23 Nov 2009 03:57 pm
We're Going Broke Anyway, So Why Not Spend Like Drunken Sailors?
I don't pretend to be an economic expert, but that sounds like a good idea. Even better if phrased "We're drunken sailors, so why not go broke?"Anyway, info & advice from one who's lived it, & somehow finds it pertinent to expanded health care:
Anyone who has dated a manic-depressive has heard some version of this argument. "I can barely make ends meet now, so I might as well use my tax refund check to buy a boat! After all, if I can't figure out a way to fix my budget, I'm going to go bankrupt anyway."
And anyone who has dated a manic-depressive knows where this ends.
She won't share w/ those who haven't dated bi-polar sufferers where it all ends. We're not sure if that's good or bad. This is definitely bad:
I also have no idea why anyone would think that there is no difference between going bankrupt for a huge sum, and going bankrupt for a smaller amount. I mean, there's sometimes no difference for the debtor, but of course, there are a whole bunch of creditors who are also people, and who are not going to be paid back, some of whom may end up in bankruptcy themselves if you default. Since in this case, many of the creditors are the American people, I would think that even the most corporation-hating, bank-despising, littleguyophilic liberal would sort of worry about this.
Is there any point in going on? [Reads the remainder. Alright, scroll-scannned the rest of it. C'mon.] No, it's something about the gov't. going bankrupt ("but of course, there are a whole bunch of creditors who are also people," See, you're going to pay for the boat your manic depressive boyfriend bought, thinking it was health insurance — she's not kidding — if this bill is passed.) because "a bunch of people are going to leave their employer health insurance under this plan for some subsidized plan--millions of them, according to the CBO." Bunches of millions of people.
Too, our new
Just as a possible bankrupt would be better off putting the cash in the bank than spending it on some new desire, we would be fiscally better off doing nothing, than we would in taking on a gargantuan new entitlement. Yet, most of the responses to those of us who worry about the fiscal effects have so far been about the same as you get from your favorite manic depressive: "But think how great it would be to have a BOAT!"
Should've quit while I was ahead. My sincere apology to anyone who read what little I posted. I take full responsibility.
Posts
2 comments:
Sorry, Bou, but your version doesn't pack anything like the full on stupidity of the original.
I have a new favorite commenter, zosima:
You are conflating risk and cost again. You cannot use these terms interchangably. They mean different things.
&
It isn't perfect, but the estimates are the best that anyone can provide. But people tend not to be very precise about what this means. Given the historical accuracy of the CBO it is probably less than you imagine. We're talking about a savings within a reasonable high confidence of $575 Billion and $725 Billion.
That is a fairly large error in a quantitative sense, but it is not the 100% error that would be required to make this bill not save money. Errors on the magnitude necessary for Megan's claims to make sense are astronomically improbable.
& some more. Really effective slice & dice on McMegan; how long before s/he realizes the box of McRocks is impervious to fact, reason or sanity?
Who gets a tax return big enough to buy a boat? Are we talking those little ones for your bathtub?
I can understand why you guys aren't keeping pace like you used to and Brad is posting pictures of the Pixies show he went to. This abomidable affront to the English language and intelligence in general is becoming a bore in her stupidity, arrogance, and God-awful writing.
Post a Comment