US Politics: Meet the New Right, same as the Old Right

[sologdin]

putting both feudalism and liberal democracy on the "Right" is more a rhetorical trick aimed at slurring liberalism

RG--

i use the terms with the french revolution in mind, where the liberals and socialists were the left and the monarchists and whatnot were the right. we have of course generally moved on from that disposition of historical forces (which is why I declared leftist victoryin the prior thread). the debate is generally between liberals and socialists these days (noting of course the existence of true rightwing groups all over the place)--except in the US, where the ancient rightwing and the leftwing have minimal presence, and wherein the debate, like shryke was saying regarding overton, focuses on a small liberal window. one end of the debate might be close to social democrat (that doesn't really capture BHO's position, though), and the other may be religious conservatives or free market fundamentalists, or whatever (though there may be a distinction between their out-of-office agitation and their in-office performance, which is probably common to everyone).

I agree that it doesn't help to lump the libertarian wing of the US conservatives in with feudalists. sometimes that may be why it's better to give everything its own name. left and right can be ambiguous to the extent that they score positions relative to each other along the spectrum--i am for instance to DG's and shryke's left, but they are no rightwingers--which relies on an equivocation, say. left marks the relative position, but rightwinger identifies a substantive content. maybe not helpful!

[sToNED_CAT]

So from Huffingtonpost via Shryke:

As the U.S. economy teetered on the brink of contraction in the first quarter, one thing stood out. Healthcare spending increased at its fastest pace in more than three decades.

That surge is attributed to the implementation of President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law, the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. Because of Obamacare, the nation narrowly avoided its first decline in output in three years.

"GDP growth would have ... been negative were it not for healthcare spending," said Harm Bandholz, chief economist at UniCredit Research in New York.

Healthcare spending increased at a 9.9 percent annual rate, the quickest since the third quarter of 1980, and it contributed 1.1 percentage points to GDP growth.

The economy expanded at only a 0.1 percent rate in the first quarter, held back by a drop in exports and business investment, which economists attributed to a harsh winter. A sharp slowdown in the pace of inventory accumulation was also a drag.

The gauge of healthcare spending published on Wednesday is simply an estimate based on Medicaid benefits, ACA insurance exchange enrollments, and other related information. Firm data will not be available until June, and the government could well revise its figures for both healthcare and overall GDP.

After boasting, how ACA in fact reduces healthcare spending growth (of course before it even took effect). http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/obamacare-health-care-costs-report-100130.html , White House and it's supporters now take completely opposite position - almost 10% increase is in fact great, because it helps economy! A remarkable "We have always been at war with Eastasia" turnaround in just few months. What happened to the argument : "American per capita healthcare spending is twice as large as Canadian we desperately need to reduce it"? It's still too early to tell, but it looks like ACA won't have any effect on cost reduction at all, quite the opposite. It's just a law that expands the coverage and because of subsidies those people are now more inclined to spend more. So much for ACA being good for business and budget balance.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

SC,

Indeed. I've questioned the effacacy of the ACA in controling costs and now the increase in healthcare costs, because if the ACA, is being trotted out as a positive.

[grumdin]

So from Huffingtonpost via Shryke:

After boasting, how ACA in fact reduces healthcare spending growth (of course before it even took effect). http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/obamacare-health-care-costs-report-100130.html , White House and it's supporters now take completely opposite position - almost 10% increase is in fact great, because it helps economy! A remarkable "We have always been at war with Eastasia" turnaround in just few months. What happened to the argument : "American per capita healthcare spending is twice as large as Canadian we desperately need to reduce it"? It's still too early to tell, but it looks like ACA won't have any effect on cost reduction at all, quite the opposite. It's just a law that expands the coverage and because of subsidies those people are now more inclined to spend more. So much for ACA being good for business and budget balance.

The ACA is about funnelling money to the insurance comapnies, that is what it was designed for and that's is what it's doing. Some kind of revenue raising effort for the health insurance industry would have been passed whoever was in office, otherwise the whole rotten edifice was facing collapse. The one thing they didn't factor in when they were designing it was the ongoing shitty economy, the demographics in the pools suck as people who think they can probably live without health insurance spend their very limited disposable income on things like food, gas and rent.

