December 20, 2011

The "Lie of the Year" isn't a lie!

Translation: The "Lie of the Year" came from Democrats.

80 comments:

Andy R. said...

Yes, because giving a new program the same name as the old program means you didn't end the old program.

What a program is called is the only key to deciding whether it is the same.

This sort of argument isn't embarrassing for conservatives?

Jay said...

the people at Politifact are terrified of being considered partisan if they acknowledge the clear fact that there’s a lot more lying on one side of the political divide than on the other

Hilarious.

Yes, those truth tellin Democrats of Bush was AWOL, unemployement benefits create jobs, and I did not have sexual relations with that woman fame!

Original Mike said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jay said...

ndy R. said...
Yes, because giving a new program the same name as the old program means you didn't end the old program.


Except for the fact that the "old program" would exist exactly as it does now for anyone 55 and older, tens of millions of people.

Which isn't what you said.

Original Mike said...

"..the clear fact that there’s a lot more lying on one side of the political divide than on the other."

I couldn't agree more with Paul Krugman.

27183 said...

Professor,

That's a pretty lame response, especially coming from a law professor that has to make the claim to students that all of these fine distinctions in law have a real meaning and aren't just arbitrary ways to allow justices to do any damn thing they please.

If you think Professor Krugman is wrong for saying this was a lie, make your case.

On another note, Professor Claire Potter has banned me from making new comments at her site. I posted under my usual Disqus name of "Display Name", which linked back to 27183.myopenid.com and as you might see my comments there were serious, mostly well-constructed, and not spam, link whoring, defamatory, or offensive.

Jay said...

there’s a lot more lying on one side of the political divide than on the other


---
"Children begging for money, children begging for food, 8- and 9-year-old prostitutes," as Sen. Frank Lautenberg put it when Congress passed welfare reform in 1996...

bagoh20 said...

Soon the left will just announce that lying is better than the truth.

You heard it here first - now watch.

Jay said...

the people at Politifact are terrified of being considered partisan if they acknowledge the clear fact that there’s a lot more lying on one side of the political divide than on the other


Yep:

WASHINGTON -- Vice President Joe Biden doubled down Wednesday on his charge that rape and murder will rise if Congress fails to pass the American Jobs Act.

Minutes after addressing a firefighters rally in a Senate office building to push for passage of (at least) a $35 billion provision that would pay for the hiring of hundreds of thousands of police officers, teachers and firefighters, Biden was challenged by a reporter over his crime claims.

Biden insisted, "Murder will continue to rise. Rape will continue to rise. All crime will continue to rise."



He's a big true teller that Biden!

bagoh20 said...

"Yes, because giving a new program the same name as the old program means you didn't end the old program.

What a program is called is the only key to deciding whether it is the same.

This sort of argument isn't embarrassing for conservatives?"


Not nearly as much as the one you just made should be to you.

Do you want to start a list of things that are no longer what they are called?

Scott M said...

The answer is, of course, obvious: the people at Politifact are terrified of being considered partisan if they acknowledge the clear fact that there’s a lot more lying on one side of the political divide than on the other.

Prima facie rebuke to this: political correctness requires heaps of dishonesty. Which side of the political divide is not only steeped in heaps of political correctness, but invented it?

Jay said...

Scott M said...

Prima facie rebuke to this: political correctness requires heaps of dishonesty. Which side of the political divide is not only steeped in heaps of political correctness, but invented it?


Oh no Scott, you haven't gotten the meme memo, the left is now trying to pretend nobody took PC seriously.

As others have said, I know, I was there.

Scott M said...

Oh no Scott, you haven't gotten the meme memo, the left is now trying to pretend nobody took PC seriously.

The apparently innate victimhood mentality gripping our culture combined with perpetual identity politics would seem to belie such a meme memo.

Henry said...

If you follow through the links, from Krugman to Benen, you find Benen quoting Politifact as follows:

Democrats pounced. Just four days after the party-line vote, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee released a Web ad that said seniors will have to pay $12,500 more for health care “because Republicans voted to end Medicare.”

