For those of you who didn't know, but perhaps suspected, Congress is inhabited by grifters and incompetents, who are, at the moment, hell bent on making a bad problem worse. Despite the warnings of many, including Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendord, who warned lawmakers that the legislation that he has seen so far would raise costs, not lower them, Congress is moving ahead with ill concieved health care reform. I predict that it won't matter if it is passed since the U.S. will be well down the road to third world status before this all but certain to pass monstrosity takes ill effect.
Between the steadily deteriorating economy- witness the dreadful numbers on shipping traffic out of the very important Long Beach, CA port- and the capital flight that will ensue for, among other reasons, much higher tax rates on what is left of the wealthy in the U.S., there won't be anything like enough revenue to pay for nationalized health care. Between such epic swindles as cap and trade, and the latest rammed through health care reform package, things are playing out in the manner of the blackest of black comedies. It truly is a charade. Who is Congress fooling? The nation is irretrievably insolvent. There simply isn't the money to pay for this audacious nonsense, and since we have long since entered the realm where adding debt is counter productive, we have no hope of making this health care legislation work.
So, at least for me, the burning question becomes, what is going on? Is there some sort of psychosis at work that is compelling our elected officials to engage in what, for all the world, appears to be a grand fool's errand? Is it possible that many in Congress know that this is simply folderol, but that they are best served by pretending? Your guess is as good as mine, and if you have any ideas that you feel amount to keen insights do pass them on.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I think that they're so worried about getting re-elected that they're sticking with their campaign promises whether or not they're feasible. None of them has the guts to tell their constituents the truth out of fear of not being re-elected. Drastic changes to the American way of life? No way are people going to swallow that. The sense of entitlement in this country has reached epidemic proportions.
Meanwhile, the thieves continue to rob the Treasury and cultural conservatives push Pax Americana upon the country and the world, despite the obvious hypocrisies from within their own ranks.
It's all such a horrible mess. Apocalypse 2012 doesn't seem so far fetched after all.
Nice post... Of course you know my take is that the only people even more corrupt than the politicians are the voters themselves ;-)
If we ever get a real dialogue on intelligent rationing of health care in America to stick, then I would be quite optimistic about our future. If we do not achieve this, then I would not be.
For we all know that when it comes to economics, the basic issue is/has and always will be about how we spend our money. Sadly somehow we have moved away from this fundamental truth as a people.
Take this whole discussion around preventative medicine. While I want to make it clear that I am all in favor of spending money on preventative medicine, still anyone who thinks it does anything more than raises costs was dropped a few too many times as a child as they are ignoring basic math:
Take two different scenarios:
Scenario A- nothing is spent on a person to prevent illness and as a result they die at age 55 from (say) a heart attack which costs $300,000 to treat before they die.
Scenario B- we spend $1000/year preventing cardiovascular disease and as a result a person dies at age 75 and then finally dies of either a heart attack or cancer, either of which costs $300,000 to treat before the person dies.
Scenario A total cost: $300,000
Scenario B total cost: $375,000
People keep forgetting they are still going to die.
Now rationing saves money in either instance.
Say we decide to not pay for illness we think will kill someone then:
Scenario A (with rationing) total cost: $0
Scenario B (with rationing) total cost: $75,000
Obvious of all these different scenarios, a rationed scenario B, where a person lives to 75 for a cost of $75,000 seems the best VALUE for health care spending.
So when you hear people talk about how preventative medicine saves money, please realize they are wrong- only rationing saves money.
Obviously I agree with Peter Singer's article.
IMHO, only rationing will save us from otherwise certain doom.
Hello, Thai. It's nice to hear from you. I am afraid that your idea that we voters are more corrupt than the politicians we elect beggars common sense. First of all, private citizens have far fewer responsibilities than public servants, and so, by definition, they can not be more corrupt than those who occupy lofty positions of influence where opportunities for abuse of power are enormous. More pertinently perhaps is that the effects of such public abuses are, in the aggregate, of a considerably greater magnitude than the effects of individual corruption. Witness the profound, but not yet fully felt effects of the eleven trillion dollar looting of the Treasury by the denizens of Wall Street. It is a fact, for example, that the original 700 billion banker bailout bill was passed even in the face of overwhelming opposition that numbered well over 100 to 1 against.
What is more, even when private citizens (and even institutions) engage in corrupt and criminal actions, whatever damage is done to the public does not occur, by definition, in outright defiance of sworn oaths of office. This is a crucial and important distinction that bears directly on the question of who is more corrupt.
