards! And the idea that maybe a European system is more efficient was interesting.

For this to be a cogent analysis, you would have to prove Clinton is less conservative than Reagan and Bush. Welfare reform, free trade, abandoning health care reform all dispute the typical Democrat vs Republican analysis. I would argue Clinton was far more "conservative" than Bush II.

I was more interested when she brought up the Kausian idea that healthcare as it is presented is an all pain no gain proposition for most people. My personal experience is different. I've had some amazing healthcare most of my life (high end corporate where the one time I was hospitalized I had a private room and an expert doctor and where claims of shortness of breath when working out--with no other risk factors--lead to a stress echo with a top notch cardiologist) and I've always been in favor of a Canadian style system and I wonder why that is.

That's interesting, Puck. I have been self employed for almost forever and have paid out of pocket for insurance. I took the high deductable plan usually and as I have gotten older, because the premiums get higher, have reduced coverage to the barest of minimums....which is sort of ironic since as one gets older, one is supposed to need more care.
I have never been ill. And I have never felt I was getting much bang for my buck, but I want to keep my house and my savings.
I am so tired of hearing that there are people who can't afford insurance or as they say euphemistically "can't afford health care". I don't care what you make you can afford to spend something on insurance. I just think there are a lot of people who don't want to pay for insurance. And those are people who will lose nothing if they get ill and incur a lot of debt.
Then there are the people whose insurance for some reason or other won't cover them...and the mandate, here in California and elsewhere, that we have to treat the uninsured and undocumented.
It goes on and on.
I am in

Healthcare is overrated. Isaac Newton lived in an age where going to the doctor would most likely decrease your chances for a good outcome and he lived to 85 by all accounts You'll probably be fine so long as you are well to do and have a healthy lifestyle. Try to hook up some good opiates for the last year or two though.

Quoting themightypuck: Try to hook up some good opiates for the last year or two though.

Yep, that's my plan. No nursing home (the land of the living dead) for me!!!

Back in the USSR! Or as hotair titled it "Nice State you got there Kyl...shame if something happened to it."

This is because Clinton's congress was largely controlled by conservatives. The Welfare Reform Act was a piece of Republican legislation. Arguably a Democrat President with a Republican Congress can't really be a real Democrat. Obama and the Democrat Congress, on the other hand, are free to be exactly who they really are.

Quoting themightypuck: You'll probably be fine so long as you are well to do

Yeah. ....?

Quoting Lyle: This is because Clinton's congress was largely controlled by conservatives. The Welfare Reform Act was a piece of Republican legislation. Arguably a Democrat President with a Republican Congress can't really be a real Democrat.

I guess Clinton must have had Republican speech writers because he campaigned on welfare reform and made it a part of his first SOTU

Quoting Whatfur: Back in the USSR!

Or as hotair titled it "Nice State you got there Kyl...shame if something happened to it."

The pearl-clutching among wingnuts never ends, does it? Of course we should let Republicans go on the teevee and spout talking points solely designed to appeal to their mouth-breathing base without ever challenging them by asking them if they're prepared to stand by their "tough" talk. You're absolutely right, 'fur: checking if someone is just blowing smoke by offering to give what he's asking is THUGGISH and JUST WHAT STALIN WOULD DO.

Quoting bjkeefe: ...
You're absolutely right, 'fur: ...JUST WHAT STALIN WOULD DO.

Discussing alternatives to stagnant money in a stagnant stimulus bill is what was being suggested but like with this, cap and tax tax tax, and now with the healthcare fiasco; it is "talk" from the mouth-breathing HALF of the country they are looking to avoid. Because, where the hell do those people think they live...America? In any case, here is a couple snippets in response from McCain and Kyl for you lemmings... "It’s unfortunate that President Obama and his administration seem unwilling to debate the merits of the stimulus bill and acknowledge its shortcomings." Wow...that concept sounds eerily familiar.

Oh and here is who the non-mouth-breathers want speaking for them.