What is truly weird is that Benen -- and by extension the approving Krugman -- never actually disputes the passage he quotes.

...seniors will have to pay $12,500 more...

The word that makes the lie is seniors. Get it, Mr. Krugman? Get it, Mr. Benen?

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... Biden insisted, "Murder will continue to rise. Rape will continue to rise..."

I continue to be amazed that someone as stupid as Biden could actually achieve his position.

Scott M said...

"... Biden insisted, "Murder will continue to rise. Rape will continue to rise..."

Yes, but he also maintained yesterday that the Taliban aren't our enemies..."per se". I guess since he added that qualifier, he's right. Watching Carney trying to do press conference pretzel logic to get out it was fun though.

Curious George said...

"Andy R. said...
Yes, because giving a new program the same name as the old program means you didn't end the old program.

What a program is called is the only key to deciding whether it is the same.

This sort of argument isn't embarrassing for conservatives?"

You really are an idiot or a liar. Backing up a strawman with one of your own.

Politifact is entirely correct, the GOP did not vote to end Medicare. Nothing changed for people 55 or older under their plan. ZERO. Despite Democratic claims. They lied, and they knew it. So does Krugman. You?

Your "name thing" is just pathetic.

Robin said...

Typical of Paul Krugman, anyone who disagrees with his opinions is a liar.

The man remains an embarrassment.

mccullough said...

Krugman's claim that "Medicare gives essential care to seniors" is the lie of the day.

Hip replacements for 85 year olds is "essential care." The amount of money spent on the last 60 days of many a senior's life is astonishing. What's so essential about keeping a 75 year old alive one more month? Do they all of the secret code to some bomb we have to defuse?

We spend way too much money in this country on "essential care" for seniors because it's not essential.

Thorley Winston said...

Here’s a link to the actual PoliFact article in question for those that don’t want to click on a link to a Paul Krugman column and then a link to the Washington Monthly opinion piece that’s his source.

Methadras said...

Paul Krugman is a known liar. He won a nobel prize on his lies and lo and behold what has he done with it since? Nothing.

Original Mike said...

So, the GOP proposes changes to a program which, if left unchanged, will collapse and they are accussed of trying to kill it.

I thought liberals were into the nuance thing?

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... So, the GOP proposes changes to a program which, if left unchanged, will collapse and they are accussed of trying to kill it..."

It doesn't have to be changed as long as there is money that can be taxed.

edutcher said...

Ann's translation says it all, because the Left can't win with the facts.

Jay said...

the people at Politifact are terrified of being considered partisan if they acknowledge the clear fact that there’s a lot more lying on one side of the political divide than on the other

Hilarious.

Yes, those truth tellin Democrats of Bush was AWOL, unemployement benefits create jobs, and I did not have sexual relations with that woman fame!


Don't forget that Hawaii is in Asia.

27183 said...

Politifact also said this:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/dec/20/lie-year-democrats-claims-republicans-voted-end-me/

"It’s the third year in a row that a health care claim has won the dubious honor. In 2009, the winner was the Republicans’ charge that the Democrats’ health care plan included "death panels." In 2010, it was that the plan was a "government takeover of health care.""

In fact, all three of these claims of Politifacts are just wrong.

2009: The plan does include death panels. http://althouse.blogspot.com/2010/08/death-panel.html

2010: Obamacare is a gov't takeover: http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/01/2-things-about-impending-government.html

2011: House Republicans did end Medicare and replace it with a zombie/replicant:

Medicare is a single-payer health care system offering guaranteed benefits to seniors. The House Republican budget plan intended to privatize the existing system and replace it with something very different — a voucher scheme. It would still be called “Medicare,” but it wouldn’t be Medicare.

Retirement plans used to be defined benefits, then they were changed to defined contributions, 401Ks mostly.

If a company came along and took your defined benefit pension plan, defunded it, gave the money to the CEOs and stockholders and then told you they still had a retirement plan, but it was not a 401K, would you agree that the company had not ended your retirement plan?

Politifact has been wrong all three years, instead of getting your panties in an twist to score cheap partisan points, why not actually agree with Krugman and demonstrate a sense of intellectual honesty that other bloggers seem to lack?

machine said...

