115th Congress defunds ACA: Senate: 51-48 House:227-198; Executive Order signed 1/20

[tru_m.a.c]

Republicans call Obamacare a 'failure.' These 7 charts show they couldn't be more wrong

 

[tru_m.a.c]

Obamacare lite deal may look increasingly attractive to GOP

“Making broad enrollment in health insurance a primary goal of an ACA replacement plan will necessarily mean embracing some policies that do not always come naturally to the GOP,” Capretta wrote.

Citing conservatives like Capretta, Emanuel said, “There's a lot of overlap between conservatives and liberals—universal coverage, no pre-existing conditions, affordability, making it easy to shop.” He argued this could make it possible for Republicans to cut a deal with Democrats on a replacement plan. But, he added, “It depends on whether Republicans can get agreement in their own caucus, and that may turn out to be a little harder than it initially seemed.”

A tough but potentially solvable issue—if Republicans and Democrats get serious about reaching a deal—will be how to ensure that people can access individual-market coverage regardless of pre-existing medical conditions, while at the same time maintaining a viable mix of healthier and sicker people in the risk pool.

As an alternative to the ACA's requirement that nearly everyone buy coverage, Republicans favor incentives for people to keep continuous coverage by penalizing late-enrollment penalties and implementing waiting periods for people who have had a break in coverage. They also want to establish separate, high-risk pools that would offer plans to people with pre-existing conditions.

Democrats are skeptical about those approaches, noting that people typically have breaks in coverage when they lose a job or suffer other adverse events and can't afford to pay premiums. And they strongly oppose state high-risk pools, which they point out generally did not work well in the pre-ACA days. They want to avoid a return to the days of insurers using medical underwriting questionnaires to decide whether to accept applicants and how much to charge them.

Still, some liberal experts suggest Democrats could potentially accept auto-enrollment and waiting periods for people with insurance gaps to receive coverage for pre-existing conditions.

“If you step back from the individual mandate, it likely means you have to step back from protections for pre-existing conditions as well,” said Larry Levitt, senior vice president of the Kaiser Family Foundation. “Then the question is how far the parties are willing to go and whether there is a sweet spot that provides sufficient (consumer) protection without regulations that conservatives might view as too onerous.”

A bigger clash between the parties looms over the size of the subsidies that would replace the ACA's tax credits and cost-sharing reductions; the adequacy and affordability of the replacement coverage; and the percentage of the population that would gain or lose insurance. Republicans want to replace the ACA's income-based tax credits with smaller tax subsidies for far more people, without regard to income. They also envision leaner benefit plans with higher deductibles and out-of-pocket costs.

“It's a smaller pot available to a larger number of people,” said Joel Ario, a managing director at Manatt Health Solutions who served in the HHS during the Obama administration. “It's thinning the soup. That's a difficult issue to get through.”

http://www.modernhealthcare.com/art...KCN80uoUbsknYcn1NfkgNZSyAGcBdQ&_hsmi=40134880

 

[tru_m.a.c]

What ‘repeal-replace’ could mean for your employer health plan

Say you went to the doctor for a routine annual visit or got a prescription for birth control filled – and paid nothing for it. That’s probably the result of an Obamacare provision requiring health plans to cover certain preventive services at no cost to members.

Another provision of the law that applies to those with employer-sponsored coverage: Health insurance policies can’t set limits on how much they will spend covering “essential” benefits for a customer. Before Obamacare, some plans imposed annual or lifetime coverage caps that could leave people with big medical bills if they had medical conditions that cost more than their plan covered.

To be sure, experts say any changes are unlikely to significantly alter the employer-sponsored insurance system. They will have far more implications for people whose coverage was most affected by Obamacare – those who buy health plans on their own through the individual market, or who gained coverage through Medicaid, which Connecticut and many other states expanded eligibility for under the law.

“[If] you’ve got a generous employer plan already, you were fine in the pre-ACA world and you’re going to be fine in the post-ACA world,” said Matthew Rae, a senior health policy analyst at the Kaiser Family Foundation. “Employers offer coverage because they want to have good talent, and people demand it. In the short-term, at the very least, those people are going to be ok.”

The health law had more of an effect on people whose employers’ plans had been less generous, Rae added.

