The long con.

Right? Left? Centre?
Political news and debate.
Put your views and articles up for debate and destruction!
Post Reply
rubato
Posts: 14245
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

The long con.

Post by rubato »

It is much more than you think. But you will have to be able to, and then to read something longish.

http://www.thebaffler.com/past/the_long_con/
The Long Con
Mail-order conservatism
Rick Perlstein
[from The Baffler No. 21, 2012]
Share on facebook Share on twitter More Sharing Services107

Mitt Romney is a liar. Of course, in some sense, all politicians, even all human beings, are liars. Romney’s lying went so over-the-top extravagant by this summer, though, that the New York Times editorial board did something probably unprecedented in their polite gray precincts: they used the L-word itself. “Mr. Romney’s entire campaign rests on a foundation of short, utterly false sound bites,” they editorialized. He repeats them “so often that millions of Americans believe them to be the truth.” “It is hard to challenge these lies with a well-reasoned-but- overlong speech,” they concluded; and how. Romney’s lying, in fact, was so richly variegated that it can serve as a sort of grammar of mendacity.

Some Romney lies posit absences where there are obviously presences: his claim, for instance, that “President Obama doesn’t have a plan” to create jobs. Other Romney fabrications assert presences where there are absences. A clever bit of video editing can make it seem like Romney was enthusiastically received before the NAACP, when, in fact, he had been booed. There are lies, damned lies, statistics—like his assertion that his tax cut proposal won’t have any effect on the federal budget, which the Tax Policy Center called “not mathematically possible.” That frank dismissal vaulted the candidate into another category of lie, an attempt to bend time itself: Romney responded by calling that group “biased”; last year, he called them “objective.”

There are outsourced lies, like this one from deep in my files: in 2007, Ann Romney told the right-wing site Newsmax.com that her husband had “always personally been prolife,” though Mitt had said in his 1994 Senate race, “I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country.” And then Ann admitted a few sentence later, “They say he flip-flopped on abortion. Well, you know what? He did change his mind.”

And then there’s the most delicious kind of lie of them all, the kind that hoists the teller on his own petard as soon as a faintly curious auditor consults the record for occasions on which he’s said the opposite. Here the dossier of Mittdacity overfloweth. In 2012, for example, he said he took no more federal money for the Salt Lake City Olympic Games than previous games had taken; a decade earlier, however, he called the $410 million in federal money he bagged “a huge increase over anything ever done before.” ... "

Part of the problem is that the unthinking view of 'evenhandedness' is that you have so say something bad about both sides, even if both sides are not symmetrically bad. it leads to missing the big picture.




yrs,
rubato

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21464
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: The long con.

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Is there some useful point in bringing up old news? The only reason I can see is that no-one of any intelligence read these diatribes from nonentities at the time and you wish to double the readership two, eight, a dozen years on.

If that's the idea, please let's have more Orwell and less er... nobodies.

Thanks
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: The long con.

Post by Lord Jim »

Part of the problem is that the unthinking view of 'evenhandedness' is that you have so say something bad about both sides, even if both sides are not symmetrically bad. it leads to missing the big picture.
That's a very valid point....

For example, let's say I were to make the obviously true and indisputable point that the only purpose for the creation of this thread was to troll and insult, and not to try to stimulate any sort of honest discussion...

For someone to then come along and in the name of "evenhandedness" try to make a counter point and claim that maybe you did have some sort of honest motive for starting this, would be truly an unthinking thing to do, since there's clearly no legitimate argument that can be made for that point of view...

And you have also provided us with yet another example of your world class cluelessness:

From the insulting intro remarks to your latest bit of copy and paste drivel, you apparently believe that the reason people don't take the crap you post seriously and offer thoughtful follow-up, is because they're too stupid and/or lazy to read and appreciate the great wisdom and penetrating insights you have on offer... (Steve suffered from much the same delusion.)

When in point of fact, the real reason that you don't get responses when you post this trolling crap, is that everyone else can immediately recognize it as trolling crap, and they don't particularly care to help you troll, or encourage you to keep doing so, or provide any validation for your trolling.

The other thing that is clear from your intro remarks to this thread, is that you also apparently believe that the best way to get people to take what you have to say seriously is to begin right at the outset, by spitting in their faces with insults....

Which says something about your social skills and comprehension of how to be persuasive, that also could only be disputed if one were to engage in "unthinking evenhandedness"...
Last edited by Lord Jim on Tue Feb 11, 2014 6:24 am, edited 4 times in total.
ImageImageImage

oldr_n_wsr
Posts: 10838
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:59 am

Re: The long con.

Post by oldr_n_wsr »

Mitt Romney is a liar.
Unlike his opponent who totally told the truth and nothing but the truth.

If you like your doctors, you can keep your doctors....PERIOD.

If you like your healthplan, you can keep your health plan, PERIOD

My healthplan will save an average of $2500 per family

(Paraphasing all of them but they were said)

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: The long con.

Post by Lord Jim »

If you like your doctors, you can keep your doctors....PERIOD.

If you like your healthplan, you can keep your health plan, PERIOD
Okay, he flat out lied about that....

But in all fairness:
My healthplan will save an average of $2500 per family
He did say "' up to' an average of $2500 per family"...

So he didn't flat out lie in that case; he just pulled a used car salesman gimick...

Your mileage may vary....
ImageImageImage

oldr_n_wsr
Posts: 10838
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:59 am

Re: The long con.

Post by oldr_n_wsr »

My bad.