Quoting pampl: I guess Clinton must have had Republican speech writers because he campaigned on welfare reform and made it a part of his first SOTU

Thats correct...there were a couple sentences of lip service paid to welfare reform in that speech. He proceeded to veto the first two Republican welfare reform bills and then three years later he was prepared to veto the third until Dick Morris suggested it might cost him the election and that signing it would secure it. Admittedly he did so to the screams and wailings of his party, but history has proven the when it came to the politics and the life of WJC, it was never about right or wrong and always about...Bill.

Quoting bjkeefe: The pearl-clutching among wingnuts never ends, does it?

More on that here.

Quoting bjkeefe: More on that here.

Deflection from important topics to more Palin bashing? Predictable. Obsessed? Whose clutching what? There is a small percentage of males...somewhere between 2 ad 10% depending on who you wish to believe...who are consistantly intimidated by strong, intelligent women.

No, it was a Republican crafted and voted on bill. President Clinton had no responsibility in crafting that law.

Quoting Lyle: No, it was a Republican crafted and voted on bill. President Clinton had no responsibility in crafting that law.

You have no idea what you're talking about. The majority of Congressional dems voted for it. Clinton signed it even though Republicans alone couldn't beat a veto. The "Republican crafted and voted on bill" was vetoed which forced them to adopt Clinton's plan.

Quoting Whatfur: Deflection from important topics to more Palin bashing?

Nope. As anyone with the ability to read for context will be able to discern, it was a follow-up on the theme of conservatives/the Republican base being in a perpetual state of searching for reasons to be offended -- a craving to be the victim of some "outrageous" remark by some Democrat or liberal -- no matter how much imagination and distortion might required. The hysteria on display by you and Hot Air over the response to Kyl's blowhard remarks is the sort of thing that Palin epitomizes. It is not "bashing" to comment on facts. [Added]

There is a small percentage of males...somewhere between 2 ad 10% depending on who you wish to believe...who are consistantly intimidated by strong, intelligent women.

Be that as it may, I am not one of them, and in any case, since we are talking about Sarah Palin, "strong" and "intelligent" do not apply. She is weak -- a quitter and a crybaby -- and is as dumb as a sack of hammers.

Quoting pampl: You have no idea what you're talking about. The majority of Congressional dems voted for it. Clinton signed it even though Republicans alone couldn't beat a veto. The "Republican crafted and voted on bill" was vetoed which forced them to adopt Clinton's plan.

BS! More revisionist history fashioned by the left...
Actually it is YOU who has no idea what you are talking about, there was very little difference between the 1st two that Clinton did veto and the third he was about to except for the reasons I mention above. Also to say that the majority of the Democrats voted for it is only barely true... House Dems: 98 Y;97N (and actually 2 dems did not vote so the majority
(99) did not vote yes!!!
Senate Dems: 25Y;21N unlike the Republicans: House Rep: 230Y;2N
Senate Rep: 53Y; ZERO N

Quoting badhatharry: I'm sure that Megan was speaking about worse case with her tongue in her cheek, refering to the possibility that if the government takes over this will occur.

It was a little annoying that whatever it was she was saying wasn't spelled out better, but my impression was that she was assuming continued growth until 2050 or so, so that spending half our GNP on health care at that point would not require less spending otherwise on stuff than now or a lower standard of living. That doesn't sound feasible, really, so that's why I wish they'd made the point more clear. Generally, her point seemed to be that gov't spending on health care wasn't her objection to it, assuming value for the money (although Yglesias was the one who jumped in to make the value point).

I thought these two were great, and I liked their gen x way of speaking.....It was an absolutely honest exposition of the dilemmas with which we are faced. Neither offered solutions because, as they alluded to, with our current situation there are none.