When public officials gain through actions such as bribery, extortion, cronyism, nepotism, patronage, graft, and embezzlement, it is, by definition, always, and without exception, at the public's expense. As such, I must assert that we voters are not more corrupt than the officials we entrust to act on our behalf and in accordance with The Constitution.
If you wish to make the case the the citizenry in general is lacking in some critical amount of civic mindedness, responsibility, and even decency, I think that is a defensible assertion. But, frankly, to assert that voters are "more corrupt than the politicians" is absurd.
I have to agree with you on the bailout part. I called my congressman several times but he still voted for the darn thing.
Your other arguments seems to be making my point for me:
People who are not in power can't be corrupt as they don't have the chance to commit such crimes seems a rather sober view of humanity- at least to me.
Your argument "in outright defiance of sworn oaths of office" is similarly bizarre thought I do get your point.
So now we need to swear an oath before we are to be good to each other???
- Not a positive image of our fellow man either now is it?
And your point: "public abuses are, in the aggregate, of a considerably greater magnitude than the effects of individual corruption" is a little like saying it is OK to steal $500, just don't steal $5000.
I think I should get you to make my point for me more often ;-)
Now your statement "When public officials gain through actions such as bribery, extortion, cronyism, nepotism, patronage, graft, and embezzlement, it is, by definition, always, and without exception, at the public's expense" is a good one (though it is kind of a tautology)
But how about the same statement about your fellow man, namely: "When ordinary people gain through actions such as bribery, extortion, cronyism, nepotism, patronage, graft, and embezzlement, it is, by definition, always, and without exception, at the expense of other people" is just as true- no?
But Marcus and I have argued about this for years and I certainly have no desire to continue the argument with you as I do respect your opinion. I really just commented as I noticed you had a post on health care which you know is my main issue- this issue is a real mess indeed and the lack of honest dialogue on the issue does worry me at times as I do still have some faith people will do the right thing when faced with all the relevant issues.
Plus, there are indications that some things are getting better.
... And what is equally fascinating, there is evidence this may be a world wide trend.
It is not health care but you know me, I will take any good news I can get in these difficult times ;-)
Anyway, I hope you are well
Thai wrote:
People who are not in power can't be corrupt as they don't have the chance to commit such crimes seems a rather sober view of humanity- at least to me.
-And here I always thought sobriety was a good thing. I think the better point, and the one I wish I had made earlier is that people who want to be politicians are, in a sense, more prone to corruption than others. If this weren't the case they wouldn't be so drawn to positions where the opportunities for abuse of power are greater than in many other walks of life.
Your argument "in outright defiance of sworn oaths of office" is similarly bizarre thought I do get your point.
-It may be bizarre to you, but it certainly wasn't to the folks who decided (long ago) to make taking oaths a necessary step before holding office. You may be interested to know, if you didn't already, that the ritual act of taking oaths is common in many walks of life, including induction into the military, becoming a U.S. citizen, and being initiated into La Cosa Nostra.
So now we need to swear an oath before we are to be good to each other???
-Um, no. We swear an oath so that we are clearly accountable when we don't uphold the oath. It's about identifying our roles to one another and giving the group a sense of how to proceed when the roles we agree to adhere to are defied.
Not a positive image of our fellow man either now is it?
-We are what we are. My own view is that we humans are, simply put, a highly evolved, multifaceted, animal species, with all that implies.
And your point: "public abuses are, in the aggregate, of a considerably greater magnitude than the effects of individual corruption" is a little like saying it is OK to steal $500, just don't steal $5000.
-No, it's not saying it's okay, it's pointing out the obvious, and what should be the obviously unassailable, that an eleven trillion dollar rip off is more deleterious than an eleven million dollar one, even if the impulse behind both is the same. The law makes this distinction by the way, which may cause you to say that "the law is an ass" but there it is.
Re: "We are what we are."
I will ALWAYS agree with such wisdom!
You do make very good points
... I guess your original point re: civics is a little closer to my point: what you see as a lack of civics, I see as widespread corruption.
Kind of reminds me of the following passage:
`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. `They've a temper, some of them -- particularly verbs, they're the proudest -- adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs -- however, I can manage the whole of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'
`Would you tell me, please,' said Alice `what that means?`
`Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. `I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'
`That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.
`When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, `I always pay it extra.'
- Lewis Carol, Through the Looking Glass
Post a Comment