President Obama and President Monson to meet in DC.

[_Droopy]

I can now see why debate with JSM is so frustrating and consternating: he is so overbearingly intellectually dishonest that keeping track of his ever cascading plethora of sophistries becomes a monumental task in and of itself, and serious critical discourse becomes nearly impossible.

JSM harbors extremely novel and idiosyncratic understandings of the meanings of such things as socialism, economics, taxation, and apparently, most political/economic categories.

The reason for this seems to be to shield himself from the arguments of others he cannot meet with rational arguments of his own and create a universe of discourse around himself that others cannot penetrate without sacrificing intellectual integrity.

Some of JSMs statements in his last post are so unintelligible as to be nearly comic (Marx believed in abolition of private capital but not private property-as if private capital is not private property)

I'm done with this exercise in futility.

[_JohnStuartMill]

I can now see why debate with JSM is so frustrating and consternating: he is so overbearingly intellectually dishonest that keeping track of his ever cascading plethora of sophistries becomes a monumental task in and of itself, and serious critical discourse becomes nearly impossible.

JSM harbors extremely novel and idiosyncratic understandings of the meanings of such things as socialism, economics, taxation, and apparently, most political/economic categories.

This is true, if by "novel and idiosyncratic" you mean "entirely in line with the definitions given by mainstream scholars in the field, including the capitalist economists Droopy pretends to have read."

The reason for this seems to be to shield himself from the arguments of others he cannot meet with rational arguments of his own and create a universe of discourse around himself that others cannot penetrate without sacrificing intellectual integrity.

Some of JSMs statements in his last post are so unintelligible as to be nearly comic (Marx believed in abolition of private capital but not private property-as if private capital is not private property)

Private capital is a species of private property; the two are not synonymous.

I'm done with this exercise in futility.

You'll be back.

[_Calculus Crusader]

Obama's plan is not single payer. Obama does favor some form of public option plan, though he may be using that as a compromise stick. The ones floating in Congress are quite weak, but it isn't difficult to imagine them getting beefed up at a later point in time once passed. Entitlements have a history of becoming stronger, not weaker, once put in place. Since they have the capacity to take massive losses through tax funding, they theoretically could out compete private options, incentivize the end of health care benefits in private employment, and thus transform the health care sector into a de facto single payer system. It's no secret that some Democrats want that to happen.

Of course none of this is Marxist. It's not terribly different from what Richard Nixon, that notable commie, was proposing in selective subsidies. The Obama administration actually uses people like Droopy to paint criticism of them as dangerously shrill and ill-informed. It's a symbiotic relationship with the Hannitys of the world. It's a shame, because this tactic is really effective at snuffing out some room for more serious responses. Of course, the most ugly aspects of the Obama administration - entrenching and in some cases going further than Bush on civil rights abuses, loss of transparency, and concentration of executive power - are things people on his side have so blatantly favored that the choiciest criticisms aren't picked up. So instead we get, "Marxist!"

You've been reading Tubs I see. Anyway, Obama may not be a Marxist but I would say he is a socialist in the European mold. Junior likes to throw around Larry Summers' name but it appears that Obama is the one influencing him, not the other way around. When he served under Bill Clinton, Larry Summers advocated the same things that Republicans (and several Democrats, such as Chuck "Putzhead" Schumer) advocated, such as repealing Glass-Steagall (which was accomplished under Clinton, not Bush.) Now Summers is singing the tune of his new boss and would like people to forget his former policy positions and try to pin everything on Republicans.

[_Calculus Crusader]

Incidentally, I have no problem with the concept of government health insurance, provided that the premiums charged reflect the real costs involved, so that the government breaks even. However, that is not what we see with the government. From medicare to flood insurance, the premiums are artificially deflated and the excess cost transferred to other tax payers, which is wrong.

[_JohnStuartMill]

Obama's plan is not single payer. Obama does favor some form of public option plan, though he may be using that as a compromise stick. The ones floating in Congress are quite weak, but it isn't difficult to imagine them getting beefed up at a later point in time once passed. Entitlements have a history of becoming stronger, not weaker, once put in place. Since they have the capacity to take massive losses through tax funding, they theoretically could out compete private options, incentivize the end of health care benefits in private employment, and thus transform the health care sector into a de facto single payer system. It's no secret that some Democrats want that to happen.

Of course none of this is Marxist. It's not terribly different from what Richard Nixon, that notable commie, was proposing in selective subsidies. The Obama administration actually uses people like Droopy to paint criticism of them as dangerously shrill and ill-informed. It's a symbiotic relationship with the Hannitys of the world. It's a shame, because this tactic is really effective at snuffing out some room for more serious responses. Of course, the most ugly aspects of the Obama administration - entrenching and in some cases going further than Bush on civil rights abuses, loss of transparency, and concentration of executive power - are things people on his side have so blatantly favored that the choiciest criticisms aren't picked up. So instead we get, "Marxist!"