I like them together too, and don't mind their ways of speaking. What I sometimes

Quoting bjkeefe: Nope. As anyone with the ability to read for context will be able to discern, it was a follow-up on the theme of conservatives/the Republican base being in a perpetual state of searching for reasons to be offended --

You ARE inventive, albeit myopic. Pretty sure this thread started out with the theme of the Obama administration being offended by Republicans pointing out the facts and when the Obama administration was not able to deal with them in a professional or even and adult-like manner they chose to resort to threats. I should know...I started it. /constantly fighting libtard revisionism and in this case projection

Quoting Whatfur: ... in this case projection

Yes, that is often how I think of your complaints about others' behavior. It's standard wingnut stuff -- accuse others of what you're afraid you're going to get called on yourself, since really, the lot of you are all about tactics, with nothing to offer in the way of ideas. If you're not complaining or insulting, you've got nothing. I don't care that you're unable to admit that Palin is a quitter and a bonehead, or that Kyl is an empty suit with a size 12 mouth, a size 2 brain, and no balls, because I understand where this comes from: you're pissing your pants because for the first time in your 49 years on this planet, you're dealing with a Democratic Administration and a liberal presence in the discourse that isn't afraid to gives as good as it gets.

Quoting bjkeefe: standard wingnut stuff -- ...

I don't care that you're unable to admit that Palin is a quitter and a bonehead, or that Kyl is an empty suit with a size 12 mouth, a size 2 brain, and no balls, because I understand where this comes from: you're pissing your pants because for the first time in your 49 years on this planet, you're dealing with a Democratic Administration and a liberal presence in the discourse that isn't afraid to gives as good as it gets.

Actually Palin nor Kyl was EVER the point here...was it not you just accusing others of not understanding context. I can understand though why the direction this country is being pushed sits just ok with you and everyone else over 18 still reliant on their mother and without the small degree of morals it takes to understand that taking something earned by another is theft.

Quoting Whatfur: Actually Palin nor Kyl was EVER the point here...

Yeah, I can see that when you start a thread with a link pointing to a story about Jon Kyl, in which he and his cronies are complaining in the same tone of voice as Sarah Palin has been inflicting upon the country since September 2008, why you'd say neither was the point. Of course you would like it to be all about Obama, because when you're not whimpering about how mean he is, what else do you have to talk about? Nothing, that's what. Go ahead and have the last word on this one. Maybe that'll make you stop crying.

Quoting bjkeefe: Yeah, I can see that when you start a thread with a link pointing to a story about Jon Kyl,

Actually the story this thread started out with had very little to do with Kyl except to say he had a suggestion concerning the stimulus. Context and comprehension still seem beyond you, but yeah these certainly can be the last words because the only thing Perez seems to understand is a slap in the head.

Quoting stephanie: It was a little annoying that whatever it was she was saying wasn't spelled out better, but my impression was that she was assuming continued growth until 2050 or so, so that spending half our GNP on health care at that point would not require less spending otherwise on stuff than now or a lower standard of living. That doesn't sound feasible, really, so that's why I wish they'd made the point more clear.

Other commentators - including Megan, I think - have made the point that there are two conditions under which we'd expect the share of income spent on healthcare to rise: Either the price of healthcare rises relative to the price of other goods, or the price of other goods rise relative to the price of healthcare. The former cause is "bad" and the latter presumably "good", unless you think relative prices falling makes us worse off. While the current situation is largely a function of "bad" price shifts, the point is made simply to refute a view which sees that having high healthcare spending as a prima facie problem. I think it's a well-made point - would people trumpeting these

Dear Lord! These two are so boring!!!! Two bores with trendy glasses. One sounds like an alien as he chugs his pop. The other just goes on and on and says little. Come on, Bloggingheads. Get some better guests. I'm pretty sure that someone like Christopher Hitchens or Camille Paglia would have more interesting things to say in 90 seconds than these two have to say in an hour.

