Agreed, that is what insurance should be. However, our deductible has gone sky high, so our health insurance over the last couple years has paid zero even though our premiums continue going up.
Agreed, that is what insurance should be. However, our deductible has gone sky high, so our health insurance over the last couple years has paid zero even though our premiums continue going up.That's actually what insurance should be, if you believe in market based cost control. Cover only catastrophic losses, so consumers have skin in the game. I bet you think a lot more about health costs than if you just had a co-pay. We have a choice of regular PPO with co-pay vs high deductible plan with HSA at work, which is cheaper regardless of your spend once you factor in tax savings and lower premiums, so we chose that. But even knowing that we have extra money to spend on deductibles, we still watch every penny of that spending.
They might be trying to have their cake and eat it too. It costs them nothing to promise that now. When next the Senate flips, the Dems could reinstate the filibuster while holding the possibility of re-abolishment over the Pubbies' heads. As long as they don't actually let the GOP filibuster their nominees, it's win-win.So the Republicans went nuclear to get their Supreme Court Justice in. The Democrats are vowing to bring back the filibuster when they get the power back. Apparently they enjoy Republicans blocking Democratic nominees.
One question: are these people barking mad?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFYIuvuX5cI
If by "now" you mean "always", then yes, the Brookings Institute is "now" far left.
They might be trying to have their cake and eat it too. It costs them nothing to promise that now. When next the Senate flips, the Dems could reinstate the filibuster while holding the possibility of re-abolishment over the Pubbies' heads. As long as they don't actually let the GOP filibuster their nominees, it's win-win.
They might be trying to have their cake and eat it too. It costs them nothing to promise that now. When next the Senate flips, the Dems could reinstate the filibuster while holding the possibility of re-abolishment over the Pubbies' heads. As long as they don't actually let the GOP filibuster their nominees, it's win-win.
The democrats will not bring back the filibuster for nominees. Ever.
NRA ad on the front end. Thanks for your concern.So the Republicans went nuclear to get their Supreme Court Justice in. The Democrats are vowing to bring back the filibuster when they get the power back. Apparently they enjoy Republicans blocking Democratic nominees.
One question: are these people barking mad?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFYIuvuX5cI
NRA ad on the front end. Thanks for your concern.
The CFR, Bipartisan Policy Center, Rand, Kaiser, and Lugwig von Mises spring to mind as reasonably centrist. With a minute of research, I can add NBER, EPIC, the Peterson Institute, and the Center for Strategic and International Studies. (I could also include a LOT of libertarian think tanks which oppose and support positions of both parties, but since I know you start with the idea that anything to the right of Mao is a raging conservative nutter I won't bother.) Absolutely no one honestly considers the Brookings Institute to be anything other than progressive. Even the New York Times refers to the Brookings Institute as "liberal-leaning." If one positions Brookings in the center, then there is nothing left but the American Communists to be left of center.Lol, again thanks for showing just how far off the deep end you are.
If Brookings is not centrist then can you list a few think tanks that you believe are?
I think the establishment Democrats want justices progressive enough to force implementation of the policies the Democrats push, but not so progressive as to make such policies actually affect the establishment Democrats themselves.I sort of believe that the establishment Democrats actually support corporate justices getting in. They want the Republicans to block progressive justices so that the blame attaches to them and the Democrats only get corporate liberal justices instead of progressives while blaming the Republicans for it. Nothing else makes sense.
It is not win-win. It is lose-lose. It is turning the Supreme Court into a corporate shill which the congress already is and the Presidency is. It is the total capitulation of our govenement to the oligarchy.