Makes sense:
"In 2009, the Lie of the Year was a Republican lie. In 2010, the Lie of the Year was a different Republican lie. In 2011, a majority of the Lie of the Year nominees came from Republicans, and the two vote-getters in its reader surveys were both Republican lies.

If PolitiFact had chosen another GOP falsehood for this year’s “award,” the website would have been condemned by the right for being partisan. So, coincidentally or not, PolitiFact avoided the conservative pushback by picking a Democratic argument."

Thorley Winston said...

We spend way too much money in this country on "essential care" for seniors because it's not essential.

I think you hit on an essential, albeit it uncomfortable, truth – while wants are unlimited, resources are not. There’s only so much money that is going to be spent on health care and someone is going to be making a decision about whether the spending is going to be approved or not. Our elected officials realize that this is true particularly when it comes to Medicare but they disagree on who is going to make that decision. For Democrats like Krugman who supported ObamaCare, they favor creating a new federal agency in the form of the Independent Payment Advisory Board to make these decisions. Republicans like Ryan, favor capping the amount we’re willing pay for future seniors but empowering them to make the decisions about where to spend the money from a variety of options. Both have their pros and cons and YMMV as to which you prefer.

Joe Schmoe said...

GOP proposes changes to a program which, if left unchanged, will collapse and they are accussed of trying to kill it.

Right. On. To spelunk the metafer (where's Zell when you need him) that Kruggie linked to, author Benin posits that what Rethuglicans wanted was to switch your Ferrari to a golf cart. This is pretty tortured in a lot of ways, first of which is assuming current Medicare is the Ferrari of health care programs and what Repubs are proposing is basically access to a walk-in clinic for flu shots.

But where Benin's analogy really falls flat is what O.Mike states. Benin assumes the Ferrari will run perfectly into perpetuity, when in actuality it is likely to disintegrate in the near future just as you're navigating a hairpin turn at 80 mph.

MadisonMan said...

We spend way too much money in this country on "essential care" for seniors because it's not essential.

"And it didn't cost me a dime!!! I love my mobility scooter!!"

Joe Schmoe said...

Whistling past the graveyard about unfunded entitlement liabilities on the federal balance sheet isn't embarrassing for Democrats?

prairie wind said...

We spend way too much money in this country on "essential care" for seniors because it's not essential.

Can I call this a big lie now or do I have to wait until you are 75 and in poor health?

If we abandon Medicare, we would see a proliferation of insurance options for the elderly. The cost of that insurance would drop. If everyone of us were responsible for our own healthcare and our own insurance, the cost of healthcare would drop, too. Plus, it wouldn't be any of your business how much money I fork over to the medical industry when I am 75.

Jay said...

MadisonMan said...

"And it didn't cost me a dime!!! I love my mobility scooter!!"


Those commercials make me scream at the TV it cost me a dime, gramps!

mccullough said...

prairie wind,

I don't care how much you spend on healthcare. I care how much the government spends. You can spend your money on whatever you want: healthcare, guns, abortions, the roulette wheel, whatever. Freedom means freedom for everyone.

Thorley Winston said...

Whistling past the graveyard about unfunded entitlement liabilities on the federal balance sheet isn't embarrassing for Democrats?

In fairness, unseriousness about entitlement spending has long been a bipartisan scandal much like agricultural subsidies.

Hoosier Daddy said...

".. And it didn't cost me a dime!!! I love my mobility scooter!!".."

I don't have issues so much with an elderly person who needs one to get around.

I have issues with the 350lb person who is immobile because they eat too much.

Jay said...

Oh and here is the one side of the political divide at it again:

“The issue here is not going be a list of accomplishments. As you said yourself, Steve, you know, I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president — with the possible exceptions of Johnson, F.D.R., and Lincoln — just in terms of what we’ve gotten done in modern history

Even 60 Minutes couldn't run that in their interview with President Present.

Gee, I wonder why?

Thorley Winston said...

Is it just me or does anyone else think that prairie wind and mccullough are pretty much in agreement on the larger issue, i.e. having seniors rather than taxpayer pay for their own health care?