What ‘repeal-replace’ could mean for your employer health plan

 

[tru_m.a.c]

Health overhaul revisited: The impact of some GOP ideas

REPEAL THE INDIVIDUAL REQUIREMENT TO CARRY INSURANCE OR RISK FINES

The so-called "individual mandate" is highly unpopular. Many of the uninsured who end up paying fines to the IRS are low-to-moderate income workers juggling rent, car payments or student loans. Experts debate how well the ACA's mandate has worked in practice.

Insurers see the coverage requirement as a pillar of a revamped market in which they are required to accept people with pre-existing health problems. How else, insurers ask, can they get enough healthy people in the coverage pool to balance risks?

Republicans have several ideas, including a one-time open enrollment period for everyone who remains uninsured, and a requirement that people maintain "continuous coverage" in order to be guaranteed insurance on the same terms as everyone else. Those nudges stop short of a federal mandate.

___

HIGH-RISK POOLS FOR PEOPLE WHO CANNOT AFFORD OR GET PRIVATE INSURANCE

High-risk pools for some of the sickest patients could help lower premiums for average-risk customers in the broader individual market.

However, they not worked well previously. The coverage has been expensive and programs often had to limit enrollment. Republicans are proposing at least $25 billion in federal funding.

___

TAX CREDITS KEYED TO AGE, NOT INCOME

The ACA's tax credits now are based on household income, with solid middle-class and upper-income people getting little or nothing. One approach Republicans are considering would base tax credits on age. People who don't currently get any assistance because of their income would be eligible.

There are no details on how the tax credits would work, including the amount of assistance provided. House Speaker Paul Ryan's "Better Way" plan says it would be enough to buy "the typical pre-Obamacare" plan. Independent experts say that could be pretty skimpy. A big concern is whether low-income people could afford coverage.

___

BLOCK GRANTS FOR MEDICAID

Capping the federal contribution to the federal-state health insurance program for low-income people in some fashion would limit the future growth of Medicaid. States would have more leeway to design their own approaches to caring for vulnerable people.

The impact could be major for the 70 million people now covered by Medicaid, including some 10 million added through the ACA's expansion of the program. Because state programs can vary dramatically, federal limits risk locking in disparities among states. In a budget crunch, states might cull hundreds of thousands of people from the Medicaid rolls, meaning hospitals would get stuck with the bill for emergency care.

___

FEDERAL LIMITS ON MALPRACTICE AWARDS

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has concluded that limiting malpractice awards would modestly reduce health care spending by major government programs. But limits could add to the hardship suffered by patients most grievously harmed by negligent doctors and hospitals.

___

ALLOWING INSURERS TO SELL INDIVIDUAL POLICIES ACROSS STATE LINES

Interstate competition would help keep premiums in check. But health insurance is a local and regional service, and out-of-state insurers aren't likely to have networks of hospitals and doctors beyond their territory. Many state regulators fear an end run against consumer protections.

___

LIMITING TAX BREAKS FOR EMPLOYER-PROVIDED HEALTH INSURANCE

Limiting federal tax breaks for the most generous employer plans would act as a brake on health care spending, while also raising revenue for tax credits to help people buy insurance. This perennial idea has been a political loser. Unions are strongly opposed.

Health overhaul revisited: The impact of some GOP ideas

 

[714562]

wait so your $500 a month health care has nothing to do with the exchange (so basically nothing to do with obamacare). then you're telling me they thought your income was low enough to qualify for expanded medicaid in your state but you refused it out of some it's a waste of tax payer money to provide me with healthcare bullshyt? so you refuse free healthcare and are bytching about high premiums that you seek out on your own independent of the obamacare exchange?

Okay good. So I'm not crazy for thinking his post made no sense.

Dude is whining about how high his premium is under Obamacare after his state's healthcare exchange offered him free healthcare. Can't make this stuff up.

"HOW DO I KNOW OBAMACARE ISN'T WORKING? BECAUSE I'M PAYING FOR HEALTHCARE OUT THE WAZOO AFTER REFUSING TO SIGN UP FOR OBAMACARE. THANKS OBAMA."

 

[tru_m.a.c]

Gov. Roy Cooper wants to expand Medicaid; Republicans vow to fight

Medicaid now covers 1.9 million North Carolinians and costs $14 billion a year, two-thirds of which is paid for by the federal government. Democrats say expanding it to more low-income people would boost the economy. Republicans say the state’s share of rising costs would be too expensive.

Sen. Dan Blue, the Senate minority leader and Raleigh Democrat, called expansion “a sound economic move” that will help rural communities.

“This is a vital step in protecting North Carolinians who have been shut out of the process over the past three years,” Blue said in a statement. “We need to put political ideologies aside and act in the best interest of the people we represent.”