The CFR, Bipartisan Policy Center, Rand, Kaiser, and Lugwig von Mises spring to mind as reasonably centrist. With a minute of research, I can add NBER, EPIC, the Peterson Institute, and the Center for Strategic and International Studies. (I could also include a LOT of libertarian think tanks which oppose and support positions of both parties, but since I know you start with the idea that anything to the right of Mao is a raging conservative nutter I won't bother.) Absolutely no one honestly considers the Brookings Institute to be anything other than progressive. Even the New York Times refers to the Brookings Institute as "liberal-leaning." If one positions Brookings in the center, then there is nothing left but the American Communists to be left of center.
Fun quiz: What do Strobe Talbott, Martin Indyk, and David Rubenstein have in common? That's right boys and girls, all served in Democrat administrations. Next question: How big an idiot would one need to be to pretend that the think tank operated by these three Democrat alums is "centrist"? Take your time and remember that it supports practically every Democrat and Green Party plank.
Pretty much. It's more pr to see if a legislative filibuster will hold.So they are just lying when they say that now?
Wait, you actually think - sorry, that was mean. You actually feel that the main proponent of anarcho-capitalism is an ultra-ultra right wing think tank?You are so incredibly, hilariously stupid. You just said the Ludwig Von Mises institute was centrist. That is an ultra-ultra right wing think tank.
The most important question here is just how stupid do you think the rest of us are?
I love how you are have one of the best stupidity to post ratios here. Please continue.
Wait, you actually think - sorry, that was mean. You actually feel that the main proponent of anarcho-capitalism is an ultra-ultra right wing think tank?
I'll answer your question starting with you: Extremely. Though to be fair, perhaps you don't realize that anyone can research anything thanks to Algore's Incredible Internet, peace be upon him.
Wait, you actually think - sorry, that was mean. You actually feel that the main proponent of anarcho-capitalism is an ultra-ultra right wing think tank?
I'll answer your question starting with you: Extremely. Though to be fair, perhaps you don't realize that anyone can research anything thanks to Algore's Incredible Internet, peace be upon him.
Founded in 1982 by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., with the blessing and aid of Margit von Mises, Murray N. Rothbard, Henry Hazlitt, and Ron Paul, the Institute seeks a free-market capitalist economy and a private-property order that rejects taxation, monetary debasement, and a coercive state monopoly of protective services.
The Brookings Institution is a nonprofit organization devoted to independent, in-depth research that leads to pragmatic and innovative ideas on how to solve problems facing society. Brookings’s commitment to institutional independence is rooted in the individual independence of its scholars. Therefore, the Institution does not take positions on issues.
Wait, you actually think - sorry, that was mean. You actually feel that the main proponent of anarcho-capitalism is an ultra-ultra right wing think tank?
I'll answer your question starting with you: Extremely. Though to be fair, perhaps you don't realize that anyone can research anything thanks to Algore's Incredible Internet, peace be upon him.
You must have missed the chart that shows that Stevens and Ginsberg were the very definition of centrist when they were nominated and confirmed. Ginsberg even leaned right for much of the first half of her tenure. It's a pity that all your "centrist" sources neglect to include this information when they arm you with your two-dimensional talking-point bricks that you love to lob. I have no doubt that you will lob this very same brick again in the near future even though you have now been informed that it is bullshit.Um, no. The Democrats began wholesale political filibusters on Bush II's nominees. They then abolished the filibuster on all nominations short of SCOTUS when they had the Senate to get through Obama's nominations when the Pubbies doubled down. Remember, when they had the Senate and the White House, they did not have the opportunity to rush through a SCOTUS justice. The Pubbies do, so once again they have extended a Democrat precedent.
It's important to remember that such well-known unabashedly liberal lions as Stevens (confirmed 98-0) and Ginsburg (confirmed 96-3) enjoyed full Republican support based on their qualification, even though their judicial philosophy and political bents were anathema to those same Republicans. Even Kagan, with zero judicial experience and an extensive background in liberal activism and Democrat politics, and "wise superior decisions Latina" Sotomayor were confirmed with significant Republican support. (Seven of thirty-one for Kagan and nine of forty for Sotomayor.) Yet since Reagan, Democrat Senate policy has been that any Republican nominee is automatically an extremist. Alito received only four Democrat votes and Thomas none, despite both being well-qualified and no more conservative than Stevens, Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor are liberal. Finally, the GOP has begun matching them in political activism.
