[ExI] The Republican Party Isn't Really the Anti-Science Party

[spike]

Skip to the end if you are hard up for time.  It is worth it.  s

 

>. On Behalf Of Kelly Anderson
Subject: Re: [ExI] The Republican Party Isn't Really the Anti-Science Party

 

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:43 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

Or not.  Be kind to Republicans John, they may soon run your government.

>.Perhaps this is wishful thinking Spike.

 

No.  I don't see the Rs as an improvement over the Ds.  The Tea Party might
be an improvement, or the libertarian party, but the two majors are
difficult for me to distinguish from each other.

 

>.Demographics are on the Democrat's side.

 

True, but this time around, the Democrats may not be on the Democrats' side.
Consider this ad, and imagine yourself a serious Catholic, an important
component of the American left and the Democrat party.  Now check out this
ad:

 

http://www.doyougotinsurance.com/index.php?id=20

 

How does that make you feel?

 

I'll tell you what I am feeling when I see something like this:  Damn she is
hot.  

 

But I am not Catholic.  If I had been, this would really piss me offwardly.
I would find it highly offensive I suppose, enough to make me stay home next
November or possibly even vote for the other guy for the first time ever.

 

Suppose you match the demographic of the cocky young man in this ad.  Would
it compel you to go buy insurance?  Didn't think so.  They will not come.
Suppose you are the girl.  Will this ad work on you?  Didn't think so.  It
might encourage you to buy BCPs out of pocket I suppose, then go on the
prowl for guys like this one.  So they don't come either.  Now the system
collapses, and you have all those target demographics who usually vote D are
bewildered.  Some who have long been told they could keep their current
health plans are getting notices that they are being cancelled because they
don't cover maternity expenses.

 

>. While the abject stupidity of Washington is undeniable, you can see that
an otherwise very smart person can end up blaming the wrong party for the
trouble.

 

As we saw, yes.  That only works for a while.

A US default would raise our price of borrowing, but our borrowing should be
more expensive than it is: it is riskier than it appears. 

 

>.Ok Spike, you've off the rails here a bit. Defaulting on our debt would
increase the rate of interest the Federal Government would have to pay.

 

They won't default.  They might reduce payouts of Social Security or
Medicare, but will find some justification for it besides the obvious.

 

>. While that doesn't sound so horrible, in 2012, payment of interest on the
debt cost $220 billion, or about 6 percent of the budget. If the interest
rate doubled from its current low rate (sorry, I can't make sense of the
numbers to tell you exactly what it is today) then Poof! All of a sudden
this goes from 6% of the budget to 12% -Kelly

.

 

Kelly I know it is bad, but interest rates will eventually go up, regardless
of Federal monetary policy.  Stopping them will be like holding back the
rising tide.  We can at least try to make for a softer landing, or just keep
pretending we can live far beyond our means as long as we persistently
outvote those who say this will end badly, and keep borrowing like desperate
addicts.

 

To end on a cheerful note, Adrianna the Mona Lisa of HealthCare.gov has been
found!  And oooooohhhh she is hot, slender, perfect skin, perfect teeth,
seeeeexy Columbian accent, oh my, I can't get enough of her:

 

http://gma.yahoo.com/exclusive-obamacares-mystery-woman-says-she-fell-victim
-111640839--abc-news-topstories.html

 

If she can't figure out some way to leverage this to a cool fortune, she
might as well have stayed in Columbia.

 

spike

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20131113/1b9dfec9/attachment.html>