Obama’s explanation of the need for a public option is a classic:
But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange. Let me be clear — it would only be an option for those who don’t have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5% of Americans would sign up.Despite all this, the insurance companies and their allies don’t like this idea. They argue that these private companies can’t fairly compete with the government. And they’d be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they won’t be. I have insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects. But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits, excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers.
We won’t subsidize the public option, but they won’t need all those profits! So presto, we have a level playing field. Huh? Either the entire administration is economically illiterate, or they think we are. And these options are not mutually exclusive.
“Of course Boren’s criticism is substantive — the president is shortchanging defense.”
Is this the author’s conclusion or is she saying it’s Boren’s? If it’s the former, she’s not really made the case, unless you believe every program the Pentagon or Senators want is necessary for defense and without it we are “shortchanging” defense. If it’s the latter, Boren offers us nothing in the blurb you provide to indicate that whatever programs Oklahoma profits most off of are more worthy than any others, or needed at all.
The “author” is purposely distorting Boren’s remarks. /sarcasm
J-Rub Math: $534 Billion in 2010 – $513 billion in 2009 = . Does Rubin question or even address Boren’s motivations?
Nah, that would be what a journalist does. Rubin is a paid propagandist for a foreign entity. ‘nuf said.
good Pesach….
J-Rub Math: $534 Billion in 2010 – $513 billion in 2009 = shortchanging. Does Rubin question or even address Boren’s motivations?
Nah, that would be what a journalist does. Rubin is a paid propagandist for a foreign entity. ‘nuf said.
good Pesach….
And by “substantive”, Rubin means that Inhofe and Boren stand to lose one big porky pig of a wasteful defense program for their state.
Plumline:
“Turns out, though, that Inhofe may have another reason for his ire: Gates’ overhaul puts a major defense contract in Inhofe’s state, one he’s heavily invested in politically, on the chopping block. And it’s one that had been targeted for elimination during the 2008 campaign by none other than John McCain.
“Gates’ budget calls for the restructuring of the so-called Future Combat Systems, on the grounds that the design is questionable and out of sync with current military realities.
“According to the Oklahoman, part of this program was pushed into production in Oklahoma six years ago by Inhofe, who has since kept its funding secure. And this is a massive project: The Oklahoman reports that production was to cost $500 million over the next three years.
“In July of 2008, the McCain campaign, as part of a budget-balancing proposal, called for the scrapping of this very program.”
[JR} Of course Boren’s criticism is substantive — the president is shortchanging defense
#1: “Is this the author’s conclusion or is she saying it’s Boren’s? “
Clearly the former.
“If it’s the former, she’s not really made the case.”
She did not have to make that case: it was not the point
of her article.
In it, she was discussing the politics of the issue, addressing
contentions readers who already agree with her
on the substance of it. The substantive case, to such readers, had
been made. That is why she said “of course”.
It would have been inconsistent to say “of course”, then proceed
to “make the case”.
That case was (btw) highlighted rather dramatically by
recent news: one day North Korea tests an intercontinental
missile – next day the Obama administration proposes slashing
missile defense…
#3 & 4 Warpublican, was your last nik even too vulger for you? Nah
Happy Halloween
The F-22 is the biggest waste of money in American history per John McCain; the Air Force doesn’t even want it, but Jennifer Rubin does and that’s what matter! So Jen doesn’t care about spending after all? Maybe she’s on the Lockheed payroll?
Alex M,
Jennifer Rubin won’t be reading your comments. So you’re reaching people like me who have the time to read your hackneyed, boring words.
You’re here because you don’t like us and are angry. You’re serving no useful purpose.
(Trying to reason with a troll is useless.)tk
Obama is only pursuing “the goals laid out by the Bush administration” on Iraq and Afghanistan as a matter of convenience because he’s shrewd enough to understand that the success of his hard left domestic agenda would be in serious jeaopardy if he let himself be vulnerable to “cut and run” criticsm. He doesn’t really believe in either objective, it’s just that staying on course is the price he has to pay to permit the socialization of the US to proceed apace.
Democrats are congenital pacifists. So what do you expect? Trillions for Harry Reid’s magnetic trains, not one cent for defense.
I happen to like Bob Gates a lot, and am glad that Obama kept him on if only for a little while. But he is missing an important point with all this talk of suppressing guerilla warfare about funding and this talk of a chain of command. It’s is Congress’s role to fund. The top of the chain of command of funding the military is Congress. Let’s send him an annotated copy of the Constitution, with the pertinent points doubly underlined.
By the way, do you know why the founders gave the power to declare war to the Legislative Branch and the power to make war to the Executive Branch? There is a very simple reason; it is a Hell of a lot easier to get into a war than to get out of one.
=======================================================
WarpedSkum,
what part of slashing military hardware budgets to simply keep pace with the annual rise in salaries for personnel don’t you choose to understand?
You know full well your Anointed One is slashing military funding, but like her you think you can convince people otherwise. Why are you trying it here, you moron? Like Troll Killer says, your trolling is an ineffectual waste of time. In fact, it’s counterproductive, because it gives other commentators the opportunity to debunk one lelftist talking point after another. Some readers have never seen those canards refuted, so you’re providing them an unintentional service.
How does it feel to help your self declared enemies when you’re trying to help your fellow travelers?
where were the math majors when Bush spending on Welfare and Domestic was less than the Dem’s wanted. The media and the lib’s all went ballistic and called them CUTS in spending on the poor. How quaint.
“what part of slashing military hardware budgets to simply keep pace with the annual rise in salaries for personnel don’t you choose to understand?
You know full well your Anointed One is slashing military funding…”
no, he’s not. I wish he were, but he’s not…
Warpedskum,
prove it, troll boy.