Obamacare: $940 Billion becomes $2.5 Trillion

[_Droopy]

The CRA argument has been reduced to dust and you hardly find anyone from the Right making that argument anymore because of it. Unless we're just talking about idiots like Hannity and Beck who have no credibility left to risk.

Actually, there is a strong argument to be made for it, as Thomas Sowell has done in his book The Housing Boom and Bust. Libertarians disagree to some extent on its relevance (see Thomas Woods' Meltdown, for a deemphasis, or some of Thomas DiLorenzo's stuff and the Von Mises Institute for a greater emphasis (I linked to one of his essays in one of these threads). Sowell emphasizes it much more, and I will take any of these people more seriously than Graham's initial sources, just several cherry picked people, one of which was a federal reserve officer, and another an employee of a federal reserve bank, institutions right in the middle and up to their little butts in the meltdown (and perhaps covering them)).

Follow that with Graham's mendacious use of a mendacious "Gotcha!" type smear by Media Matters against a Heritage study that a little homework quickly exposed and dispelled and Graham's credibility disappeared along with his tenuous grasp of the issues involved.

I produce conservative experts who concede this point and all Dafty can do is say he doesn't recognize their names in the "conservative intellectual movement."

It was a tiny cherry picked few against a background of strong consensus among conservative intellectuals to the contrary.

What an idiot. This just goes to prove Dafty is never interested in truth and he is never interested in admitting to being wrong about anything. His mind is old and small, but at least its made up.

You're in good company with another charlatan of your caliber here Graham. Scratch is just the one to egg you on.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Actually, there is a strong argument to be made for it, as Thomas Sowell has done in his book The Housing Boom and Bust. .

Droopy, have you even read this book? Or are you just relying on summaries of it that you've seen in your Right Wing sources? I bet you haven't read it. Can you briefly summarize the first chapter?

[_Droopy]

Still not a single link, eh?

To what? I've now posted truckloads of them to a varaity of serious, critical soures.

Look, Droopy: just admit that your reading on this subject is narrow. Just admit it and let's be done with it.

You descend into self parody with unusual ease Scratch.

Enough of your two-faced nonsense.

You're projecting yet again Scratch.

The Heritage Foundation is a prestigious and respected (except, of course, among intellectual poseurs) think tank, indeed, one of the most.

I don't doubt that, Droopy, but this is beside the point. You have insisted again and again that people on the board are "poorly read" compared to you,

I am hardly the only one here to have noticed the certain posters, such as you, Graham, and some others, are poorly read.

and yet you won't demonstrate that your own reading on this topic extends beyond the ideologically-driven sources you've already listed.

This is just a ploy Scratch, and I can see right through it. All sources in this debate, and others like it, are going to be "ideologically driven" to the extent that they all are going to come from a preexisting bias or standpoint. The question is not the bias, but the quality of the arguments. Graham's sources are just as ideologically biased, if not more so, than mine. The real difference is the intellectual seriousness and provenance of my sources, not their bias.

Are you seriously trying to claim that The Heritage Foundation is providing the whole story here? Are the articles peer-reviewed, Droopy?

Are think tank reports, studies and policy analysis peer reviewed?

1. Why do they need to be?

2. Write to Heritage and ask them. Their all PhDs and experts in their relevant fields.

You still have the opportunity to cite legit, scholarly journals on this topic. It's becoming clear that you haven't read any of them, though, which is quite a shame, and quite a blow to your already tenuous credibility.

Scratch, Scratch...are you really this clueless?

This is yet another dodge. Why not just link the sources, Loran? You can't do it, can you. What a shame.

I've linked to tons of them on this and another thread on this subject in this forum. Why haven't you read them?

This must be a horrible embarrassment for you, Droopy. From now on, every time I see you trying to characterize some one else as "poorly read," I'm going to remind you about this thread. I'm going to remind you that, when challenged to show that you've done extensive and wide-ranging reading on this topic, you were forced to admit that your entire education had been derived from hardcore Right Wing materials.

The only thing that comes to mind when I think of you, Scratch, is Michael Moore.

I think Daniel would probably agree.

[_Droopy]

Actually, there is a strong argument to be made for it, as Thomas Sowell has done in his book The Housing Boom and Bust. .

Droopy, have you even read this book? Or are you just relying on summaries of it that you've seen in your Right Wing sources? I bet you haven't read it. Can you briefly summarize the first chapter?