[Suttree]

the demographics in the pools suck as people who think they can probably live without health insurance spend their very limited disposable income on things like food, gas and rent.

Source.

[The Marquis de Leech]

solo, a quick question:

Whom would you regard as more right-wing: someone who supports the maintenance of a welfare state out of a sense of noblesse oblige (not equality), and who believes that everyone has their rightful place in a hierarchical society, or alternatively someone who believes the welfare state should be dismantled on the grounds that it interferes with market outcomes? The former is the pragmatic end of conservatism, the latter the purist end of liberalism. On paper, conservatism is to the Right of liberalism, but in practice it becomes difficult to distinguish paternalistic support for social services from the lets's-make-society-equal form of support. Especially since the ascendency of doctrinaire economic liberalism over the last thirty years: the Left (within reason) isn't exactly in a position to be fussy who its bedmates are.

[grumdin]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/04/30/smoking_gun_shock_benghazi_e_mail_reveals_that_obama_white_house_agreed.html

8:09 p.m.: Ben Rhodes sends the "smoking gun" email, nine hours after the first draft of talking points from the CIA said that the attacks grew out of a demonstration.

To underscore that these protests are rooted in an internet video...

To show that we will be resolute in bringing people who harm Americans to justice..

Read that USA Today lede again. It reports that "a White House official urged that the assault on the U.S. consulate be blamed on a protest that never happened." And he did—hours after the CIA and State Department were urging that the assault on the U.S. consulate be blamed on a protest.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/01/world/email-suggests-white-house-strategy-on-benghazi.html

Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, dismissed the new email as irrelevant, saying that the subject of the advice from Mr. Rhodes in the email was not about Benghazi, but rather about the protests that were taking place across the Middle East at the time.

“This document, as I said, was explicitly not about Benghazi but about the general dynamic in the Arab, or in the Muslim world, at the time,” Mr. Carney told reporters. “This was part of our effort to explain our views, both as a matter of policy and as a matter of what was happening on the ground with regards to the protests that were underway around the region.”

It's not the original scandal but the lies to cover it up that'll get ya.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

I agree that it doesn't help to lump the libertarian wing of the US conservatives in with feudalists.

I don't agree- 'feudalist' might be a bit too historically specific, but I think there's plenty of the aristocratic/authoritarian to libertarian thought. I read a pretty good collection of essays called The Reactionary Mind a while back, the basic through-argument was to assert a unity to the historical right, located on elitism and romanticism. Here's an essay which connects Nietzche and libertarian darling Friedrich Hayek. I think he makes a solid case for the persistence of 'old right' ideas, even among right-neoliberals.

The working stiff is a being of limited horizons. Unlike the employer or the “independent,” both of whom are dedicated to “shaping and reshaping a plan of life,” the worker’s orientation is “largely a matter of fitting himself into a given framework.” He lacks responsibility, initiative, curiosity and ambition. Though some of this is by necessity—the workplace does not countenance “actions which cannot be prescribed or which are not conventional”—Hayek insists that this is “not only the actual but the preferred position of the majority of the population.” The great majority enjoy submitting to the workplace regime because it “gives them what they mainly want: an assured fixed income available for current expenditure, more or less automatic raises, and provision for old age. They are thus relieved of some of the responsibilities of economic life.” Simply put, these are people for whom taking orders from a superior is not only a welcome relief but a prerequisite of their fulfillment: “To do the bidding of others is for the employed the condition of achieving his purpose.”

Enter libertarian folk-hero Cliven Bundy, with thoughts on 'the Negro' having been better off under slavery, being told what work to do.

[grumdin]

Source.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/14/us/health-care-plans-attracting-more-older-less-healthy-people.html

Of those who signed up in the first three months, administration officials said, 55 percent are age 45 to 64. Only 24 percent of those choosing a health insurance plan are 18 to 34, a group that is usually healthier and needs fewer costly medical services. People 55 to 64 — the range just below the age at which people qualify for Medicare — represented the largest group, at 33 percent.

