From the New York Times article on taxing the banks:
The most likely alternatives would be a tax based on the size and riskiness of an institution’s loans and other financial holdings, or a tax on profits.
Lobbyists for bankers, taken by surprise, immediately objected to any new tax.
Suggested follow-up questions:
- Taken by surprise meaning that you've seen it coming for ages and have been desperately spinning to try to forestall the inevitable ("the housing bubble took us by surprise!")?
- Taken by surprise meaning you totally knew it would happen and you're just trying to act as though it's so inconceivably crass that you never saw it coming ("the furor over bonuses took us by surprise!")?
- Or taken by surprise like you're all bunch of know-nothing, backwards idiots getting high on your own supply ("financial deregulation leading to complete collapse took us by surprise!")?
Then again, when a lobbyist for bankers tells you he's shocked -- shocked! -- by something, I'm sure it's totally genuine.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Gotta Beat Life
Mickey, in the midst of explaining his inexplicable contrarianism:
[T]he purpose of the health care system is to keep people alive--it's enemy is, in effect, death, which will never be defeated.
You mean we're MORTAL? Oh, man, I'm glad Mickey's around to help us out.
STOP THINKING YOU'RE VAMPIRES, PEOPLE.
Actually, you know the best part of this help-me-help-you-understand-my-ridiculousness post?
He lists as a "contradiction" something that was never a contradiction in the first place (he wants to spend more money on health care and less money on the military; this approach endorsed by a noted neoliberal contrarian here), yet his explanation as to why it's not a contradiction is also wrong. (Who thinks that the rational purpose of a nation's military is not to "keep people alive"? Genghis Khan?).
Mickey then declares failure, and asks for help from his readers:
None of these answers is completely satisfying. Suggestions welcomed.
Suggestion: you're an idiot.
[T]he purpose of the health care system is to keep people alive--it's enemy is, in effect, death, which will never be defeated.
You mean we're MORTAL? Oh, man, I'm glad Mickey's around to help us out.
STOP THINKING YOU'RE VAMPIRES, PEOPLE.
Actually, you know the best part of this help-me-help-you-understand-my-ridiculousness post?
He lists as a "contradiction" something that was never a contradiction in the first place (he wants to spend more money on health care and less money on the military; this approach endorsed by a noted neoliberal contrarian here), yet his explanation as to why it's not a contradiction is also wrong. (Who thinks that the rational purpose of a nation's military is not to "keep people alive"? Genghis Khan?).
Mickey then declares failure, and asks for help from his readers:
None of these answers is completely satisfying. Suggestions welcomed.
Suggestion: you're an idiot.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Sunday, January 10, 2010
All I Know
We know three things:
1) Mickey is king of the undernews.
2) Mickey hates Peter Orszag, for attempting to murder Mickey by personally mandating how many hospital beds are available in North Dakota. [No, seriously ... -- ed. No, seriously!]
3) "[T]he fact that Mr. Orszag’s ex — Claire Milonas, a 39-year-old venture capitalist — was pregnant with his daughter was well known among Beltway swells." Link.
So, um, Mickey ... if you can't deliver on #1, even in service of #2, what exactly is your purpose here?
1) Mickey is king of the undernews.
2) Mickey hates Peter Orszag, for attempting to murder Mickey by personally mandating how many hospital beds are available in North Dakota. [No, seriously ... -- ed. No, seriously!]
3) "[T]he fact that Mr. Orszag’s ex — Claire Milonas, a 39-year-old venture capitalist — was pregnant with his daughter was well known among Beltway swells." Link.
So, um, Mickey ... if you can't deliver on #1, even in service of #2, what exactly is your purpose here?
Friday, January 8, 2010
The Theory Goes Right Out The Window
The Washington Post, showing off their economic chops:
Employers, the theory goes, would put the savings into higher wages.
When this theory is the underpinning of your outlook on life, you should really give up on your theory, and probably give up on life. This theory, my theory goes, is completely idiotic.
Employers, the theory goes, would put the savings into higher wages.
When this theory is the underpinning of your outlook on life, you should really give up on your theory, and probably give up on life. This theory, my theory goes, is completely idiotic.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Where Every Day Is Opposite Day
Mickey's take on health care is pretty formulaic at this point, so there really isn't much to examine. The man has literally three concepts that he trots out to explain every new development:
"Kabuki"
Use: Any time a liberal attempts to make anything better.
Why: Liberals are evil, scheming bastards who don't actually want to ever accomplish anything. Also, they once called Mickey a "bald jerk" and he will never, ever forgive them.
"Id"
Use: Any time a politician attempts to kill the useful bits of health care reform, no matter how obviously nonsensical or venal his/her motive.
Why: Mickey can't argue that various centrist democrats have been bought by the industries they purport to regulate -- this would violate his core thesis that liberal democrats (Dick Durbin! Boo! Hiss!) are to blame for all the evil in the world -- so he attributes the centrists' perfidy to the fear that the public simply hates subsidized universal health care. Because ... well, because it's made by liberals! (see "Kabuki")
"Juice"
Use: To explain why health care is still alive, despite its many setbacks (see "Id").