Cooper, too, positioned Medicaid expansion as an economic development move, introducing it with a teaser.

“What if I were to tell you that we have the opportunity to bring in $2 billion to $4 billion a year in investment in North Carolina?” he asked the audience of about 900 at the annual economic forum sponsored by the N.C. Chamber and the N.C. Bankers Association. “What if I told you we are looking at 20,000 to 40,000 good-paying jobs?”

Cooper said he knew there were skeptics in the audience who don’t like government programs, but told them: “You’re already paying for it. North Carolina is paying federal taxes that are going to other states.”

He added that “conservative Republican governors” – including Vice President-elect Mike Pence of Indiana, Chris Christie of New Jersey and John Kasich of Ohio – agreed to Medicaid expansion in their states because they “understood this was an economic decision.”

The federal government would provide 95 percent of the cost of Medicaid expansion; the state would be responsible for the remaining 5 percent. The state’s share would grow to 10 percent by 2020.

Cooper said up to 650,000 North Carolinians would benefit from expansion of the program.

Read more here: Gov. Roy Cooper wants to expand Medicaid; Republicans vow to fight



Cooper to pursue Medicaid expansion by nearly 500,000 people despite stiff GOP opposition

North Carolina is one of 19 states that have chosen not to expand their Medicaid program though the federal Affordable Care Act. The act provides resources for states to extend coverage to all non-elderly adults with incomes below 133 percent of the federal poverty level, currently $32,253 a year for a family of four and $18,000 for an individual.

A study released in 2016 by Harvard University found that as many as 1,145 people in North Carolina may die every year because Medicaid has not been expanded and they have no access to screenings and preventive care.

Cooper said expansion could result in the net gain of up to 40,000 jobs statewide, mostly in the health care sector.

A December 2014 study sponsored by the Cone Health Foundation and the Kate B. Reynolds Charitable Trust determined that the Triad and Northwest North Carolina could have 93,471 more people insured and 8,962 jobs created by 2020 if state leaders choose to expand the state’s Medicaid program.

A 2014 Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and Urban Institute study, a philanthropy that advocates for public health, found that North Carolina could lose as much as $51 billion in federal Medicaid payments over the next 10 years if its program is not expanded.

Cooper to pursue Medicaid expansion by nearly 500,000 people despite stiff GOP opposition

 

[tru_m.a.c]

Study: Medicaid expansion gives $2.3B boost to Michigan

Michigan’s expanded Medicaid program has boosted state tax revenues and personal income in the state, and can be expected to pay for itself for the next five years and beyond, according to University of Michigan study released late Wednesday.

The Healthy Michigan Plan, which provides Medicaid coverage to more than 600,000 Michiganians, added nearly $554 million to the state budget in 2016, due to increased tax revenues and decreased state health care spending, according to the analysis published late Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The expansion increased personal income an estimated $2.3 billion in the state, due partly to health care-related job creation. The Healthy Michigan Plan results in about 30,000 new jobs every year – one-third of them in health care and 85 percent in the private sector, according to the report.

Federal funding for expanded Medicaid totalled roughly $3.5 billion in Michigan in 2016, money that rippled through the economy in the form of increased purchasing power for Michigan residents, the authors said. Researchers didn’t look at health impacts of the program, which would need to be examined over the long-term, Ayanian said.

Study: Medicaid expansion gives $2.3B boost to Michigan


Obamacare repeal would cost New York state at least $3.7 billion: governor

The repeal of the Affordable Care Act, the goal of Republicans in Washington, would cost New York state $3.7 billion and strip 2.7 million residents of health coverage, Governor Andrew Cuomo said on Wednesday.

Cuomo, a Democrat, also said counties in the state could lose nearly $600 million of federal Medicaid funding combined if the law, otherwise known as Obamacare, is repealed. New York City would lose the most, more than $433 million.

Obamacare repeal would cost New York state at least $3.7 billion: governor

 

[tru_m.a.c]

The Health Care Plan Trump Voters Really Want

The Kaiser Foundation organized six focus groups in the Rust Belt areas — three with Trump voters who are enrolled in the Affordable Care Act marketplaces, and three with Trump voters receiving Medicaid. The sessions, with eight to 10 men and women each, were held in late December in Columbus, Ohio, Grand Rapids, Mich., and New Cumberland, Pa. Though the participants did not agree on everything, they expressed remarkably similar opinions on many health care questions. They were not, by and large, angry about their health care; they were simply afraid they will be unable to afford coverage for themselves and their families. They trusted Mr. Trump to do the right thing but were quick to say that they didn’t really know what he would do, and were worried about what would come next.

