Megan sez:
I now put the chances of a substantial health care bill passing at 75%, and the chances of the Democrats losing the house in 2010 at about 66%.So we'll keep the House, but not get reform. Bleh.
At least her reasoning is consistently stupid:
the real game changer is that the CBO is willing to score health care savings on the grounds that the bill contains automatic spending cuts.because the American people know what the CBO even is.
I think that ramming through the bill on a party line vote makes it very likely that the Democrats will lose the house in 2010; the American public doesn't like uniparty votes, especially on something this controversial. A lot of liberals have gotten angry at me for saying this, but it's not a normative statement; it's an observation. IF the Republicans had been willing to push forward on a controversial bill with no Democratic cover, we'd have private social security [sic] accounts right now. But they weren't, for a reason.Social Security is supposed to be capitalized, Megan. Also, the Repubs didn't have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, which is the actual reason Social Security wasn't crippled by being tied to a stock market that was still being inflated by the housing bubble at the time. (Plus pretty much the entire country said it was a stupid, horrible, idea.) Also, the Repubs still lost both Houses of Congress, so, ummm, what?
And yeah, the American people sure will hate Dems if they manage to pass a bill that contains actual reforms without making sure Olympia Snowe votes with them. There's going to be around a year between passage of a bill, if it happens, and the elections, which means this will totally be the least bit relevant then, especially after the (potential) reforms have started having positive effect making it likely the Repubs will do everything they can to either ignore or claim the real credit for them.
Also, she still hasn't fixed either glaring editorial mistake. I don't think she cares. Remember when The Atlantic was concerned with the quality of its output?
Posts
7 comments:
SHUT UP, MEGAN. YOU'RE NOT A HISTORIAN. NO ONE GIVES A "FLYING FUCK" ABOUT YOUR "READING" OF THE CHANCES OF THIS OR THAT HAPPENING IN CONGRESS IN THE FUTURE.
IT IS BAD ENOUGH THEY THINK YOU'RE A COMPETENT COMMENTER ABOUT ECONOMICS. JUST KEEP YOUR CONSUMER TIPS AND POLI-SCI PROGNOSTIFUCKINGCATIONS TO YOUR SELF-INFATUATED SELF AND S. T. FUCK U.
I'm sorry, but sometimes the tree of sanity must be watered by pushing down the Caps Lock key.
There, there, Mr. Wonderful. I know how you feel, I was at that point at 2pm. And then I had a lunch and a zen-like peace settled over me. When she posted this one, I just laughed.
Also:
Conservatives are filled with rage and anguish.
I wonder what was her first clue...
Is it legal to physically assault someone who usues the phrase "game changer" in a non-sports context?
If not we need to get someone cracking on that law
Yes, nothing will make the people angrier than doing what they elected you to do. They'll be furious! Because we all know that what they really wanted was the Republican agenda, which they overwhelmingly supported in the election.
Exactly. How dare Obama do what he was elected to do. It'll be the end of his political career!
Wassup, guys? Our Lady of the 80% posts two stunningly stupid posts in a row and it's all fucking crickets in here? Chop-chop, I need my snark! I mean, seriously, the Acorn bit - first Megan's comparison to Arthur Anderson (sic, like we need to bother at this point) and then the orgy of stupid in the comments starting with the very first comment: "ACORN makes Halliburton look like child's play..."
Her article in the paper is a pip. Did you know that McArdle did nothing at her investment banking job, and therefore banker pay had nothing to do with the current crises?
It's embarrassing, as usual.
Post a Comment