Day: September 3, 2009

2009 Anal-Ocity

The health care debate has given us some of the greatest anal statements ever made and the hits just keep coming.

This one is from one M. Steele the chairman of the RNC:  (thanx to thinkprogress.com for content)

at Howard University, Steele encountered his own “genuinely concerned” citizen — 23-year-old college grad/activist Amanda Duzak. Duzak stood up and interrupted Steele, arguing that “everyone in this country should have access to good health care” and cited the case of her own mother who died of cancer six months ago because she couldn’t afford her prescription chemotherapy medications. The audience applauded her. Steele responded by chastising Duzak and accusing her of pulling antics to get on TV.

“So people go out to town halls, they go to the community, and they’re like this. (SHAKES ARMS) It makes for great TV. You’ll probably make it tonight. Enjoy it.”

Sorry to say…there is your answer…..and it is echoed by all Repubs…they do not care what happen to a loved one….only that health reform is killed.

Sounds like the typical conservative response….,that is to give NO valid response.  Why would a leader blow off a questioner like this?  Did this help the GOP’s efforts to kill health reform?

A Sad Lack Of Logic

In the past I have written a lot about the “Rational Ignorance Effect” as it pertains to health care and the ensuing debate and now it seems that sociologists are agreeing with me…but they seem reluctant to use the “RIE”.

Live Science has an article written by Jeanna Bryner:

The problem: People on both sides of the political aisle often work backward from a firm conclusion to find supporting facts, rather than letting evidence inform their views.

The result: A survey out this week finds voters split strongly along party lines regarding their beliefs about key parts of the plan. Example: About 91 percent of Republicans think the proposal would increase wait times for surgeries and other health services, while only 37 percent of Democrats think so.

Irrational thinking

A totally rational person would lay out – and evaluate objectively – the pros and cons of a health care overhaul before choosing to support or oppose a plan. But we humans are not so rational, according to Steve Hoffman, a visiting professor of sociology at the University of Buffalo.

And to keep our sense of personal and social identity, Hoffman said, we tend to use a backward type of reasoning in order to justify such beliefs.

Similarly, past research by Dolores Albarracin, a psychology professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, has shown in particular that people who are less confident in their beliefs are more reluctant than others to seek out opposing perspectives. So these people avoid counter evidence all together. The same could apply to the health care debate, Albarracin said.

Hot health care debate

The proposed health care plan has all the right ingredients for such wonky reasoning, the researchers say.

The issue is both complex (no single correct answer), emotionally charged and potentially history-changing, while debates often occur with like-minded peers in town hall settings. The result is staunch supporters and just-as-staunch critics who are sticking to their guns.

“The health care debate would be vulnerable to motivated reasoning, because it is, and has become, so highly emotionally and symbolically charged,” Perrin said during a telephone interview, adding that images equating the plan with Nazi Germany illustrate the symbolic nature of the arguments.

In addition, the town hall settings make for even more rigid beliefs. That’s because changing one’s mind about a complex issue can rattle a person’s sense of identity and sense of belonging within a community. If everyone around you is a neighbor or friend, you’d be less likely to change your opinion, the researchers say.

Two-sided discussion

To bring the facts from both sides to the table, Hoffman suggests venues where a heterogeneous group of people can meet, those for and against the proposed health care system overhaul. And at least some of these gatherings should include just a handful of people. In groups of more than about six people, one or two members will tend to dominate the discussion, he said.

It is an interesting study, but after reading it all I could say was……Rational Ignorance Effect…….my definition is less wordy….

But Future Generations Will Suffer

We have all heard the argument that the deficit and the spending being done by Obama and the Dems will make our children’s children suffer and have to be taxed to pay off the deficit that is slowing creeping upward.  Conservatives like to call it “generational theft”.

In an article written for tom paine.common sense:

Nancy Folbre, a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, makes the point in an April 2009 article for The New York Times: “Borrowing creates assets as well as liabilities—and future generations will inherit both. It’s the relationship between assets and liabilities that matters most.”