They spoke anxiously about rising premiums, deductibles, copays and drug costs. They were especially upset by surprise bills for services they believed were covered. They said their coverage was hopelessly complex. Those with marketplace insurance — for which they were eligible for subsidies — saw Medicaid as a much better deal than their insurance and were resentful that people with incomes lower than theirs could get it. They expressed animosity for drug and insurance companies, and sounded as much like Bernie Sanders supporters as Trump voters. One man in Pennsylvania with Type 1 diabetes reported making frequent trips to Eastern Europe to purchase insulin at one-tenth the cost he paid here.

The Trump voters in our focus groups were representative of people who had not fared as well. Several described their frustration with being forced to change plans annually to keep premiums down, losing their doctors in the process. But asked about policies found in several Republican plans to replace the Affordable Care Act — including a tax credit to help defray the cost of premiums, a tax-preferred savings account and a large deductible typical of catastrophic coverage — several of these Trump voters recoiled, calling such proposals “not insurance at all.” One of those plans has been proposed by Representative Tom Price, Mr. Trump’s nominee to be secretary of Health and Human Services. These voters said they did not understand health savings accounts and displayed skepticism about the concept.

When told Mr. Trump might embrace a plan that included these elements, and particularly very high deductibles, they expressed disbelief. They were also worried about what they called “chaos” if there was a gap between repealing and replacing Obamacare. But most did not think that, as one participant put it, “a smart businessman like Trump would let that happen.” Some were uninsured before the Affordable Care Act and said they did not want to be uninsured again. Generally, the Trump voters on Medicaid were much more satisfied with their coverage.

There was one thing many said they liked about the pre-Affordable Care Act insurance market: their ability to buy lower-cost plans that fit their needs, even if it meant that less healthy people had to pay more. They were unmoved by the principle of risk-sharing, and trusted that Mr. Trump would find a way to protect people with pre-existing medical conditions without a mandate, which most viewed as “un-American.”

If these Trump voters could write a health plan, it would, many said, focus on keeping their out-of-pocket costs low, control drug prices and improve access to cheaper drugs. It would also address consumer issues many had complained about loudly, including eliminating surprise medical bills for out-of-network care, assuring the adequacy of provider networks and making their insurance much more understandable.

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/05/o...Mzaz3wKsOVIRAPDsxXT2jwvnOTsBJg&_hsmi=40134880

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

And Jesus did perform many miracles, healing the blind, the sick, and the lame. And the Republicans did say, "Socialized medicine! He wants to destroy Judea!"

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I need to just put one complete takedown of these corrupted ideas you regurgitate from your wealthy White capitalist mentors, because you keep putting these ridiculous uber-capitalist derived ideas out there and being completely unable to support them except by regurgitating the same talking points. I'm tired of it. I'll just refer back here any time you keep doing it again.

Here, I'm going all-in for once:

I haven't supported trickledown or supply-side economics.

Hmmm.....wikipedia says:

Supply-side economics is a macroeconomic theory that argues economic growth can be most effectively created by investing in capital and by lowering barriers on the production of goods and services. It was started by Robert Mundell, who won the 1999 Nobel Prize for Economics, during the Ronald Reagan administration. According to supply-side economics, consumers will then benefit from a greater supply of goods and services at lower prices; furthermore, the investment and expansion of businesses will increase the demand for employees and therefore create jobs. Typical policy recommendations of supply-side economists are lower marginal tax rates and less government regulation.

And David says:

That said emotional appeals to stealing money from the productive to the non-productive class doesn't sway me, and using flawed economic examples based on a complete lack of understand for capital investment and innovation and the benefit of that investment and innovation definitely won't change my opinion. You want better life, open of trade and remove barriers, this will drive the cost of goods down and lower the cost for the standard of living. This lowered cost allows more disposable income, disposable income allows for capital investment and/or more retail opportunity which enlarges consumer market and creates more jobs, which feeds into itself in creating higher efficiency, driving the cost of goods down, and feeding into itself lifting all of society up, instead of killing all economic growth with a UBI, and driving people out of the labor force and disincentivizing them from ever even getting in.

What you are suggesting isn't something new, entitlements in Rome, England, you don't ease poverty by redistributing the wealth of the productive class. You decrease it by increasing productivity, by increasing markets, and easing regulation and allowing capitalism to thrive.