The latest figures about enrollment add pressure on the Obama administration after a disastrous rollout of the HealthCare.gov website in October. Senior officials said they understood the stakes and were working to increase sign-ups. The White House recently hired Marlon Marshall, the deputy national field director for Mr. Obama’s 2012 presidential campaign, to run a campaign-style effort aimed at increasing sign-ups, especially among young people.

I've also read, and of course I will for sure dig out the citation, that the young people signing suffer chronic illness more than the general demographic

[Suttree]

So no then. Yet again you have nothing to back up an assertion.

How you can possibly cite outdated numbers that came out long before the vast majority of people signed up with a straight face is beyond me.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

I think the time to stop bothering with grumdin was when he refused to acknowledge the outrageous inaccuracy of his near 100% recidivism rate for pedophiles claim when confronted with clear contradictory facts (if not well before then).

[grumdin]

So no then. Yet again you have nothing to back up an assertion.

How you can possibly cite outdated numbers that came out long before the vast majority of people signed up with a straight face is beyond me.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-04-21/are-obamacare-s-latest-numbers-good-news-or-bad

• 8 million people signed up for private insurance in the Health Insurance Marketplace. For states that have Federally-Facilitated Marketplaces, 35 percent of those who signed up are under 35 years old and 28 percent are between 18 and 34 years old, virtually the same youth percentage that signed up in Massachusetts in their first year of health reform.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/09/business/study-looks-at-earliest-health-law-enrollees.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

People who signed up early for insurance through the new marketplaces were more likely to be prescribed drugs to treat pain, depression and H.I.V. and were less likely to need contraceptives, according to a new study that provides a much-anticipated look at the population that signed up for coverage under the new health care law.

The health of those who enrolled in new coverage is being closely watched because many observers have questioned whether the new marketplaces would attract a large share of sick people, which could lead to higher premiums and ultimately doom the new law.

The study, to be released Wednesday by the major pharmacy-benefits manager Express Scripts, suggests that early enrollees face more serious health problems and are older than those covered by their employers. The study also showed a higher use of specialty drugs, which are often used to treat diseases like cancer and rheumatoid arthritis; the use of such drugs could hint at more costly medical problems.

I'm not sure what's sadder, the fact that you're deluded enough to think the ACA will be a wonderful success or that you think it was passed to help the poor and uninsured.

[IheartIheartTesla]

SC,

Indeed. I've questioned the effacacy of the ACA in controling costs and now the increase in healthcare costs, because if the ACA, is being trotted out as a positive.

Some of the arguments against Obamacare were that it was a job killer, so I presume all this healthcare spending puts that argument to rest a little bit, yes?

I'm not certain why folks (of all stripes) are so quick to extrapolate from smatterings of data. We've had millions of new enrollees into the system, obviously this is a time of great flux. You need at least a year to see what the effects are, and even that is too little.

[Suttree]

grumdin

Not sure how you claim to know my thoughts on the ACA. Did we discuss the it before you came back from a ban with this alt?

I'm not sure what's sadder, the fact that you continue to make shit up on the spot or that you just disproved your own claim with the MA comparison. As for the second article it might be good for you to actually understand the context.

[Inigima]

I don't know if grumdin is ignoring it on purpose or didn't bother to read the whole article, but the Weigel piece's takeaway is that this is a non story. See also this John Dickerson piece, also in Slate, helpfully subtitled "Why The New Benghazi Emails Aren't A 'Smoking Gun'".

[grumdin]

Some of the arguments against Obamacare were that it was a job killer, so I presume all this healthcare spending puts that argument to rest a little bit, yes?

I'm not certain why folks (of all stripes) are so quick to extrapolate from smatterings of data. We've had millions of new enrollees into the system, obviously this is a time of great flux. You need at least a year to see what the effects are, and even that is too little.

The argument in favor was that it was going to drive down costs..........um? Besides which the job killing bit will really kick in when the employer mandate does.

grumdin

Not sure how you claim to know my thoughts on the ACA. Did we discuss the it before you came back from a ban with this alt?