Jay said...

If a company came along and took your defined benefit pension plan, defunded it, gave the money to the CEOs and stockholders and then told you they still had a retirement plan, but it was not a 401K, would you agree that the company had not ended your retirement plan?


Um, maybe, but since nobody is defunding Medicare, how is this relevant?

Christopher in MA said...

"I continue to be amazed that someone as stupid as Biden could actually achieve his position."

Just Biden, Hooser? Compared to "clothes hanger" Kennedy, "Freddie and Fannie are sound" Frank and "corpseman" Obama, Biden's a towering intellect every inch the equal of Daniel Webster. Hell, even the Hat is smarter than the SCOAMF, though admittedly that's not something you'd care to brag about at your DeVry class reunion.

Levi Starks said...

Why must we insist on devaluing dishonesty?
It's what got us where we are today.

John M Auston said...

If it is a lie to fail to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth", then (not for the first time) Krugman has just lied.

prairie wind said...

I don't care how much you spend on healthcare. I care how much the government spends.

Yes, mccullough, my point exactly. (So there's your answer, Thorley.)

Thorley Winston said...

If a company came along and took your defined benefit pension plan, defunded it, gave the money to the CEOs and stockholders and then told you they still had a retirement plan, but it was not a 401K, would you agree that the company had not ended your retirement plan?
If my company had a defined benefit pension plan but then switched it to a defined contribution plan for younger workers while leaving the original defined benefit plan in place for workers who were at or near retirement age, I would not think that my retirement plan had been ended. If I were in the older worker group, I’d be getting the same as expected. If I were in the younger worker group, I’d recognize that my plans may have been changed but I had also been given time to adjust to that change and the responsibility to do so.

Brennan said...

"The word that makes the lie is seniors. Get it, Mr. Krugman? Get it, Mr. Benen?"

Shucks. You win. You were first. Professor Krugman doesn't get it. He never will. He is a dead ender for life. Reason is his kryptonite.

Rockeye said...

@Madisonman
"And it didn't cost me a dime!!! I love my mobility scooter!!"
I understand what you're saying there, but I saw the same commercialo. The gimpy geezer was sure that his inability to walk doomed him to a nursing home, but then he got a scooter and now he can stay in his home now.
You may think this is a bamboozle, but if it keeps the geezer out of a nursing home for at least one month then it is a net gain for whomever might be paying for it-likely Medicare or Medicaid. Do you have any idea how much it costs to place someone in a nursing home? About $100/day, and that is the basic rate. ANYTHING extra is, well, extra.

DADvocate said...

Everyone knows any time you change the way a program operates, you've ended that program. Especially if you don't like the way they changed it. Happens every year. They all do it.

Thorley Winston said...

Hypothetical – if instead of going to a voucher system like in the Ryan Plan to control costs, what if we did any or all of the following:

1) Capped the amount that the federal government will spend on Medicare benefits at the total amount that the senior paid in payroll taxes for Medicare plus reasonable interest AND/OR

2) Capped benefits at the average life expectancy of the senior citizen when they first began to pay benefits (e.g. if the average life expectancy was 70 when they first began to pay Medicare taxes, then they get benefits through age 70) AND/OR

3a) Only paid for those treatments that were available at the time that the senior first began to pay payroll taxes for Medicare (but nothing that was developed afterwards) OR

3b) Only paid for those treatments that were available at the time that the senior first became eligible for Medicare benefits (but nothing that was developed afterwards).

Would adopting these proposals be the same as “ending Medicare”? Why or why not?

prairie wind said...

Thorley, I don't have time to play the game you laid out so I'll just leave my comment.

Your hypotheticals expose exactly what is wrong with expecting the government to provide healthcare or insurance for us. Decisions like that will be made.

Rockeye said...