Just because YOU aren't currently having trouble getting health insurance you're completely ignoring the fact that millions are getting completely screwed and you will too when you get a little older (and hopefully wiser). I got laid off and now I cannot get ANY insurance - period - for any price. My crime? I'm 54. I have never had any major disease or operation. I have low cholesterol and blood pressure. I don't smoke or drink. I'm not overweight. I've been slightly anemic my entire life and this didn't ever stop me from getting insurance when I was your age, but now that I'm 54 and admittedly have a much greater chance of getting sick with whatever than you, they flat out don't want me. Think about the people who have cancer, diabetes, heart trouble. They're losing their homes and their savings. So why don't you stop being such a smug moron and realize that people are freaking being ruined outside of the walls of your stupid ivory tower. Splash some cold water in your face and stop being such a jerk about this.

Quoting Peter Twieg: Other commentators - including Megan, I think - have made the point that there are two conditions under which we'd expect the share of income spent on healthcare to rise: Either the price of healthcare rises relative to the price of other goods, or the price of other goods rise relative to the price of healthcare.

You mean "fall" instead of the final "rise", right? (Just making sure that I'm following.)

Quoting Peter Twieg: The former cause is "bad" and the latter presumably "good", unless you think relative prices falling makes us worse off. While the current situation is largely a function of "bad" price shifts, the point is made simply to refute a view which sees that having high healthcare spending as a prima facie problem. I think it's a well-made point - would people trumpeting these statistics prefer we go back to spending a larger percentage of our income on clothing? Food? Presumably not.

Yeah, if that's what she meant, I think it's a reasonable point (that it being a high percentage of expenditures is not prima facie bad). It just wasn't at all clear what was meant in this current discussion, though.

Quoting timba: Just because YOU aren't currently having trouble getting health insurance you're completely ignoring the fact that millions are getting completely screwed and you will too when you get a little older (and hopefully wiser). I got laid off and now I cannot get ANY insurance - period - for any price. My crime? I'm 54. I have never had any major disease or operation. I have low cholesterol and blood pressure. I don't smoke or drink. I'm not overweight. I've been slightly anemic my entire life and this didn't ever stop me from getting insurance when I was your age, but now that I'm 54 and admittedly have a much greater chance of getting sick with whatever than you, they flat out don't want me. Think about the people who have cancer, diabetes, heart trouble. They're losing their homes and their savings.

So why don't you stop being such a smug moron and realize that people are freaking being ruined outside of the walls of your stupid ivory tower. Splash some cold water in your face and stop being such a jerk about this.

You don't understand. Megan has to be a libertarian because when she was in college

Thanks for explaining Megan to us! I think you may be a few decades off, however...like forty.
Pre-existing conditions are one of the huge problems which need to be fixed. I think it is naive, however( and I'm not saying Timba is) to think that insurance companies shouldn't be using tables to assess risk. That's the way they make their money and unfortunately someone who has a chronic problem doesn't fit their guidelines. Maybe insurance companies need to be not for profit. Perhaps this whole idea of making money from people illness is not workable any more. But what plan will work? That is the question and so far I don't think anyone has the answer.

Quoting badhatharry: I am so tired of hearing that there are people who can't afford insurance or as they say euphemistically "can't afford health care". I don't care what you make you can afford to spend something on insurance.

I'm self-employed, in my 30s, haven't been hospitalized for anything since I was 11. But that hospitalization was for something weird and chronic, so I end up being denied coverage entirely or offers at about 800-1000$ a month. If you're tired of hearing people with my kinda story, just imagine how I feel about people like you.

Quoting DoctorMoney: I'm self-employed, in my 30s, haven't been hospitalized for anything since I was 11.

But that hospitalization was for something weird and chronic, so I end up being denied coverage entirely or offers at about 800-1000$ a month.

If you're tired of hearing people with my kinda story, just imagine how I feel about people like you.

Harry apparently has no idea what it's like to have a preexisting condition while looking for health coverage on the open market.