Why: Democrats are evil, scheming bastards who pretend to want to accomplish things only to extract money from interested parties.
*****************
So, in summation, Mickey Kaus has his head so far up his ass that he thinks politicians act in fear of the voting public and treat corporate donors like suckers.
"Kabuki"
Use: Any time a liberal attempts to make anything better.
Why: Liberals are evil, scheming bastards who don't actually want to ever accomplish anything. Also, they once called Mickey a "bald jerk" and he will never, ever forgive them.
"Id"
Use: Any time a politician attempts to kill the useful bits of health care reform, no matter how obviously nonsensical or venal his/her motive.
Why: Mickey can't argue that various centrist democrats have been bought by the industries they purport to regulate -- this would violate his core thesis that liberal democrats (Dick Durbin! Boo! Hiss!) are to blame for all the evil in the world -- so he attributes the centrists' perfidy to the fear that the public simply hates subsidized universal health care. Because ... well, because it's made by liberals! (see "Kabuki")
"Juice"
Use: To explain why health care is still alive, despite its many setbacks (see "Id").
Why: Democrats are evil, scheming bastards who pretend to want to accomplish things only to extract money from interested parties.
*****************
So, in summation, Mickey Kaus has his head so far up his ass that he thinks politicians act in fear of the voting public and treat corporate donors like suckers.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
It Was Six Years Ago Today ...
A Kausfiles Klassic, with Mickey showing off his foreign policy chops:
Two very useful reports on the Iraq timetable (in WaPo, and the Los Angeles Times ) suggest that while we may or may not be moving too quickly to hand over sovereignty, the "artificial timeline" derided by Hillary Clinton has some obvious virtues. The June 30 deadline focuses the minds of the Americans on what they can and can't expect to accomplish before they've outstayed their welcome--do we really need to "cash out" Iraq's food rationing program in accordance with Milton-Friedman's theories before we leave?--and it focuses the mind of Iraqis on what they need to do as well, including what compromises they may need to make.
Wow! If Iraqis minds were that focused in December 2003, imagine how focused they must be now! At this point, they can probably bend spoons with their minds!
With that combination of simplistic analysis, churlish liberal-bashing and outright idiocy, it's actually somewhat puzzling that Mickey hasn't been offered a spot at the Brookings Institute yet. They must be in thrall to the Money Liberals!
p.s. Coming soon to a terrible op-ed page near you: Mickey Kaus and Michael O'Hanlon think a turning point is just six months away!
Two very useful reports on the Iraq timetable (in WaPo, and the Los Angeles Times ) suggest that while we may or may not be moving too quickly to hand over sovereignty, the "artificial timeline" derided by Hillary Clinton has some obvious virtues. The June 30 deadline focuses the minds of the Americans on what they can and can't expect to accomplish before they've outstayed their welcome--do we really need to "cash out" Iraq's food rationing program in accordance with Milton-Friedman's theories before we leave?--and it focuses the mind of Iraqis on what they need to do as well, including what compromises they may need to make.
Wow! If Iraqis minds were that focused in December 2003, imagine how focused they must be now! At this point, they can probably bend spoons with their minds!
With that combination of simplistic analysis, churlish liberal-bashing and outright idiocy, it's actually somewhat puzzling that Mickey hasn't been offered a spot at the Brookings Institute yet. They must be in thrall to the Money Liberals!
p.s. Coming soon to a terrible op-ed page near you: Mickey Kaus and Michael O'Hanlon think a turning point is just six months away!
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Kabukkake
Mickey on the left's awful, awful desire to see the health care bill get better:
What do we want? More Kabuki! Will the angry left's need for cathartic Kabuki kill the promising "Pong" gambit--and maybe kill health care reform entirely (by forcing a House-Senate conference and a conference bill that then never gets re-passed by the Senate)? ... Kausfiles awaits Ezra Klein's denunciation of Howard Dean, Keith Olbermann, Jane Hamsher and Markos Moulitsas for being "willing to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in order" to satisfy an emotional need to 'fight' for a doomed plan.
Can you spot the flaw in Mickey's swipe at Ezra Klein? I'm busy writing letters to Senators Dean, Olbermann, Hamshet and Moulitsas, so just write your answer down and mail it to me at your earliest convenience.
What do we want? More Kabuki! Will the angry left's need for cathartic Kabuki kill the promising "Pong" gambit--and maybe kill health care reform entirely (by forcing a House-Senate conference and a conference bill that then never gets re-passed by the Senate)? ... Kausfiles awaits Ezra Klein's denunciation of Howard Dean, Keith Olbermann, Jane Hamsher and Markos Moulitsas for being "willing to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in order" to satisfy an emotional need to 'fight' for a doomed plan.