I heard they are delaying the implementation of Obamacare for medium sized companies another year. To 2016 I think.

User avatar
Lord Jim
Posts: 29716
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF

Re: The long con.

Post by Lord Jim »

Yes indeedy:
White House delays health insurance mandate for medium-sized employers until 2016

For the second time in a year, the Obama administration is giving certain employers extra time before they must offer health insurance to almost all their full-time workers.

Under new rules announced Monday by Treasury Department officials, employers with 50 to 99 workers will be given until 2016 — two years longer than originally envisioned under the Affordable Care Act — before they risk a federal penalty for not complying.

Companies with 100 workers or more are getting a different kind of one-year grace period. Instead of being required in 2015 to offer coverage to 95 percent of full-time workers, these bigger employers can avoid a fine by offering insurance to 70 percent of them next year.

How the administration would define employer requirements has been one of the biggest remaining questions about the way the 2010 health-care law will work in practice — and has sparked considerable lobbying. By providing the dual phase-ins for employers of different sizes, administration officials have sought to lighten the burden on the small share of affected employers that have not offered insurance in the past.

As word of the delays spread Monday, many across the ideological spectrum viewed them as an effort by the White House to defuse another health-care controversy before the fall midterm elections.[Really? Ya think?]The new postponements won over part, but not all, of the business community. And they caught consumer advocates, usually reliable White House allies, by surprise, particularly because administration officials had already announced in July that the employer requirements would be postponed from this year until 2015.

Congressional Republicans seized on the announcement as the latest justification for scrapping the health-care law. In particular, they renewed their opposition to the law’s requirement that most Americans have insurance, saying it is unfair to delay rules for businesses and not for individuals.

“If unilateral delays were an Olympic sport, the White House would sweep the gold, silver, and bronze,” House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said in a statement. “The White House is in full panic mode, and rather than putting politics ahead of the public, it is time for fairness for all.”

Originally, the employer mandate — which affects companies employing 72 percent of all Americans — was to have gone into effect Jan. 1, at the same time the law began requiring most Americans to have health insurance.

A senior administration official, who briefed reporters on the proposal on the condition of anonymity shortly before the rule became public, said the Treasury Department decided to allow medium-size businesses more latitude because they “need a little more time to adjust to providing coverage.”

The law says that anyone who works 30 hours or more is a full-time employee, and it compels many employers to offer affordable insurance to those workers and their dependents. It defines affordable as premiums of no more than 9.5 percent of an employee’s income, and employers must pay for the equivalent of 60 percent of the actuarial value of a worker’s coverage. Businesses that fail to do so will eventually face a fine of up to $2,000 for each employee not offered coverage, though workers are not required to sign up for the benefits.

Under the health-care law, small employers — those with fewer than 50 workers — do not have to offer insurance. Instead, they will be allowed to buy health plans through new marketplaces created under the law. Because of hardware and software problems, the federal small-business marketplace, which was supposed to open in October, will not become available until the fall.

But until now, the government had not spelled out important details. Nor had it defined exactly what insurance benefits must be covered by employer-sponsored health plans.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... story.html

Well, let's all put our thinking caps on and see if we can figure out why the Administration would make this decision....

Could it be because they expect that the tens of millions of people affected by the mandate will have such a wonderful experience that they'll turn out in droves to vote Democratic, and they just don't think it would be fair to give their party such a big advantage in the midterm elections?

Hmmm...

I doubt that's it...
Last edited by Lord Jim on Wed Feb 12, 2014 8:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ImageImageImage

oldr_n_wsr
Posts: 10838
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:59 am

Re: The long con.

Post by oldr_n_wsr »

A senior administration official, who briefed reporters on the proposal on the condition of anonymity shortly before the rule became public, said the Treasury Department decided to allow medium-size businesses more latitude because they “need a little more time to adjust to providing coverage.”
First it was 2014, then it was 2015 now it's 2016. don't they think htat constantly changing when it will take effect also causes "adjustment" issues with the businesses too?

Oh but here is the real reason to delay yet again
Because of hardware and software problems, the federal small-business marketplace, which was supposed to open in October, will not become available until the fall.
And we know how well the gov rolls out these "marketplaces".
But until now, the government had not spelled out important details. Nor had it defined exactly what insurance benefits must be covered by employer-sponsored health plans
So, had the gov left the employer mandate timeframe alone, the businesses would have had no clue what coverage they had to offer. Only now are they defining what coverage the businesses must offer?

This should have spelled out 6 months after passing the bill. The websites (all of them) should have been completed and being beta tested 2 years (at the latest) after the law was passed.

But all is good because a few million previously uninsured (out of the guesstimated 30-40 million) now might have insurance. Hopefully they checked with the carrier to see for sure as the gov, who took the order, can't say for certain (remember, the backend of the website is not designed yet).

Yeah, this is so much better. :loon

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33646
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: The long con.

Post by Gob »

So when Obma quits/is pushed/runs out of time, as your barking mad system says he eventually must, what happens to "Obama care"?
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

User avatar
Joe Guy
Posts: 15385
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: Redweird City, California

Re: The long con.

Post by Joe Guy »

Gob wrote:So when Obma quits/is pushed/runs out of time, as your barking mad system says he eventually must, what happens to "Obama care"?
It will morph into Clintoncare.

oldr_n_wsr
Posts: 10838
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:59 am

Re: The long con.

Post by oldr_n_wsr »

Now I'm really depressed.
:D

Post Reply