Sure, We Could Do That

"On another, more important level, the idea is ludicrous in terms of the tax code and basic common sense. After adding in the ultra-millionaire’s tax and factoring in the other capital taxes Warren wants to levy — on financial transactions, on unrealized capital gains, on corporations — we’d be asking every billionaire to hand over more than two-thirds of their total wealth over a 10-year period. If the government actually managed to collect it, their fortunes would rapidly erode — and so would tax collections. The plan might be a good way to smash wealth, but it’s a terrible way to fund the nation’s health-care system."

What could possibly go wrong?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/opinions-the-math-for-warrens-health-care-plan-adds-up-if-you-accept-its-ludicrous-premise/ar-AAJKSLw

He's a racist/bigot/baby eater!

I do my best not to care about what the prez sez or how over the top the reaction is ("he eats babies for breakfast!"), the reason folks leave their countries to come here isn't because they are curious what the US is like. The driver is desperation due to corrupt political systems restricting economic liberty, little rule of law, and other obstacles to participation in cooperative economic activity for one's own benefit.

That does not mean those are bad people, but I'm completely comfortable saying their political culture is bad and I would not like to import that culture.

I've called those countries the "S" word in political rants before, for reasons I consider obvious. One reason it is obvious is that poor people in the US don't go there for opportunity, because those places are ...

It is possible to talk about regions, countries, cultures and not have any hate or ill will towards those unfortunate enough to be stuck there.

Racism and bigotry is the human experience. It degenerates the quality of life of those who can't see through it, just as seeing the human behind every face makes life better.

What makes it monstrous is when racism/bigotry becomes the official policy of governments.

If calling a country with an oppressive government, little rule of law and no opportunity for the poor to participate in productivity "a ****hole" is racist, well, sign me up with a capital R.

The VA’s socialist paradise?

The VA system worked for everyone but the patients — and the whistle-blowers. The daughter-in-law of a Navy vet in Phoenix who died after never getting follow-up for his "urgent" case was told, in lines that perfectly capture the spirit of socialized medicine: "It's a seven-month waiting list. And you're gonna have to have patience."

But the bureaucracy acted with alacrity when its reporting scheme was at risk. In St. Louis, the former chief of psychiatry says he was put under administrative investigation when he complained about wait lists. A whistle-blower who worked in Fort Collins, Colo., alleges that she and a colleague were transferred when they refused to hide wait times.

http://nypost.com/2014/05/25/the-vas-socialist-paradise-the-left-used-to-love-it/

Don't we all know this is inevitable with federal bureaucracies?  If not - kindly remove your head from the sand.

Here's the part we should all take offense to - they will pontificate about how unacceptable this is, then they'll make some pretty little speeches, then they'll turn their attention to the next little whatever, then all the same problems will be there to be rediscovered in ten years - at which point the cycle starts over.  They know it, I know it, you know it.  Why bother with the charade.

I'm Better Than You ... Except at Finding People to Hire

Abuses at the VA have been a problem for years. As a candidate in 2007, Obama claimed that 400,000 veterans were “stuck on a waiting list,” and he promised “a new sense of urgency” to “make sure that our disabled vets receive the benefits they deserve.” But that urgency never materialized. In a letter to Obama a year ago, the chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee detailed some of the “serious and significant patient care issues” in the VA system, imploring him to address the worsening problems before more veterans died. Yet nothing happened.  The president showed no interest in the matter, and seemed to have no grasp of the scandal’s magnitude, until he learned about it on the news.

Obama came to the White House with a carefully cultivated image for almost preternatural competence — an image no one esteemed more highly than he did. “I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters,”he had told his campaign staff. “I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that . . . I’m a better political director than my political director.”
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/05/24/obama-fails-show-his-vaunted-competence/E8bvCUAcK2n4pHkI0We47J/story.html

Of course, many top dogs feel this way, but in his case - what would make him want to say that?  Needed to puff up his competence?  Needed to chastise the pretenders?  Weird.  It could be argued that it was incompetence on display to speak thusly about his competence.  It also may make a case for a leader who cannot pick good subordinates.

In any event, he could be as competent as he believes and still be made to look a food by the gargantuan, too big too succeed leviathan that is the federal government.

An easy prediction - every president will be made to look like a fool in the same way.

The VA issue is tragic.  Much like medicare/medicaid, each president promises to fight fraud waste and abuse, but the rate of these continues at something like 10-40% every time someone checks.

Competence?  People, we are talking about the federal government, they ain't got time for dat.

Presidential Legacy - Significant Why and To Whom?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-bush-legacy/2013/04/25/b6de6efa-add8-11e2-8bf6-e70cb6ae066e_story.html

Krauthammer wastes trons and time examining a president's legacy.  I wonder - why does anyone care?  "The ex-President" is some guy you never met, and he's certainly got better things to do than wonder what you think of him.  How he may or may not be viewed by history is even more irrelevant - unless you are a partisan.

If you mistakenly think the Democratic party is looking out for your interest, you have an interest in the Clinton legacy, since that will be used to justify the actions of the Democrats in the future.  Ditto the discussion of Bush.

Were they "good Presidents"?  Who knows, who cares, why waste time on such thoughts.  We have no way of knowing whether their actions, on balance, caused more harm than good.  I suspect more harm than good, but proving such would be a pointless exercise.

Unless you believe all the hype about how important governments are to our well being and the theater of politics that results, it's the equivalent of discussing which baseball players are the best, only political theater is far less fun.