I just did a little research, and the scooter store's most expensive scooter, the luxury model that looks like a smart car http://www.thescooterstoreonline.com/flagship.html
is $6,000. The standard scooters go up to $2,500. One month in a nursing home for someone who can walk, talk, feed themselves, and use the toilet themselves is about $3,000-Medicaid generally reimburses about $115/day for the demographic that is likely to be excited about getting Uncle Sugar to guy a scooter. So, if you're trying to save money then scooters likely do so. Full disclosure: in the past I've worked in nursing homes for almost a decade, as a nurse and have a wife living at home who if not for less-expensive state-funded home care options would have to live in a nursing home for what remains of her life.

27183 said...

"If I were in the younger worker group, I’d recognize that my plans may have been changed but I had also been given time to adjust to that change and the responsibility to do so."

Thank you Thorley,

It may be that you prefer the new plan, prefer the old plan, think you have plenty of time to change, think you don't have enough time to change (I'm actually in that category, some health issues looming but not old enough to fit in the "grandfathered group"),

But I suspect that with all these changes, you would not feel it accurate for your employer to keep calling your retirement plan by the same name, a name that over the years everyone has come to assume meant it was a defined benefit plan.

And indeed companies don't call these changes by the same name.

They say: "The board has voted and we are eliminating our defined benefit plan and giving you a self-funded 401(K)."

The Democrats believe:

a) there is no need to make the dramatic change to pay for medicare
b) in fact they would claim that medicare is cheaper than private insurance (I think)
c) that future health care costs for me and you will go up dramatically when we are older because of this change

and

d) The Republicans want to continue calling it medicare as a way of hiding what they are actually doing.

Politifact, who as I've shown, has been wrong the past two years, is wrong this year as well.

The Republicans did vote to kill Medicare and change it in a way that intellectually honest professors would agree means its end, and then replace it with a very substantially different system.

Saving medicare might mean trimming costs, finding new ways to pay for it.

Replacing how it pays from single payer to voucher that lags actual payments and doesn't cover costs and costs $6K to $12K more per year (I think is the estimate) is not saving Medicare at all.

As Politifact says:

"They used harsh terms such as "end" and "kill" when the program would still exist, although in a privatized system."

Changing Medicare from public to privatized is as dramatic a change as changing you from carbon based to silicon based. Killing you and then replacing you with a robot that we call Thorley Winston and say, see, Thorley Winston is still here, why are you lying about us killing him?

I will absolutely state that Steve Benen by comparing Medicare with a Ferrari is clearly a total dumbass.

Mike said...

I read the link and I was surprised to see that Krugman claims he has a conscience. Based on what he writes, his shameless prevarications, obfuscations and great claims to expertise in areas of which he knows not, it's got to be a vestigial conscience indeed.

Bryan said...

Oh, ugh! You tricked me into clicking on a Krugman column!

Eeewwwww.

WV: "fouffeas" I kid you not.

Freeman Hunt said...

Soon the left will just announce that lying is better than the truth.

They already did that. Truthiness.

Freeman Hunt said...

Note that Althouse never wrote that she disagreed with Krugman's analysis here.

This "Lie of the Year" is as much a lie as the same of the last two years. Was Krugman complaining then?

No.

But now that it's from Democrats, it's R.I.P. Politifact for Krugman.

And then there's this ridiculous assertion:

the clear fact that there’s a lot more lying on one side of the political divide than on the other.

That is just silliness. One would expect him to know as much.

MikeR said...

Seems pretty clear that Politifact is a bunch of narrow-minded fools who don't understand the English language. We went through this last year with Death Panels. Each of them are perfectly correct, perfectly understandable statements for people with one point of view, and completely incorrect statements for people with a different point of view.

"Having a different point of view" is not the same as a "lie". Even people with different points of view ought to be able to understand that. Listen a little.

Quaestor said...

27183 wrote:
On another note, Professor Claire Potter has banned me from making new comments at her site.

What did you expect? Truth (or any kind of veritas, with or without a shiny coat of varnish) is unwelcome on the Tenured Radical blog (the title of which is only 50% true, so the lies and distortions start at the top of the page) so naturally you are banned. To be an acceptable commenter on Clair Potter's blog is nothing more complimentary than being a lick-spittle drone. To comment there implies a Nork-like submission to the patently false and the outrageously pretentious.