Given the content of much of Graham's tirades here, I would think pages 36 through 41 would be most apropos.

You're so amusing.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Droopy:

I've asked you for a link (just one!) to a scholarly, peer-reviewed source. That you won't do this shows that either (A) you don't understand what scholarly materials are, and/or (B) that you haven't read any of them.

And the answer to your question is "No": Think Tank articles tend not to be subjected to the same kind of double-blind peer review that is SOP in scholarly journals. (Did you not know that?) I guess not, since you said this:

Are think tank reports, studies and policy analysis peer reviewed?

1. Why do they need to be?

2. Write to Heritage and ask them. Their all PhDs and experts in their relevant fields.

LOL! What, do you imagine that one author says, "Hey, Joe, I just finished this article. Will you take a look at it and review it for me?" Next time you're in class at the university, Loran, ask your professor why peer review is important.

None of this is to say that think tanks don't produce useful research---often, they do, especially if they are not-for-profit and are geared towards addressing legitimate scientific and social problems. Ideologically-driven "policy review institutes," though? These I would tend to approach with more caution and skepticism.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Given the content of much of Graham's tirades here, I would think pages 36 through 41 would be most apropos.

You're so amusing.

Hey, look at that! Terrific, Loran. For once, you seem to have actually read one of the primary sources. There's a first time for everything! Way to go!

[_Droopy]

Oh so now suddenly Dafty cares about educated perspectives?

I've been concerned about those since about the time you were in diapers, playing in the toilet with your own Ka ka.

Does he really think this is a matter of PhDs at Heritage vs. non-educated Liberals on blogs? Does he not know that there are think tanks on both sides of the political spectrum that employ credentialed economists, lawyers, etc?

Than you should have cited some.

The more he writes the more he reveals his ignorance. No wonder he is so hypnotized by Heritage. He really thinks these guys are the only people with doctorates who are talking about his favorite Right Wing talking points.

No, not at all. I just don't think federal reserve officers and federal bank employees, or unknown Canadian psychotherapists (who one who does have a substantive educated perspective on the universal healthcare issue can clearly see is yanking her "facts" out of her, uh...) are as good a source as independent scholars with an adult lifetime of expertise in their fields.

Nor, to be honest, to I think anyone trying to cover for or support the destruction of liberty has any credibility at the outset. That's a matter of core axiom about the world and the human beings in it that runs in the other direction on the Left. I know perfectly well that they desire to destroy freedom and collectivize the human condition.

Again, CRA Dafty. Let's see you deal with its refutation. Let's see if you can find any economist worth his salt still trying to salvage that debunked argument.

I already have Michael (or should I just call you Snowball?), but you're clearly not familiar with my sources nor do you have the intellectual integrity to even read and digest those I have already posted.

[_Droopy]

Given the content of much of Graham's tirades here, I would think pages 36 through 41 would be most apropos.

You're so amusing.

Hey, look at that! Terrific, Loran. For once, you seem to have actually read one of the primary sources. There's a first time for everything! Way to go!

Yes, there is a first time for everything. Might I suggest, in your case, a vasectomy followed by frontal lobotomy?

[_Kevin Graham]

Thomas Sowell ???

ROFL!

Last month Analytics argued with a Right Winger friend of mine on another forum about whether government can create wealth. My friend was following something he read from Thomas Sowell, but he didn't know how to respond to Analytics' argument so he emailed Sowell, and lo and behold, he actually responded. Responded with what? He essentially conceded the point that he was wrong and that government can in fact create wealth.

I guess that Harvard Education hasn't made him smarter than some of us folks here.

[_Kevin Graham]

Follow that with Graham's mendacious use of a mendacious "Gotcha!" type smear by Media Matters against a Heritage study that a little homework quickly exposed and dispelled and Graham's credibility disappeared along with his tenuous grasp of the issues involved.

Are you really this stupid? I already pointed out that Media Matters never even mentioned Heritage in that article and you continue to say they were trying to smear them? Media Matters proved the NEJM had nothing to do with that's urvey, which "a little homework" would quickly prove is your beloved FOX News hacks had any interest in truth and accuracy.

The point was raised because you brought up the survey to support your idiotic conclusions that most doctors reject Obamacare. The fact that you had to rely on such an unscientific survey based on a silly newsletter is telling, and now you are trying to detract from this fact by focusing on a straw man about something Media Matters never said.

You're hopeless Dafty.