Posts with the tag Conservative

Mock U: Conservative Think-tanks Unveil Aggressive Plan for Health Care Reform

Delaney Rohan — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:10:52 EDT

Today, conservative think-tanks Conservatives for Patients’ Rights and FreedomWorks unveiled what they see as a promising response to President Obama’s plan for health care overhaul. The user-friendly initiative, still in its beginning stages, is an iPhone application intended to give Americans impersonal access to quality health care.

“Now, Americans won’t need comprehensive health care reform,” FreedomWorks Chairman and former House Majority Leader Dick Armey concluded after extensive meetings with rich, publicly insured conservative legislators.

“We realized that our ‘Don’t get sick!’ plan was a bit insensitive, so we partnered with Apple and WebMD to propose something for the common folk,” proudly stated Rick Scott, a Conservatives for Patients’ Rights spokesman.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports the effort. “It’s totally consistent with free-market ideology. Therefore, it’s totally frickin’ rad and gonna fix stuff good! Ipso facto!” the U.S. Chamber of Commerce praised in a press statement issued earlier today.

The free application, which is still in development, will ostensibly analyze a user’s symptoms to determine a narrow set of potential diseases. To cover the costs of providing the service, the application will bludgeon the user with a series of obnoxious advertisements.

“For example, if you have a sore throat, an ad for Tropicana orange juice will pop up. Fatigue? How about a Monster energy drink?” Apple CEO Steve Jobs explained in a press conference earlier today.

FreedomWorks and Conservatives for Patients’ Rights hope lawmakers will adopt their idea into their final heath care reform plan. The application, believed to placate the nation’s 50 million angry uninsured, is expected to drive hoards of people willing to settle for less to the polls in support of conservative, government-hating candidates in 2010. The hope: big gains for right-wingers, a group desperately trying to reconnect with people in a hip, new way.

“If there’s one thing people love, it’s the technological substitution of a basic human need. For example, TV for friends, Twitter for conversation, or an electric car for moral substance. After noticing this, it was really just a matter of time,” Armey explained.

FreedomWorks leaders say their plan will stop any effort for a government-run public option dead in its tracks. “Capitalism rules, socialism drools,” Armey bellowed.

The user is expected to already have an iPhone. “What kind of a loser doesn’t already have an iPhone?!” Armey asked incredulously.

Program developers expect the application to be available sometime before Christmas.

Progressive vs. Conservative

Kay Steiger — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:46:55 EST

I really love the new ads that CAP (our parent organization) is putting out:

My only complaint is that they represented a progressive with a white dude. But I guess it was to get you to understand that it came from those mac vs. pc ads.

The Conservative Handbook on Debate

Ben Yelin — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 21:29:15 EDT

This manuel is intended to help get you, Mr. Conservative, elected as President of the United States. We want to stress that you can't win elections on your policies. They only appeal to the upper class and the Fox News anchors. Because of this, we must instill fear in the electorate to distract them from issues that actually affect their lives. Here are some steps that you can take to make sure that you beat those liberal wusses.

1. Mention the following things in EVERY sentence: a. Illegal Immigration. If you are talking about children's health care, talk about how the benefits of the SCHIP program extend to illegal immigrants. If you are talking about homeland security, talk about how terrorists are crossing our borders. If you are talking about....ok it doesn't matter what you're talking about. Make sure people know that you hate illegals because they aren't people and therefore don't deserve basic human rights. For more, see Tancredo, Tom. b. Scary phrases like the following: smoking gun, mass graves, Islamofacism, Jihad, Jihadists, people who want to do us harm, terrorists, evil-doers, the greatest threat our country has ever faced etc. Relate these phrases to all topics, even if they are not relevant (like when talking about the War in Iraq.) Frame any debate (even if it's about something boring like means testing for Social Security) as " I want to protect us from these people, and my opponent wants to coddle them with blankets and stuffed animals." For more, see McCain, John, Giuliani, Rudy, Romney, Mitt, Boehner, John, McConnell, Mitch...etc....etc c. How every proposal the opponent advocates will raise taxes. Even if they are talking about ridiculous things like "education" and "health care," make sure everyone knows that their proposals will raise taxes, even if they don't. If it is 100 percent clear that the proposal doesn't raise taxes, then say its benefits go to illegal immigrants.
Failure to mention one of these in every sentence will cost you the election.

2. Find a bunch of meaningless issues to help distract the public. Examples can include: gay marriage, flag burning, the erosion of our culture etc. And while you are at it, make sure that every scientific proposal "devalues the culture of life." Especially those that deal with Global Warming.

3. Mention the following politicians in every sentence: Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi.

Ok, now that we have those steps down. Let's give you some examples of sentences you can use on the stump.
" The greatest threat our country faces is that of Islamic Jihadists, who Hillary Clinton wants to coddle"
"This program gives benefits to illegal immigrants, raises taxes, and is another attempt at Socialized, Ted Kennedy-style Hillary-care medicine."

4. Talk about the free market as if it is sexually enticing. For example, say things like "We must respect the beauty, and precision of free enterprize."