Can you spot the flaw in Mickey's swipe at Ezra Klein? I'm busy writing letters to Senators Dean, Olbermann, Hamshet and Moulitsas, so just write your answer down and mail it to me at your earliest convenience.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Yes, Mickey, You've Got It Now
Mickey grapples with Holy Joe Lieberman's attempt to kill the Medicare buy-in (the one Mickey liked, remember?) and figures that the one senator Democrats shouldn't worry about is ... Joe Lieberman.
/deep breath
To recap: Mickey Kaus thinks we shouldn't worry about the ridiculous, nonsensical figure acting out his misguided vendetta against liberals by opposing decent legislation.
Awesome, Mickey.
p.s. I don't particularly want to defend Roland Burris -- the Democrat that Mickey, hilariously, thinks is the one most likely to scuttle health care reform due to some unspecified corrupt motive -- but you get the feeling that if Burris wasn't so ... urban ... Mickey would put on the official Slate contrarian hat and note that there's a difference between buying a vote in the Senate and selling a vote in the Senate. But he's not, so he didn't. So it goes.
/deep breath
To recap: Mickey Kaus thinks we shouldn't worry about the ridiculous, nonsensical figure acting out his misguided vendetta against liberals by opposing decent legislation.
Awesome, Mickey.
p.s. I don't particularly want to defend Roland Burris -- the Democrat that Mickey, hilariously, thinks is the one most likely to scuttle health care reform due to some unspecified corrupt motive -- but you get the feeling that if Burris wasn't so ... urban ... Mickey would put on the official Slate contrarian hat and note that there's a difference between buying a vote in the Senate and selling a vote in the Senate. But he's not, so he didn't. So it goes.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Why Mickey Likes Things That Don't Happen
A paragraph-by-paragraph breakdown of Mickey's prediction that the (apparently dead!) Medicare compromise will result in means-testing:
1) If the buy-in is unsubsidized, younger people will payer higher premiums. Mickey gets an A ... this is basic logic, often a stretch for Mickey.
2) Eventually the 55+ crowd will complain to their congressmen. C ... True, as far as it goes. Of course, this group doesn't actually have any kind of interest group representing them (like the AARP), and those who would buy in are fairly likely to be poorer. So, to the extent that disorganized poor people have a voice in Washington, Mickey's totally right.
3) Congress, to achive parity between the groups, will respond by raising rates on the larger and more politically powerful demographic, just after they all collectively lose any instinct for self-preservation. F ... I'm starting to believe that Mickey attended exactly one Political Science class, and he fell asleep right after the professor introduced himself.
4) Congress will have to subsidize poor people. D+ Sorta like the way this Congress -- the one with 60 Democrats, remember? -- is bending over BACKWARDS to help poor people?
5) More fee hikes for rich old people. D- ... If Congress had the balls to do this, why wouldn't they have done it already? How does having more people participating in Medicare compel Congress to act in accordance with Mickey's fantasy? Aren't we missing Step 2.5: The Reanimation of Daniel Patrick Moynihan? SHOW YOUR WORK, MICKEY!
6) Rich 65+ recipients would finally pay the full cost. A ... Logical, if you accept all the insane bullshit that came before.
7) Therefore, the Medicare buy-in is a backdoor to means-testing! A+++! ... Great job! Now, run, Mickey, go tell all the means-testing advocates in the Senate! Senators like ...
... Joe Lieberman. Damn.
1) If the buy-in is unsubsidized, younger people will payer higher premiums. Mickey gets an A ... this is basic logic, often a stretch for Mickey.
2) Eventually the 55+ crowd will complain to their congressmen. C ... True, as far as it goes. Of course, this group doesn't actually have any kind of interest group representing them (like the AARP), and those who would buy in are fairly likely to be poorer. So, to the extent that disorganized poor people have a voice in Washington, Mickey's totally right.
3) Congress, to achive parity between the groups, will respond by raising rates on the larger and more politically powerful demographic, just after they all collectively lose any instinct for self-preservation. F ... I'm starting to believe that Mickey attended exactly one Political Science class, and he fell asleep right after the professor introduced himself.
4) Congress will have to subsidize poor people. D+ Sorta like the way this Congress -- the one with 60 Democrats, remember? -- is bending over BACKWARDS to help poor people?
5) More fee hikes for rich old people. D- ... If Congress had the balls to do this, why wouldn't they have done it already? How does having more people participating in Medicare compel Congress to act in accordance with Mickey's fantasy? Aren't we missing Step 2.5: The Reanimation of Daniel Patrick Moynihan? SHOW YOUR WORK, MICKEY!
6) Rich 65+ recipients would finally pay the full cost. A ... Logical, if you accept all the insane bullshit that came before.
7) Therefore, the Medicare buy-in is a backdoor to means-testing! A+++! ... Great job! Now, run, Mickey, go tell all the means-testing advocates in the Senate! Senators like ...
... Joe Lieberman. Damn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