You've been reading Tubs I see. Anyway, Obama may not be a Marxist but I would say he is a socialist in the European mold.

No. Like Droopy, you don't have an inkling as to the definition of "socialist" aside from what the puppetmasters of American conservatism have told you.

But you think you know about economics. That's so cute.

Junior likes to throw around Larry Summers' name but it appears that Obama is the one influencing him, not the other way around. When he served under Bill Clinton, Larry Summers advocated the same things that Republicans (and several Democrats, such as Chuck "Putzhead" Schumer) advocated, such as repealing Glass-Steagall (which was accomplished under Clinton, not Bush.) Now Summers is singing the tune of his new boss and would like people to forget his former policy positions and try to pin everything on Republicans.

Summers backtracked on many of his former positions long before joining the Obama administration. He's not my favorite economist -- you seem to be saying that Glass-Steagall was an awful idea, and I agree with that -- but he's also obviously nowhere close to being a Marxist, which is why I brought up his position in the administration.

[_JohnStuartMill]

Incidentally, I have no problem with the concept of government health insurance, provided that the premiums charged reflect the real costs involved, so that the government breaks even. However, that is not what we see with the government. From medicare to flood insurance, the premiums are artificially deflated and the excess cost transferred to other tax payers, which is wrong.

Why is it wrong, any more than not using a lump-sum tax to pay for roads or military defense is wrong?

[_EAllusion]

Tubs? Brayton?

And just about every other source likeminded with me + the more consistent liberals like Greenwald.

[_Calculus Crusader]

Anyway, Obama may not be a Marxist but I would say he is a socialist in the European mold.

No. Like Droopy, you don't have an inkling as to the definition of "socialist" aside from what the puppetmasters of American conservatism have told you.

To the contrary, I think you are the one who is ignorant of modern social democracy.

But you think you know about economics. That's so cute.

I know more about econometrics than you; that's for sure.

Summers backtracked on many of his former positions long before joining the Obama administration. He's not my favorite economist -- you seem to be saying that Glass-Steagall was an awful idea...

The repeal of Glass-Steagall appears to have been a bad idea, not the act itself.

...and I agree with that -- but he's also obviously nowhere close to being a Marxist, which is why I brought up his position in the administration.

Summers is not a Marxist, but Obama has to appease the "Blue Dog" Democrats; had Obama chosen, say, Krugman, whose economic views are probably much closer to his, then I think he would have risked his domestic agenda.

[_JohnStuartMill]

No. Like Droopy, you don't have an inkling as to the definition of "socialist" aside from what the puppetmasters of American conservatism have told you.

To the contrary, I think you are the one who is ignorant of modern social democracy.

Pop quiz: define "socialism", by contrasting it with "capitalism".

But you think you know about economics. That's so cute.

I know more about econometrics than you; that's for sure.

Well, if we were talking about econometrics, then I'd be impressed with your statistical background. But we're mostly talking about public finance and macroeconomics, with a little bit of economic philosophy thrown in. You've already demonstrated that you're nearly completely ignorant of that last field, and I have no reason to be confident in your knowledge of the others.

Summers backtracked on many of his former positions long before joining the Obama administration. He's not my favorite economist -- you seem to be saying that Glass-Steagall was an awful idea...

The repeal of Glass-Steagall appears to have been a bad idea, not the act itself.

Whoops, yeah. Meant to put a "repealing" in there somewhere.

...and I agree with that -- but he's also obviously nowhere close to being a Marxist, which is why I brought up his position in the administration.

Summers is not a Marxist, but Obama has to appease the "Blue Dog" Democrats; had Obama chosen, say, Krugman, whose economic views are probably much closer to his, then I think he would have risked his domestic agenda.

On what grounds do you say that Obama's views are closer to Krugman's? Obama worked at the most conservative of the great American law schools, so it shouldn't be surprising if he has more market-oriented views than most Democrats. Moreover, the President drew advice from centrist economists like Austan Goolsbee long before he had to worry about the Blue Dogs; how would you explain that? And even if you were right, it's not like Krugman is a Marxist, anyway.

Besides, what does it even mean to say that Obama would have "risked" his domestic agenda by picking Krugman, if he actually agrees with him more? Do you really mean to say that Obama tried to preserve his domestic agenda by picking someone who doesn't agree with it to implement it? Come on, Calc -- that's a bcspace-level argument right there.

[_JohnStuartMill]

Required reading for the "OMG Oboma iz soshulialist!" morons:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/co ... 676096.htm