After whinning about biased sources you offer a piece from Cato that is 11 years old, long before anyone had any idea the financial crisis would occur. I guess for you, just the fact that it mentions CRA and comes from one of your trusted Right Wing sources, means that there must be some kind of support for your ludicrous argument that the CRA had anything whatsoever to do with the burst of the housing bubble. THis argument gained favor in the early stages after the crisis unfolded, because it offered the guilty and those on the far right an easy scape goat. But eventually the data was shown to be unsupportive of the argument, and in fact contradicted it altogether.
The CRA has never forced banks to give out bad loans. The fact is, banks have been giving out bad loans because they were going to make money anyway by repackaging them as Mortgage-backed Securities and selling them off to Freddie and Fannie. It was all based on predatory lending and most of all, greed by those running the banks. So to fall back on this well outdated argument only shows how disinterested you really are in keeping up with the times. I have already shown where conservative experts reject it as a myth, and all you can do is say you don't recognize their names in the "conservative intellectual movement", which should hardly be surprising for a non-intellectual who has to run back and forth between forums using multiple names and grab information from others in order to pass it off as your own (i.e. Loran, Book of Abraham)
You also rely on two hit pieces by the Mises institute, which is another favorite Right Wing source for ignorant bloggers trying to appear intellectual. The first was written nearly two years ago long before the data came forth to refute these theories. The second was written a year ago by a real-estate developer (gee, no conflict of interest there huh?) and which essentially reiterates the first article. Both of which are too late and have since been debunked. The entire basis for their theory rests on the assumption that 1) a significant portion of the defaulted loans originated with CRA governed banks and 2) CRA actually forced banks to make bad loans. Too bad for you, the data is in and we now know that both of these premises are faulty. This is why you can't find an economist worth his salt trying to defend this stupid argument anymore. You have to dig in the online cemetery of bad Right Wing arguments and try to present them as cutting edge. You can only get away with this with the ignorant, which is why you're having a hard time on this thread.
Another outdated and refuted hit piece was written by Right Wing blogger Peter Wallison who was Don Regan's lapdog during the Reagan administration. Don Regan was the former CEO of Merrill Lynch who became Reagan's master as he was ordered to drive legislation that would suit the rich bankers. Here is Don ordering our President to "speed it up.":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTcL6Xc_eMMTalk about relying on the foxes in the hen house!
You then ignore the refutation of your polls by calling mine leftist, while continuing to reiterate those provided by the Right Wing sources. You see you probably wouldn't be considered so much of an idiot if you'd actually engage the arguments and stop shooting the messengers for bias, while at the same time relying on equally or more biased sources yourself.
But the fact is all Health Care Reform Bills are not equal, and they have changed quite a bit since August of last year when a Public Option was set to go. Picking and choosing poll numbers from various period can tell whatever story you want to tell, but this game gets blown away once we realize that back in August, roughly two thirds of Americans supported a public option. What? How is that possible? Even your own Right WIng source, Rasmussen, published its own poll in August admitting the fact that most Americans want the government competing with the insurance companies!
Just 34% of voters nationwide support the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats if the so-called “public option” is removed. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 57% oppose the plan
if it doesn't include a government-run health insurance plan to compete with private insurers.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... _collapses
Of course this just goes along with what I have always said. Many, many people disapprove of the proposed bills, including the one that passed, simply because it isn't Liberal ENOUGH. So your CBS poll should be understood in light of the previous CBS poll which said 72% of Americans supported the public option!
(
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/ ... 8517.shtml)
I'm using your own sources now Dafty, so where you going to run now?
I mentioned the largest organization of doctors in the nation that supports the Obama bill. But since the source also mentioned AARP, you figured you could get away with ignoring the American Medical Association and just attack AARP for being "Leftist"... well what about the AMA? This cuts to the heart of your claim that 65% of all doctors hate the bill and will leave their professions as a result. Don't tell me, the AMA is in Obama's "back pocket" as well? God your arguments are lame. You respond to the data with baseless conspiracy theories all the flippin time. It's the only way you can make sense of things without having to change your world view. Kinda like how you ignore all the evidence that proves your prophet was an adulterer and a fraud. Anyone who presents data to the contrary must be maligned as an uncredible source, because that is what your masters tell you. They're of the devil.
You are deeply deluded in you think you can just lie to my face in this manner as a debating tactic. Either that, or you are so ignorant of the actual facts and evidence of the matter that going much further here will soon cross the line into intelligence insulting self flagellation.
I can appreciate the fact that you're one of those idiot apologists who likes to hear himself speak. But if you think this bit of nonsense somehow refutes the fact that Universal Healthcare has nothing to do with the Bill recently passed, then you're a bigger idiot than I thought. Say it ain't so Loran.
This is another flat footed lie. Shall I delve into this farther Kevin, or shall I let you continue debasing yourself in public?
Then argue the point you poser and cut out all the tough talk. Here is an article discussing Republican ideas that have been incorporated into the Bill:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-k ... h_car.htmlI would also add the individual mandate as originating with the Republican side since Romney said his plan, including the mandate, should serve as a model for the country, long before Obama proposed it.