He might as well have copy-and-pasted it there.

I pointed out actual tax rate and overview of indian trade with sourced material.

You quoted the freaking right-wing ultra-capitalist propaganda machine The Heritage Foundation as your source on India

It's a capitalist propaganda mill that often uses racist means to further its goals

Even its own former workers call it propaganda.


And you kept referring to the "non-productive class" in India. Who the hell did you think you were referring to? Some imaginary bunch of Indians on welfare sitting at home watching TV? What the heck did you think the "non-productive class" has to do with the farmers and slum dwellers targeted by this move?






Of course, once you start believing things in that direction, you can't help flying in to cape for every uber-capitalist talking point. Here's David starting a thread on why Obamacare is killing so many people that it immediately caused national life expectancy to begin dropping.

Obamacare Is Literally Killing Us


The death rate increased 1.2% last year, and life expectancy fell in 2015, the most recent year for which data is available. Female life expectancy dropped from 81.3 to 81.2 years, and male life expectancy fell from 76.5 to 76.3 years. As ABC News notes, “A decades-long trend of rising life expectancy in the U.S. could be ending: It declined last year and it is no better than it was four years ago.”

The core elements of Obamacare went into effect in 2014. Americans’ health has thus been deteriorating even as the provisions of the Affordable Care Act were supposed to be providing improvements......

I hope folks who still praise this bullshyt insurance company money transfer realize Obama's greatest achievement hurt americans overall. There is no positive benefit to subsidizing health insurance instead of breaking the AMA doctor school monopoly, FDA overregulation that costs americans lives in needless regulation for the benefit of no competition for big pharma, and costs americans their lives in the treatments they can't use and unlike the rich don't have the resources to go to europe to get.

Obamacare has led to a increase in US death rate

And then when laughed at for pages, he doubled down and tried to claim that the increase in obesity has no relation to lower death rates, and the increase in eating fast food and other unhealthy food has no connection to obesity, because....wait for it...there is no unhealthy food.

its only now that we are experiencing a decline in health metrics after government subsidized insurance was implemented. It points to the fast food and obesity angle not providing causation or correlation to the life expectancy or death rate.

Fast food isn't incredibly unhealthy, its food. There is nothing unsafe about white bread. There is nothing wrong with meat with high fat content. French fries aren't soaked in oil, the deep fry process doesn't soak the food with oil when done properly, it crisps up the outside and traps moisture inside what is being fried. Corn syrup isn't unhealthy, vegetable oil isn't unhealy. Sodas are high in calories, but they aren't inherently unhealthy either. Also on top of that, high diets aren't unhealthy unless you don't burn it off, and that is the choice of the person eating in how they regularly exercise. You could eat fresh fruit and vegetables and if you consume more calories than your burn off you are going to gain weight. Do it long enough and you will become obese. So right there off the bat you are coming with false food info that has no scientific basis.

As for your contention that obesity leads to death, scientifically there isn't much support for that.

There is no unhealthy food, and obesity is good for you. This is about the most pro-corporate rambling on food I can imagine.




Then, of course, he goes all-in on poor people who can't pay corporations back their medical debt:

Nice sentiment, but I fail to understand how collecting on debt is evil or unethical, immoral, or wrong.
If anything the people who borrow money and refuse to pay it back are the low lifes. IMHO

I've seen the segment and Ive seen previous segments from Dateline and I believe 20/20 regarding the process as well.
And the fact still remains, there is nothing wrong with annoying people to pay back what they owe.

Well that is actually what they do, they lie, embarass and annoy to get there money.
If you ignore the fact that the reason they do this is because they are owed money, you might have a point.

Have they paid what they owe?
Simple question with a simple answer.

Of course, it's all to achieve the corporate dream:

The gift of freer trade, specialization, technological innovation, these drive costs of goods down and lift everyone's quality of life up.
This is a good thing.

It's a Jetsons World: Private Miracles and Public Crimes

A very good book thats free that talks about the beauty freer trade and techological innovation has brought us

It sounds like a fukking religious movement at this point.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

You never were able to counter anything I posted with actually sourced material.
You then when you realize I'm not backing down after you name calling, get mad and quit discussion and just focus on personally insulting me and throwing out lies, like this post .
Like I said its clear what you are, you don't have the ability to debate you don't have the ability to engage in rational and logical discourse.
Again its okay, I know what you are now, its all good.

