I guess I just feel the same way -- like it's also an accounting trick to lump entitlements in with discretionary spending... i.e., there's a difference between things we've actually 'bought' on the national credit card (be they wars, highways, or food stamps) and things that are promised benefits.

All spending is discretionary. The "trick" is pretending that simply because they wrote down a formula rather than picking a number every year, that "entitlements" are somehow untouchable.

"If a black man and a white woman didn't like the voluntary agreement they entered into which prohibited them from marrying each other, they were free to leave the government's jurisdiction." That's acceptable to you?

I'm sure the invisible hand will fix that, just like it fixed slavery.

New thread up, with no numbering/pagination issues. Flip for the month, please.

All spending is discretionary. The "trick" is pretending that simply because they wrote down a formula rather than picking a number every year, that "entitlements" are somehow untouchable.

Well -- I suppose if you set aside that SS is wholly funded out by way of a highly specific tax that is independently allocated, but then loans out it receipts to the discretionary budget...

But yes, yes, David... precision and clarity only matter when they truly serve your ideologically rigid point - I get it.

Here is one of those wonderful rich persons that Boehner seems so hellbent on breaking the country over.

Christie and King don't care about the House's abandoning the victims of Sandy. They're pandering to their constituents, and making themselves look human. Once they succeed in getting Christie elected POTUS, they'll do a heel turn, all hug and kiss Boehner and McConnell and Grover Norquist, and laugh and sneer at the shocked masses.

Christie and King don't care about the House's abandoning the victims of Sandy. They're pandering to their constituents, and making themselves look human. Once they succeed in getting Christie elected POTUS, they'll do a heel turn, all hug and kiss Boehner and McConnell and Grover Norquist, and laugh and sneer at the shocked masses.

Undoubtedly true, but while it lasts it's still a most enjoyable catfight.

Christie and King don't care about the House's abandoning the victims of Sandy. They're pandering to their constituents, and making themselves look human.

Whoa there. They're "pandering to their constituents" only in that their constituents were devastated by the hurricane, and they most certainly do care about the House GOP's abandonment of the victims of Sandy because they care about their constituents. We shouldn't assume the worst about every motive of every pol.

I was joking, so whoa yourself! I actually like Christie. He helped Obama get re-elected, IMO, by showing him respect when seemingly no other high profile member of the GOP would dare.

BTW I'm not assuming the worst about Christie. I'm just assuming that no Republican with any sort of national ambitions can afford in the long run to buck the loonies and still be a force within the GOP. Look at what they did to the McCain of 2000 in 2008, and what they did to Massachusetts Mitt in 2012. There's no future in being a sane Republican when the dominant faction of your party's base belongs in a padded cell.

Given the middle class tax hikes are now off the table, how many people who vote are really going to be all that outraged when the interests of the poorest and most vulnerable Americans aren't protected? (Or, at least, I imagine that's how someone on the left will put it.)

As opposed to the facts, which would be...?

Btw, there's a straightforward way of dealing with the health insurance/contraception issue that's consistent with how we've handled other issues of this type. We tend strongly to see these situations along the lines of 'your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.' 'Your right to shout 'fire' ends in my crowded theater'. 'Your right to compel prayer ends in our shared classroom.'

Your right to deal with contraception as you see fit does not require me to forgo it, and there's an intermediate ground where both concerns can be satisfied.

There is a useful difference between the Catholic Church giving someone thirty dollars knowing they'll probably spend it on contraceptive health care, and the Church actually going into the pharmacy and buying a pack of birth control pills. I'd require the Church to simply make its insurance finances clear, and when insurance does not cover contraceptive health care, the Church compensates employees with an equivalent amount of cash or cash equivalents. I'm not aware of any tenet of the Church that would forbid this, well, dodge. It doesn't, for instance, monitor how its employees spend their paychecks in order to make sure they don't spend it on abortions.

And what Mefisto said in 5966, except for:

Because employee benefits = money, and because the only interest the employer has in the transaction is the cost, the employer has no interest in the terms of the policy. The coverage conditions are up to the insurer and the beneficiary (namely the employee). You're claiming that someone who is neither the insurer nor the beneficiary can insist on controlling the policy terms. That's absurd.

It IS absurd, but that's what happens when we inject employers between myself and my insurer (if I wasn't self-employed. Thank God. No idea how you can work for someone else.).

I imagine we'll get past the point where A's religious beliefs trump B's moral philosophy and C's health needs, but it's going to take a while.

Why does David keep rattling on about taxes, btw? If he was President of Libertaria, he'd force me to pay at least national defense tax.

As they say, isn't the rest just haggling about price?

double post

You're right to point to the incentive structure of the House members. The problem at this point is democracy. The House Republicans didn't exactly hide their beliefs the last 2 years. People who voted for them must have liked what they're getting. It's always tempting to blame individual bad actors, but sometimes the fault truly lies in the people themselves.

Isn't the problem really almost entirely gerrymandering and how it incentivizes craziness, along with a dash of the old two senators for Idaho, two for New York problem? Dems won a slight majority of those voting in House elections, and are down in Reps by 35.


re 6161, there's also the fact that a goodly percentage of those receiving the cash or cash equivalents will not avail themselves of contraceptive health care.

The Economist magazine's economics blog debunks fearmongering about debt:

Government debt: How much is too much?

test