Conservatives often argue from a “generational accounting” frame that says what we spend today our kids and grandkids will pay for tomorrow, but does not argue that the public works projects, health care reforms, education investments, clean energy research and development, and community development initiatives we do today are inherited as well. “Generational accounting typically ignores the value of the government services children will receive as well as the important non-market assets they will inherit,” Folbre writes. “The president’s proposed budget features investments in health, education and environmental sustainability that promise important future benefits.”

Generational accounting is a method of national accounting for measuring redistribution of lifetime tax burdens across generations from social insurance, including social security and social health insurance.

It goes beyond conventional government budget measures, such the national debt and budget deficits, by accounting for projected lifetime taxes per capita net of transfers, which may not be reflected in a pay-as-you-go system of social-insurance accounting.

The latter includes only current taxes for retirees less current outlays. Uses include projecting future taxes and outlays from different prospective current policies. For example, if a fall in labor-force growth from an earlier fall in the birth rate is projected to increase the proportion of retirees to the labor force, generational accounting might examine different projected changes in taxes or program benefits to finance the change. (thanx to Wiki)

Everybody is , especially on the Right, saying that the grown deficit is a form of theft, generational theft.  But is it?  There are deficit neutral ways of spending that are NOT a form of theft.

the deficit might be cut in equal amounts by decreasing transfer payments across-the-board or by imposing an income tax surcharge. The surcharge would be paid disproportionately by younger generations earning income, whereas the decrease in transfer payments would be borne primarily (in present value terms) by older people receiving social security, medicare, and medicaid. This illustrates how the budget can redistribute income among generations without changing the deficit or the government’s capital expenditures.

My point is that the whole idea of generational whatever is a political tool….there is NO way to really judge the effects of the deficit because it will change yearly, if not monthly.  I pass this on to my readers so when they hear the crap being spread about the future generations and the concern….they caqn look at the debate and think of what it really is….CRAP!

Why do I say this?  An easy one to answer!

  • Generational accounting is difficult to understand.
  • The estimates of taxes and transfer by age depend on limited data and theoretical assumptions on which there is no consensus.
  • The future budget projections depend on economic, demographic, and policy assumptions that are uncertain and controversial.
  • Generational accounting does not consider general equilibrium feedback effects. In particular, it does not include the effect of current deficits on capital accumulation and therefore on future income.
  • The right discount rate to calculate present values is uncertain and controversial.
  • Generational accounts have only been constructed for the consolidated Federal, state, and local sectors, so responsibility for the fiscal outcome is diffuse.
  • Generational accounting does not assign any benefits to the public from the government purchasing goods and services in order to provide education, highways, national defense, and other services. This is due to the difficulty in making imputations. However, government purchases comprise one-quarter of Federal spending and three-quarters of state and local spending. Because the benefits of this spending are important, the “net tax” is not a true fiscal burden. These benefits can have a major effect on the distribution of economic well-being by generation. Different programs affect different generations differently (e.g, education compared to veterans medical care); and some government expenditures are investments whose benefits occur over many years (e.g., office buildings, aircraft carriers, highway grants, R&D, and education).

Hopefully I need not go any further with the lesson for today.

19? When Is Enough Enough?

How many of you saw the movie, “Idiocracy”?  It is a futuristic American where the idiots are in control of everything.  It seems that the people with the lesser IQ were having many many babies while the more intelligent people were waiting until they passed their breeding years; this continued for 500 years until everyone in the US was a flipping MORON.

I know you are asking what the hell am I going on about?  When I read the story below I immediately thought of the movie.

This is the big news from the big family. Michelle Duggar who is 42 years old is pregnant for 19th baby. She and Jim Bob (her husband) already have 18 children and one expected grand child (Next month expected). The new baby number 19 is expected in the spring season. Jim Bob (Michelle Duggar’s husband) says that we are happy and trying to believe that it is happening.

Michelle Duggar says that “We are feeling good and good things are happening in form of 19th child”. There grand child is expected in next and their 19th child is expected in next year, so their grand child will elder then their own child. A funny thing is that Uncle will be younger, but it is cute.

They do live in Arkansas….so when is enough enough?  Sorry but there comes a time when having babies should be the furtherest thing from your mind.  Maybe she does not realize what causes pregnancy…let me help…..keep legs together and hubby in the other room.