So I never countered your ridiculous claims about Lincoln? Let's go over that one again, in detail.

I attack Lincoln using sourced material.

Which he got from a NeoConfederate associated with a White Supremacist organization.

How did Lincoln get shot for slavery when he was shot after the war?

Lincoln was shot on April 14th, but the Civil War didn't end until May/June. Lee had surrendered his troops in Virginia, but Johnston's troops were still fighting in North Carolina, Taylor's troops kept fighting in Alabama and Mississippi, Forrest's men were still fighting in Tennessee and elsewhere, and Taylor and Watie still had forces west of the Mississippi. And John Wilkes Booth had been planning his kidnapping/assassination plot for months specifically in order to give the Confederate forces one last desperate chance to win.

You even admitted that Booth wanted to Kill lincoln before the time he did months earlier, yet now you are claiming he waited until the speech 2 days before he killed him because that is why he wanted him dead. LOL.

No I didn't.

This was one of many points where your reading comprehension failed you. This is what I stated consistently from my very first post on the issue:

4) Booth's desire to kill Lincoln, Grant, Johnson, and Seward had nothing to do with "Lincoln was a crooked politician". The original plot wasn't even to kill Lincoln, it was to kidnap him and hold him ransom until the North agreed to release all Southern POWs, thereby prolonging the war and giving the South a chance to retain slavery. He tried to carry it out on March 17 but got thrown off by a change in plans by Lincoln. After Lincoln's quote about giving Black people the vote, he changed to assassination, and wanted to take out the entire Northern leadership to give the South one last chance.

When you are constantly misreading things in order to fit an argument around them, maybe you need to reevaluate your own arrogant presumptions about how well you read and argue.

He was shot because he was a crooked politian hated by northerns and southerners.

John Wilkes Booth was a slavery sympathizer and Southern sympathizer who had praised succession before Lincoln even took office. Booth's desire to kill Lincoln, Grant, Johnson, and Seward had nothing to do with "Lincoln was a crooked politician". The original plot wasn't even to kill Lincoln, it was to kidnap him and hold him ransom until the North agreed to release all Southern POWs, thereby prolonging the war and giving the South a chance to retain slavery. He tried to carry it out on March 17 but got thrown off by a change in plans by Lincoln. He changed the plot from kidnapping to murder after Lee surrendered, and told his co-conspirator Lewis Powell that Black rights were the reason behind it:

"At least one listener interpreted this speech as moving Lincoln closer to the radical Republicans. "That means ****** citizenship," snarled John Wilkes Booth to a companion. "Now, by God, I'll put him through. That is the last speech he will ever make."

There is historical dispute over whether Booth said those exact words or not after that particular speech, but no dispute whatsoever that it matched Booth's expressed views about Black citizenship and Black rights in general, nor that such feelings were an important aspect of his hatred towards Lincoln.

Your ONLY counter to that was a NeoConfederate's writings.

I have a book The Real Lincoln by Tom DiLorenzo that goes more into the actual goings on at the time regarding the hate that Lincoln had even post death.

This would be the same Thomas DiLorenzo who is an affiliated scholar with the League of the South, a White Supremicist organization and is described by the SPLC as "one of the scholars at the core of the neo-Confederate movement". That's who David gets his history from.

Thomas DiLorenzo, a Loyola professor since 1992, was in Washington on Wednesday to testify at a House subcommittee hearing on the Federal Reserve Bank. But Rep. William Lacy Clay, a Democrat from St. Louis, quickly raised questions about DiLorenzo's ties to the League of the South, which is listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

"You work for a Southern nationalist organization that espouses very radical notions about American history and the federal government," said Clay in a volley that has become popular blog fodder over the past two days.

A secessionist Web site, DumpDC, identified DiLorenzo the same way last year when it published an interview with DiLorenzo in which he is quoted as saying "secession is not only possible but necessary if any part of America is ever to be considered 'the land of the free' in any meaningful sense."

Heidi Beirich, research director for the Southern Poverty Law Center, said DiLorenzo spoke at a League of the South event as recently as 2009 and has been listed as an affiliated scholar in the organization's publications over the years.

The Southern Poverty Law Center in 2004 described DiLorenzo as one of "the intellectuals who form the core of the modern neo-Confederate movement." The center spotlighted his thoughts on Lincoln, his teaching affiliation with the League of the South and his faculty position with the Ludwig von Mises Institute, which it described as a "hard-right libertarian foundation in Alabama."