A smart MD told me: Either you lie about the hospitalization, get a normal rate and hope nothing catastrophic happens (because they'll investigate you the moment you become expensive, and will be within their rights to drop you) or you stay uninsured and show up at the ER if anything serious happens. Guess which plan I'm on? Because there's only one rational choice for people in my situation, short of getting married to someone who's on a group plan. Which I'm working on.

Quoting DoctorMoney: A smart MD told me:

Either you lie about the hospitalization, get a normal rate and hope nothing catastrophic happens (because they'll investigate you the moment you become expensive, and will be within their rights to drop you) or you stay uninsured and show up at the ER if anything serious happens.

Guess which plan I'm on? Because there's only one rational choice for people in my situation, short of getting married to someone who's on a group plan.

Which I'm working on.

That is an excellent insight. I have a somewhat minor but potentially expensive problem I'm not getting treated because if I do I'll never be able to get insurance again. I'm actually thinking about using a false name and paying cash so it doesn't show up on my permanent record. That's how messed up our system is.

You do realize that older people are regularly rejected for expensive life saving treatments under universal systems? There is only so much health care and giving it to those who only have 20-30 years left is inefficient for a government maximizing the productivity of it's subservient population.

So you are forced to pay for non catastrophic affordable treatment? And that's a problem? Do you know the purpose of insurance?

Here's the difference, Matt. Republicans were, for the most part, for TARP 1 and against the Obama spending. This is run-of-the-mill partisanship and no surprise. Conservatives (by which, I mean small-government conservatives) and Libertarians see the run-away spending of Obama as nothing more than an extension of horrible Bushonomics. Looking at the Medicare expansion, the No Child Left Behind Act, the massive military spending for foreign wars, and shocking domestic government spending from 2006 to present, I find myself using the phrase "Bush/Obama Era" more and more when speaking of our current conditions. This country desperately needs a major party of small-government populism. The Republican Party ceased to even convincingly PRETEND to be that way back in the late 1980s.

Quoting badhatharry: If Megan McArdle seriously sees no problem if we decide to spend 50 percent of our GDP on healthcare......

She's a conservative so of course she has no understanding of the working class!!

In what way is she a conservative??? She calls herself a libertarian, but she sometimes supports big-government liberal initiatives, and supported Obama in the last election. So she's not quite a solid FISCAL conservative, and she's very far to the left on any SOCIAL issue you can bring up. The fact is, like most of the token libertarians at The Atlantic, she's the epitome of that great new 21st Century term: "Liberaltarian" (disclaimer: She's still my absolute favorite political blogger at the moment.)

Quoting NateS: You do realize that older people are regularly rejected for expensive life saving treatments under universal systems? There is only so much health care and giving it to those who only have 20-30 years left is inefficient for a government maximizing the productivity of it's subservient population.

Indeed. This is a case of "be careful what you wish for." As expensive as the COBRA extensions of employee health care can be, I paid them when I was laid off back in '01 until I could score another job. Yeah, being over 50 and unemployed in America is tough. "Universal Health Care" will not make it much less so, but it WILL place a sufficient burden on the economy that there will be a lot more out-of-work over-50 people out there.

Quoting Tara Davis: Yeah, being over 50 and unemployed in America is tough. "Universal Health Care" will not make it much less so, but it WILL place a sufficient burden on the economy that there will be a lot more out-of-work over-50 people out there.

I think the rationing and tax cost criticism are plausible, even if I'm less concerned with them than most conservatives are, but I find this criticism VERY implausible. Health care as it stands represents a huge (and growing!) cost to businesses. There's a reason Wal-Mart, one of the top employers of old people, is on board with health care reform.

Quoting Tara Davis: Yeah, being over 50 and unemployed in America is tough. "Universal Health Care" will not make it much less so, but it WILL place a sufficient burden on the economy that there will be a lot more out-of-work over-50 people out there.

What causes unemployment?

Quoting Tara Davis: In what way is she a conservative???

She hates hippies.

Well if hating hippies makes one a conservative does being a hippie preclude one from being a conservative?

Nate, are you sure you understood what we were talking about?