Finally, never say Democratic Party. It is the DEMOCRAT party.

I hope this manuel helps you win the election, so you can give me, your rich campaign consultant a nice payoff in a corporate tax package.

Another Trip to Cato

Ben Yelin — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 15:51:33 EDT

Today I took my second trip to the Cato Institute. After sitting through an hour of interns spewing out talking points on why the free market economy works, I thought that this visit much produce some sort of higher level of intellectual stimulation. The event today featured economist John R. Lott, who wrote a book entitled Freedomnomics: Why the Free Market Works and Other Half-Baked Theories Don't. If the theories he decries are "half-baked," than his theories are moldy at best. His book is intended to be a response to Freakonomics by Steven Levitt. Freakonomics was a book based on vague, statistic free theories that supposedly should make us think about the "hidden side of everything." Freedomomics, instead of being a rebuttal, took the same anti-analytical approach, but produced much more disturbing outcomes.

The thesis of the book is that in the long-run, the free market will produce the best possible outcomes for our economy, and incentive is essential. In essence, he stated that the higher things cost, the less likely people are to buy them. We must, then, maintain the incentives of the market. This is typical of free market economists: a vague theory not supported by hard evidence, which can be proven false by a college aged pseudo economist like myself.

He gave several examples of how government involvement can inhibit the benefits of the incentive-based market system. He talked about the current debate about Prescription drugs. He chastised Democrats for trying to let the Government negotiate for lower drug prices. In his view, the enormous profits of the drug industry are necessary. He believes that if making drugs weren't so profitable, there would not be incentive to make them, and as a result, people would die. This may be one of the shallowest arguments of all time. First of all, the drug companies profits do not come from drugs that produce the highest social benefit. Viagra may be profitable, but it is not going to save anyone's life. Secondly, even if the free market were to produce optimal societal results, many of these results would not come in the short-run. For example, it may not be profitable now to treat childhood obesity, but it will eventually save society some money. Therefore, while the market is determining the optimal outcome, many children will get fat in the mean time.

He really lost me when he started spewing out incredibly vague, unsubstantiated and toothless theories about crime. His first assertion, is that concealed carry laws lower crime because they make criminals worried about people having hand guns. Of course he fails to mention that criminals do not have the perfect information to make these rational decisions, and are certainly not rational economic actors. He then pathetically tries to assert that criminals will be less likely to commit crimes if we have tougher prison sentences and larger fines, because they know committing crimes will be more "costly." I don't even want to respond to that. Basically, if people like him spent more time investing in the real reasons crime exist (failing schools, lack of upward mobility, lack of institutional support), then people like John Lott wouldn't have to devote time to this garbage.

There are two incredible shortcomings in Lott's arguments, as were pointed out by EPI's Jared Bernstein. First, as mentioned above, all of these theories assume that there is perfect information, which there almost never is. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, Lott does not understand the economics of externalities. The idea behind externalities is that firms will produce so it is most profitable for them. This level of production is rarely the optimal level of production for society. Bernstein listed a couple of examples. The first was education. It would be very profitable for all schools to be private, but then those on the lower end of the spectrum, due to the rampant inequality of opportunity in our country, would not be able to afford them. Therefore, the Government must step in and create strong public schools so that all children have the chance to share in the American dream. The second example is the Environment. Protecting the planet is not profitable for most corporations, which is why they still produce excesses of fossil fuels and gas guzzling cars. While the market may correct this problem in the long run, global warming will have already taken its toll.

I am probably missing many other ridiculous things this guy said, but the thrust of my argument is that these smug economists use vague theories to show that a system which benefits them directly, is also somehow beneficial to society as a whole. This is, unfortunately, just not the case. He implies causations from loose correlations, and he does not take into account institutional structures that prevent a truly "free" economy from existing. Most absent from the book is data to show what is actually happening, which is that our so called "free" economy produces winners and losers, and that many Americans are not able to reap the rewards of their hard work.

Mingling with the Other Side

Kate Stanton — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 12:25:07 EDT

Ramya's Friday blog post on conservative hotspot, Smith Point, caused a lot of excitement here at Campus Progress. Obviously, the possibilities seemed endless. Send one of our progressive interns to infiltrate the elite hangout of the likes of Barb and Jenna Bush. Let the hilarity ensue. Imagine my surprise then on Friday night when I accidentally (I must stress this word) and unknowingly wandered in to the side entrance of Smith Point. And I wasn't even wearing pearls!

Taking Late Night Shots at Each Other

Ramya — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:19:05 EDT

“Late Night Shots is herding the next generation of assholes through Georgetown bars. And you're not invited.”

This is the clever sub-head for the Washington City Paper’s recent takedown of DC’s primarily-conservative drinking/mating site, Late Night Shots. According to WCP, Late Night Shots is a social networking site that has created an insular community of DC’s elite trust fund babies who log on several times a day to dish about last night’s sloppy hookups, rank which DC bars are party-worthy, and rate each other’s pics and tag them with snarky comments like “Cute? She looks like a dressed corpse."