I won't claim it's a good thing because it isn't, but the Pubbies are following the Dems' lead here.
Agreed, that is what insurance should be. However, our deductible has gone sky high, so our health insurance over the last couple years has paid zero even though our premiums continue going up.
Huh, Von Mises is centrist? You've really gone off the deep end if you aren't just kidding. To say nothing of their extremely questionable views on race particularly from Rothbard (that's being charitable, he's basically a non-intellectual version of faux intellectual Charles Murray), their prescriptions for all the country's ills can be neatly summed up by the lame notion that if the state regulates something, it must be causing harm, evidence and common sense be damned.....Lugwig von Mises spring to mind as reasonably centrist...
Hey, at least he recycles.You must have missed the chart that shows that Stevens and Ginsberg were the very definition of centrist when they were nominated and confirmed. Ginsberg even leaned right for much of the first half of her tenure. It's a pity that all your "centrist" sources neglect to include this information when they arm you with your two-dimensional talking-point bricks that you love to lob. I have no doubt that you will lob this very same brick again in the near future even though you have now been informed that it is bullshit.
Huh, Von Mises is centrist? You've really gone off the deep end if you aren't just kidding. To say nothing of their extremely questionable views on race particularly from Rothbard (that's being charitable, he's basically a non-intellectual version of faux intellectual Charles Murray), their prescriptions for all the country's ills can be neatly summed up by the lame notion that if the state regulates something, it must be causing harm, evidence and common sense be damned.
The CFR, Bipartisan Policy Center, Rand, Kaiser, and Lugwig von Mises spring to mind as reasonably centrist. With a minute of research, I can add NBER, EPIC, the Peterson Institute, and the Center for Strategic and International Studies. (I could also include a LOT of libertarian think tanks which oppose and support positions of both parties, but since I know you start with the idea that anything to the right of Mao is a raging conservative nutter I won't bother.) Absolutely no one honestly considers the Brookings Institute to be anything other than progressive. Even the New York Times refers to the Brookings Institute as "liberal-leaning." If one positions Brookings in the center, then there is nothing left but the American Communists to be left of center.
Fun quiz: What do Strobe Talbott, Martin Indyk, and David Rubenstein have in common? That's right boys and girls, all served in Democrat administrations. Next question: How big an idiot would one need to be to pretend that the think tank operated by these three Democrat alums is "centrist"? Take your time and remember that it supports practically every Democrat and Green Party plank.
Yeah the other examples weren't as looney tunes, but Von Mises is pretty much a backwards cesspool the way Firedoglake was.I'm really glad he did that as it totally exposes his claims of being a centrist as either transparent lies or just a total ignorance of what centrism actually is. The Ludwig Von Mises institute is about the furthest right think tank that exists not just in the US, but basically anywhere in the world and he cited it as being an example of something pretty close to the middle. Again, it is so far to the right that it literally rejects the principle of taxation but to him that's 'reasonably centrist'. Meanwhile the Brookings Institute is one step away from communism. lol.
We are either dealing with a deeply crazy person, a deeply stupid person, or a liar. (or maybe some combination of the three!)
Centrist regarding left or right, Democrat or Republican. You'll never find anything advocated by the Lugwig von Mises Institute on either party's platform, or find any significant party politician advocating the same thing.Huh, Von Mises is centrist? You've really gone off the deep end if you aren't just kidding. To say nothing of their extremely questionable views on race particularly from Rothbard (that's being charitable, he's basically a non-intellectual version of faux intellectual Charles Murray), their prescriptions for all the country's ills can be neatly summed up by the lame notion that if the state regulates something, it must be causing harm, evidence and common sense be damned.