Wear your banning in honor, sir or madame. It is a tribute to your honesty.

Quaestor said...

the clear fact that there’s a lot more lying on one side of the political divide than on the other.

The conscience of a Liberal is remarkable chiefly for its minuteness.

Desperate times call for desperate measures, and for Democrats these are desperate times indeed. Nobody takes Krugman seriously, except the most rabid dregs of the Left. The fact that he even bothers is an indication that the base is withering away and needs to be shorn up with a fresh dose of Goebbels-style propaganda.

Matt said...

Yes, because conservatives who love Paul Ryan's plan would never want to end Medicare as we know it.

Brennan said...

"Um, maybe, but since nobody is defunding Medicare, how is this relevant?"

I have my Nancy Pelosi Dictionary with me today.

Failure to increase spending is "defunding" any program.

Chuck66 said...

Ever since I was a spry young lad, the Democrats have been saying, during every election year, that the Republicans want to end Social Security, and now Medicare.

Its a lie that has worked well for them in the past.

But if you want to end either or both program, do what the Democrats are doing. Nothing. Unless we make changes to both of these programs, they will collapse under their own unfunded liabilities.

jacksonjay said...

Professor Krugman is such a rabid partisan that he makes himself look ridiculous! I thought that academics were nuanced and thoughtful!

Did he miss the story about the DOJ "lie" concerning Fast and Furious? AG Holder said that lying must include intent to lie! Not exactly the standard applied to W.

How about the accounting lies in the Obamacare legislation that counted Medicare savings from "waste, fraud and abuse"? Seems like everyone is aware of the double counting of this supposed "saving"!

Thorley Winston said...

But if you want to end either or both program, do what the Democrats are doing. Nothing. Unless we make changes to both of these programs, they will collapse under their own unfunded liabilities.
I don’t think it’s fair to say that the Democrats are doing “nothing” to Social Security and Medicare. For Social Security, they’ve successfully pushed through a cut in the payroll tax at a time when the program is paying out more in benefits than it receives in revenue without any reduction in benefits which undermines the notion that Social Security was ever a self-funded program. I heard a comment by one of the Social Security trustees (a Democrat, I forget her name) that this would undermine the universality of the program and get people to see it as just another welfare program. I tend to think she’s right.

As for Medicare, I attended a townhall meeting by my congressman when ObamaCare was being debated in Congress. During the meeting one of the other attendees asked about the $500 billion in Medicare “cuts” (or rather reductions in the rate of future increases) that we’re needed to make the program appear revenue neutral. I made the point that Medicare already had unfunded liabilities in the trillions and we are going to need to slow down or cut spending for the program to keep it sustainable. However by taking these “savings” and spending them on another program rather than shoring up Medicare, Obama and the Democrats who voted for his plan have actually made the problem worse than it was before.

Terry said...

It would be a real boon to life in our Republic if journalists would simply stop doing "Fact Checks".
Scott Johnson at powerline points us to this bizarre example of AP's "Fact Checking": http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/12/15/fact_check_gop_candidates_get_obama_policy_wrong/?rss_id=Boston.com+--+Local+news

The headline is "FACT CHECK: GOP candidates get Obama policy wrong".
You can't tell exactly which GOP candidates have got Obama's policy wrong because they never mention any GOP candidates by name, or explain what they've said that they are "fact checking". The "fact" these mystery candidates got "wrong" turns out to have been an exaggeration, or so the writer (Peter Yost) claims, but we can't be sure because he's never told us who said what.
My God this is a terrible excuse for journalism.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

"Failure to increase spending is "defunding" any program."

Better yet, a spending growth rate reduction is a 'cut'.

Doesn't garage always quote stuff from 'Politifact'?

Alex said...

Yes, because conservatives who love Paul Ryan's plan would never want to end Medicare as we know it.

Conservatives believe in families taking care of themselves. Have you ever pulled yourself up by your own bootstraps and been a rugged individualist?

Alex said...

So Republicans want to take scooters away from seniors and take grandma off life support NOW.

Seeing Red said...

Yes, because conservatives who love Paul Ryan's plan would never want to end Medicare as we know it.