Beirich said DiLorenzo is linked to the League of the South by shared views on Lincoln and the Civil War. "He is probably the leading Lincoln revisionist out there," she said. "I'm not sure I would call him a hate peddler, but he promotes a really distorted view of the Civil War. … Whitewashing slavery is a bad thing."

Beirich also noted a 1995 essay under DiLorenzo's name in the Journal of Historical Review, a publication primarily known for Holocaust denial. DiLorenzo said the journal must have used the piece, defending South Carolina's flying of the Confederate battle flag, without his permission.

How did you feel about that?

I don't care who Tom is associated with.

Also, the reviews listed on wikipedia for the book you're caping for are laughingly bad:

Writing for The Daily Beast, Rich Lowry described DiLorenzo's technique in this book as the following: "His scholarship, such as it is, consists of rummaging through the record for anything he can find to damn Lincoln, stripping it of any nuance or context, and piling on pejorative adjectives. In DiLorenzo, the Lincoln-haters have found a champion with the judiciousness and the temperament they deserve."

Reviewing for The Independent Review, a think tank associated with DiLorenzo, Richard M. Gamble described the book "travesty of historical method and documentation". He said the book was plagued by a "labyrinth of [historical and grammatical] errors", and concluded that DiLorenzo has "earned the ... ridicule of his critics."

In his review for theClaremont Institute, Ken Masugi writes that "DiLorenzo adopts as his own the fundamental mistake of leftist multi-culturalist historians: confusing the issue of race with the much more fundamental one, which was slavery." He noted that in Illinois "the anti-slavery forces actually joined with racists to keep their state free of slavery, and also free of blacks." Masugi called DiLorenzo's work "shabby" and stated that DiLorenzo's treatment of Lincoln was "feckless" and that the book is "truly awful".

Justin Ewers criticized DiLorenzo, saying this book "is more of a diatribe against a mostly unnamed group of Lincoln scholars than a real historical analysis. His wild assertions – for example, that Lincoln held 'lifelong white supremacist views' – don't help his argument."

Publishers Weekly described this as a "screed," in which DiLorenzo "charges that most scholars of the Civil War are part of a 'Lincoln cult';" he particularly attacks scholar Eric Foner, characterizing him and other as "cover-up artists" and "propagandists."[29]

Here's the best quote:

In a 2009 review of three newly published books on Lincoln, historian Brian Dirck linked the earlier work of Thomas DiLorenzo with that of Lerone Bennett, another critic of Lincoln. He wrote that "Few Civil War scholars take Bennett and DiLorenzo seriously, pointing to their narrow political agenda and faulty research."

Yep, that's the guy you're running with. Perhaps you should take another look at the material?

Like I said Lincoln wasn't killed because of black citizenship. 13th and 15th addressed those questions.

The 13th Amendment was basically forced though by Lincoln, and the 15th Amendment wasn't passed until four years after Lincoln died.

I have no idea what point you were trying to make, but by citing the 13th and 15th Amendment at the same time, you clearly proved that you were confused.

At his death Lincoln was actually one of the most hated presidents in US history.

He was shot because he was a crooked politian hated by northerns and southerners.

Lincoln wasn't insanely beloved after his death. It wasn't actually until the 1920s and years of public school indocrtination of "honest abe" myth that Lincoln began to become "beloved" in the US. Like I said he was mired in scandal throughout his life and largely hated during his presidency and at the time of his death.

Lincoln had just been reelected four months earlier with 55% of the vote and won nearly every state in the Union. By people who hated him?

And THEN he had accepted Lee's surrender.

And THEN he was skilled by a slavery sympathizer.
But now he was going to be "one of the most hated presidents in US history" at that moment?

The next year in 1866, the Radical Republicans associated with Lincoln won Congress in one of the biggest landslides in American history, 175 to 49 in the House and 15 to 2 in the Senate. It was the biggest pickup in Senate seats in election history. In the next presidential election, Lincoln's General Grant, as corrupt as he was, won 53% of the vote and an electoral landslide, even taking half of the South.
Lincoln was still hated by Americans across the country, but his party and his general were taking every election in the country. Riiiigghttt..