Put down your new issue of Mother Jones for a moment, turn off Link TV, and pay attention
You think an ignorance based rant by Conn Carroll, a Right Wing lobbyist who now works for the Heritage Foundation is a reliable unbiased source? This group is funded by the same corporations who have been profiting the most from the broken health care system. Again, you're left with the pathetic argument that the CBO is only right when it serves the Right Wing agenda, otherwise it is incompetent. The CBO isn't in the business of responding to cheap partisan attacks, so we'll probably never see a detailed response by those responsible for the projections.
Media Matters is not a Think Tank. It researches and debunks the numerous claims that get pumped out by the Right Wing Propaganda machine, be it from Hannity, OReilly, Beck, Heritage, etc. I guess it is the Left Wing equivalent to Newsbusters. And I have yet to see where any of their refutations were proven wrong. All I see are blind morons who think that by attacking them for being "Lefist" that this somehow constitutes an intellectual argument.
As you can see, the actual Heritage report makes no claim that the New England Journal of Medicine conducted a poll, but at the outset names The Medicus Firm as the source of the poll and says that it was "posted" in the Journal. The text of the Journal's name is hyperlinked, and clicking it, one is taken to NEJM career center - a part of the online magazine. Another link takes you to the Medicius Firm website, where you can see the entire survey.
In other rather obvious words Kevin, Media Matters has deceived the public and flat footedly lied regarding the claims Heritage made about it, which, when inspected, seem completely accurate.
How the hell has MM deceived anyone when they never said Heritage said that? God, don't you read? The link I provided merely pointed out that Media Matters contacted the NEJM and found out that they were not responsible for the wild claim that the Right Wingers had adopted as gospel. Those who attributed it to the NEJM were the idiots at FOX News and Investors Business Daily. The original revelation about this appeared in this article, and notice there isn't any mention of Heritage:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201003190027I misspoke when I (meaning ME) said Heritage referred to it as an NEJM survey. So your long winded attempt to defame MM over this supposed example of dishonest just fizzled away with the last drop of your credibility.
Further, I do not see, on its face, why a survey taken by this group should be dismissed out of hand.
That's because you take everything at face value so long as it originates from one of your favorite Right Wing sources, and it supports your presuppositions. For the critical thinkers, we're content to dig a little deeper to discover that the truth is usually more complex and nuanced that your elementary and intellectually lazy version of reality. I mean does it really matter nothing to you that the survey was not scientific? It was a friggin newsletter and its findings contradicted more credible surveys. But the conclusions were what you liked, so you run with them and hope nobody cares more about truth than you do, and actually does the necessary legwork to find out how credible it is. The point here is that the survey was not conducted by the NEJM and has no credibility whatsoever. This is why the Right Wing Propaganda machine had to lie about it in the first place. They knew it would have no credibility as a silly newsletter with nothing whatsoever to do with any prominent medical associations.
Should I provide Left Wing sources for my Right Wing views Kevin?
Exactly my point. So stop bitching about my sources being "leftist." All this does is show an inability to refute the data provided therein. Your sources provide no verifiable data. Just a bunch of numbers based on assumptions that are not verifiable since the CBO has not engaged the criticism from the Right. For all we know the details that shaped their conclusions had little to do with the straw men you guys keep pounding.
The difference between us is, ostensibly, that I am actually educated and well read, while you have assiduously avoid such trifles.
Then why have I always mopped the floors with you in debates? You know as much about this topic as you do the Book of Abraham.
At the very least, its authors, Pelosi, Rangel, Waxman, and a few others know most of what is in it. But at nearly 2,000 pages, even they have probably forgotton more than they every contributed, and have not themelves actually read much of the material provided by others.
More Right Wing rhetoric based in ignorance. The bill was based on a previous bill that never saw the light of day, and though exhaustive, was very much known by its authors and those who didn't like it. There have been changes over the past 8 months, some major and some minor, but it is dumb to say none of the politicians had any idea what was in it until they signed it. This is like saying a group of writers and editors who keep changing the plot and details in a movie script, by the time of the final draft, will have no earthly idea what the movie is about unless they read the whole thing from start to finish.
Another whopper. I hope this is ignorance and not bald mendacity on display here, I really do.
Again, argue the point wimp. Stop with all the blowhard tough talk and make an argument for once. Now I said other countries have a healthier population, and you call it ignorance. Well, prove me wrong. If you have any sense at all and are half as well read as you pretend to be, then you know what I say is true. And this explains your reluctance to engage the argument and keep a safe distance. You're the biggest bluffer on this forum and always have been, which is why fewer and fewer people engage you.
No they don't. Some live a few years longer, and some don't. I have no idea what you mean when you claim that "those countries" spend more etc.
Learn to read already, I didn't say they spent more I said they spent LESS - as a percentage of their GDP. And you just proved my statement by admitting that SOME DO have populations that live longer. Many also have lower rates of obesity, heart disease, cancers, etc.
I'll perhaps post some clear facts and logical arguments regarding this the nonsense of comparing healthcare "costs" of America with other countries later.
I'm calling your bluff. If you could off hand, you would already. As it is, you're scrubbing the web for some Right Wing hit piece attacking European Health Care, probably written by some idiot who has never been to Europe.
Oh and I noticed you decided to bail out on the whole Obama = Socialist nonsense. Smart move, because you're way out of your depth.