The boomers are ending medicare as we know it.

There's no money, we're broke. So by all means, start the intergenerational warfare.

I thought I just read Wyden & Ryan have come up w/another option? I think you'll be able to choose either traditional medicare or private.

ALH said...

Paul Krugman is a tall, fair-minded, prescient economist. His spot-on analysis and predictions of all things political and economic is beyond reproach.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

We are the 99 percent would have been a much better choice for "Lie of the Year".

Jack Okie said...

I have been FORCED to contribute to SS (and Medicare when it came on-line) for my entire working life. I really resent the idea that what I'm now getting is an "entitlement". Bullshit!

Tell you what: Give me back what I contributed plus what I could have reasonably expected to earn had I had that money available to invest privately, and I'll never trouble the gubment about my retirement again.

Another point: One often does not know whether the geezer you want to shuffle off is going to die in the next two months or two years or two decades.

Once again, it sure as hell didn't feel like an "entitlement" every payday when I I took it up the ass for the feds. So fuck you very much.

rhhardin said...

I look for charity in lies.

Writ Small said...

I see this as a win either way. If Krugman is right, then we can take Politifact with a grain of salt in the future. Given their leftward tilt, this is healthy. Krugman's line can be dug up in the future when the organization makes biased judgments.

If Politifact is right, then Krugman has been revealed to be a hack.

The Iran-Iraq war all over again.

Coketown said...

Paw Kwoogman is smawt. *guffaw*

Joe Schmoe said...

In fairness, unseriousness about entitlement spending has long been a bipartisan scandal much like agricultural subsidies.

Only one party is acknowledging the problem and proposing any solutions whatsoever.

mccullough said...

Jack Okie,

If your 75 and get sick, you die. That's how it works. So if you have to stay in the hospital more than a week when your old, get ready for death. If you have money saved up and want to blow it to keep alive, great. And the income cap wasn't lifted off Medicare taxes until 1993, so spare me your whining about how much you paid into Medicare. Boomers just need to die.

PackerBronco said...


Yes, because conservatives who love Paul Ryan's plan would never want to end Medicare as we know it.


Medicare as we know it, is going to end because it is financially unsustainable. Period. People who acknowledge that are ready to join a serious discussion about what changes need to be made.

People who don't acknowledge that fact, are not serious.

LoafingOaf said...

"In 2009, the winner was the Republicans’ charge that the Democrats’ health care plan included 'death panels.'"

The lie of 2009 came from Republicans, with the full support, cheerleading, and praise of Althouse.

LoafingOaf said...

The Lie of 2009 ("Death Panels") wasn't a lie!

Translation: The Lie of 2009 was pushed by Althouse, who got lots of links from Instapundit for it.

Terry said...

LoafingOaf wrote:
The Lie of 2009 ("Death Panels") wasn't a lie!

Translation: The Lie of 2009 was pushed by Althouse, who got lots of links from Instapundit for it.


Your comment doesn't make sense. Perhaps you were trying to translate Garden Gnome to Houyhnhnm?

がんこもん said...

I tend to agree that there is an argument to be made that the changes Republicans want to make to Medicare and Social Security would indeed eventually end those programs as we know them. Which in my own estimation is not at all a bad thing. BUT...these changes would not affect anyone 55 or older. Therefore, saying that Republicans 'killed Medicare' is in fact a falsehood.

The difference between this and the previous two years' statements is simple - ObamaCare is in fact a government takeover, since the government is now requiring individuals to purchase a service and is using the IRS to enforce this requirement. Private ensurers are being told exactly what plans they can and cannot offer and government agencies are closely overseeing this. And the office of the HHS has been given vast new powers to carry this out. Isn't that the very definition of a 'government takeover'?

As for the 'death panels', there are in fact government panels created in ObamaCare that will judge whether or not individuals will be allowed to receive potentially life-saving treatments. So at least from one perspective, calling these panels 'death panels' is a true statement.

I don't notice that the media or the Democrats (but I repeat myself) made any allowances for those statements of the kind that they want to make for this 'lie'. So I would judge that they have no room to talk.