I'm not sure what's sadder, the fact that you continue to make shit up on the spot or that you just disproved your own claim with the MA comparison. As for the second article it might be good for you to actually understand the context.

Unlike you I read the articles. They were targeting 38% in the 18-34 year old demographic to make the math in the pools work, they got 28%. The folks in the pools are also much sicker and poorer than the general population.

[DanteGabriel]

SC,

Indeed. I've questioned the effacacy of the ACA in controling costs and now the increase in healthcare costs, because if the ACA, is being trotted out as a positive.

The figures in the article Shryke posted are complicated and I certainly can't be the one to tell you what they do or don't mean, but I'm not going to automatically assume that the ACA is failing in its mission because health care spending went up, when there are so many complicating factors. For one, the increased health care spending is at least partially driven by the large number of people getting insurance and going to hospital visits. If someone had no insurance before and now they're spending out-of-pocket cash and getting subsidies for their new insurance plan, well of fucking course spending has gone up.

Second, the fact that costs may have gone up in that period is not an indicator of the ACA's failure -- costs were accelerating at ridiculous rates before the ACA. The ACA was supposed to at least slow down cost increases. I'm sure it could do a better job of it. So, fine, find where the problems are and try to refine the law to help arrest the rising costs. This is what government used to do with big complicated laws before the Know-Nothing Pass-Nothing incarnation of the Republican Party started throwing tantrums and refusing to allow any legislation that doesn't 100% match their demands.

It's a little disappointing to see you rolling in the shit with these know-nothings, Scot.

I don't know if grumdin is ignoring it on purpose or didn't bother to read the whole article, but the Weigel piece's takeaway is that this is a non story. See also this John Dickerson piece, also in Slate, helpfully subtitled "Why The New Benghazi Emails Aren't A 'Smoking Gun'".

But Benghazi!

After the failure of the "no liberals have criticized Obama for his drone policies" whopper, I think he's just desperate for the comfort of an reliable talking point.

[grumdin]

I don't know if grumdin is ignoring it on purpose or didn't bother to read the whole article, but the Weigel piece's takeaway is that this is a non story. See also this John Dickerson piece, also in Slate, helpfully subtitled "Why The New Benghazi Emails Aren't A 'Smoking Gun'".

No I read the article. Here is a liberal journalist saying that the WH had nothing to do with the talking points in the email on how to handle the Benghazi fall out, but rather it came from the CIA and the State Dept. And then we see the WH press Sec stating to a room full of journalists that the email specifically had nothing to do with Benghazi at all. Which means he's a liar.

[Inigima]

See also this later Weigel piece: http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/04/30/the_umpteenth_guide_to_the_impenetrable_benghazi_outrage.html

Edit: grumdin I cannot decipher your latest flight of fancy. Can you please rephrase with more names and fewer pronouns so that I can tell who you're talking about?

[grumdin]

The figures in the article Shryke posted are complicated and I certainly can't be the one to tell you what they do or don't mean, but I'm not going to automatically assume that the ACA is failing in its mission because health care spending went up, when there are so many complicating factors. For one, the increased health care spending is at least partially driven by the large number of people getting insurance and going to hospital visits. If someone had no insurance before and now they're spending out-of-pocket cash and getting subsidies for their new insurance plan, well of fucking course spending has gone up.

Second, the fact that costs may have gone up in that period is not an indicator of the ACA's failure -- costs were accelerating at ridiculous rates before the ACA. The ACA was supposed to at least slow down cost increases. I'm sure it could do a better job of it. So, fine, find where the problems are and try to refine the law to help arrest the rising costs. This is what government used to do with big complicated laws before the Know-Nothing Pass-Nothing incarnation of the Republican Party started throwing tantrums and refusing to allow any legislation that doesn't 100% match their demands.

It's a little disappointing to see you rolling in the shit with these know-nothings, Scot.

But Benghazi!

After the failure of the "no liberals have criticized Obama for his drone policies" whopper, I think he's just desperate for the comfort of an reliable talking point.

I'm still waiting for Bundy's criminal arrest record to be posted on here