Thursday, October 1, 2009


many of em. There's lots of Meganpoop to wade through, alas.

Will Abortions Be Crowded Out?:

Megan? I'm getting tired of calling you a concern troll. Plz stop acting like one.

Income Inequality Still Rising?:

Instead of addressing the problem, let's just extend unemployment an extra few months. Who can argue with that, even if it has nothing really to do with the ever growing wealth gap.

Public Option, We Hardly Knew Ye:

Apparently the failure to put the public option in one of the five versions of the reform bill coming out of committees means IT'S DEAD AAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAA DEAD KAPUT FINISHED FINITO STOPPED WE WOOOOOOOON.
Now two powerful forces are colliding; Megan's ability to be wrong about every possible imaginable thing and the congressional Dems' ability to fuck things up. I was going to call this confrontation a suck-off, but that phrase could be taken the wrong way, so I'm not.

Bear Raiders:

Matt Taibbi's head is made of poop and blahblahblah sure, bad things could happen, but I'm not at all confused about what I'm opining on, so there!

What's the Function of a Mandate?:

Megan is in favor of more money for insurance companies in the abstract, but in reality she recognizes that if the health industry wants to continue its con/extortion it has to maintain some veneer of restraint, and a mandate is just so much chum in the water.

Is the Second Amendment a Real Amendment?:

Megan will only rest when firearms have the same legal rights as corporations. Then shooting at Presidents will be protected speech and gun nuts will be heroes for helping those guns express their views.

Car Talk:

Megan's awesomeness gives her +5 resistance to car crashes.

The Magic of Multipliers:

A couple guys writing for the WSJ Op/ed page about a study they did for a wingnut funded organization are unimpeachable sources and Obama is total fail I win haha no takebacks.
And this might be the finest example of passive aggression I've ever seen;

I've discussed the underlying paper with Barro, and it seems pretty compelling; they've got a hell of a time series. On the other hand, I know that this work fits both his and my political convictions, so there's a good chance we're both missing something. No doubt liberals will jump on the paper with both feet, and we'll get to here [sic] about what that missing something might be.
Just awesome. *applauds*

How's That Cash-for-Clunkers Deal Working?:

Just because it worked doesn't mean we should have extended it further, as demonstrated by the fact that many companies are now suffering again without it.
Unions must die, Erick Erickson is not just a blogger Megan reads, he's a hero.

Done. I'm free I'm free!


Ken Houghton said...

Is the "Magic of Multipliers" paper the NBER paper that shows that Defense Spending "crowds out" 30-40 cents on each dollar spent?

Why, exactly, would liberals argue with this? Most of them (us?) know that putting money into a missile when you already have enough to destroy the world 20x over or so should be a textbook example of "declining marginal benefit" at its best.

(This is also another case where Barro includes WW II in his data—which, given that he's specifically talking about defense spending [which should not have been subject to rationing] should mean that even wartime spending "crowds out.")

McMegan isn't the first person to try to expand Barro's paper to all government spending—one of the guys at Capital Gains and Games tried it to. But the abstract very specifically discusses only defense spending, not government infrastructure spending. (See, e.g., Adam Smith for the great value of that. Or Dwight Eisenhower.)

bulbul said...

Oh my God. She actually wrote this:

ethnic Nordics

Pardon me while I clean up the mess caused by my head exploding.