Your cites for this were a blog post by a White rock musician from Texas and a book by a NeoConfederate aligned with the League of the South, a White Supremicist organization. And even your own cites defied you:

"How could a man elected president in November be so reviled in February? The insults heaped on Lincoln after his arrival in Washington were not the result of anything he himself had done or left undone. He was a man without a history, a man almost no one knew. Because he was a blank slate, Americans, at the climax of a national crisis 30 years in coming, projected onto him everything they saw wrong with the country. "

" It wasn’t until it became clear that the North was going to win the war that the tide of opinion started to change. His murder completely changed how people viewed him from then onward (thus began his rise to “sainthood.”)"

"It was only with his death that Lincoln's popularity soared."

Those quotes are all from YOUR OWN CITES.

Lincoln wasn't insanely beloved after his death. That is historical revisionism He was widely hated.

The US had military mobs beating and killing people who went to his funeral parade and laughed at him..

Again, from your OWN cite:

"Lincoln was slain on Good Friday, and pastors who had for four years criticized Lincoln from their pulpits rewrote their Easter Sunday sermons to remember him as an American Moses who brought his people out of slavery but was not allowed to cross over into the Promised Land. Secretary of War Stanton arranged a funeral procession for Lincoln's body on a continental scale, with the slain president now a Republican martyr to freedom, traversing in reverse his train journey from Springfield to the nation's capital four years earlier. Seeing Lincoln's body in his casket, with soldiers in blue standing guard, hundreds of thousands of Northerners forgot their earlier distrust and took away instead an indelible sentimental image of patriotic sacrifice, one that cemented the dominance of the Republican Party for the rest of their lives and their children's."

Maybe you should have been more careful not to list such traitorous cites.

Lincoln was so hated that when he died some opportunistic politicians saw it as the perfect time to restore his image and make him some type of national hero to help the GOP.

I suggest you repeat things back to yourself before you write them. Say it out loud, see how it sounds, see how the internal logic rolls and how it fits with what you've already claimed.

I mean .

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Or when you were confused as hell about Saturnia, I never countered you there either, right?

christmas is literally a christian face on saturnalia.

The claims of Christmas being a Christian face on saturnalia are based on old and flimsy research. There's little if any evidence for it other than the shared date. Saturnalia was still being practiced as a separate holiday long after Christmas started, and the path that each holiday took to end up on December 25th is disputed and not necessarily the least bit connected (in fact, there was a 3rd separate holiday that ended up on December 25th as well).

Did the Romans Invent Christmas? | History Today

How December 25 Became Christmas - Biblical Archaeology Society


The idea that Christmas is simply a Christian face on Saturnalia is still a popular narrative because pop historians love such narratives. But the truth is a lot more complicated - like all juxtapositions of culture, there were likely influences in both directions, but a lot can be attributed to coincidence is often shading with false associations (human brains love pushing patterns together whenever they can even when there's nothing there - that's how astrology developed) and we often obscure deeper roots with the trading of superficial add-ons.

And apparently being unable to read or understand those links, you followed up by posting:

My contention that Christmas as we know it was a Christian attempt to override Saturnalia specifically.
ther was no reason to even place the christmas during that time of year

Which I followed with:

But you don't have any evidence for that. You show that church authorities didn't like Saturnalia - well, yes, that's very common that authorities of one religion aren't fond of the practices of another religion. That tells you nothing about how it originated.

Saturnalia was the feast dedicated to the Roman god Saturn. Established around 220 B.C., this feast was originally celebrated on December 17. Eventually the feast was extended to last an entire week, ending on December 23. The supposed connection to Christmas is based on the proximity of the two festivals to each other.

This can be found repeatedly on the Internet. In his article Saturnalia: The Reason We Celebrate Christmas in December, columnist Mark Whittington explains:

It has been suggested that Christians in the 4th Century assigned December 25th as Christ's birthday (and hence Christmas) because pagans already observed this day as a holiday. In this way the problem of eliminating an already popular holiday would be sidestepped, thus making the Christianizing of the population easier.

If the suggestion were correct, one would expect to find at least a single reference by early Christians to support it. Instead we find scores of quotations from Church Fathers indicating a desire to distance themselves from pagan religions.

ther was no reason to even place the christmas during that time of year,

Yes there was - there are myriad possible reasons, mostly centered around an early Christian desire to link the conception of Christ to his death at Passover and the creation of the world.

According to Dr. Kelly's research, summarized in his books The Origins of Christmas, and The World of the Early Christians, the main reason early Christians chose December 25th for the date of Christmas relates to two significant and symbolic dates: the date of the creation of the world, and the vernal equinox. According to some Christians, both events happened on March 25th. Early Christian writer Sextus Julius Africanus (220 AD) speculated that the world was created on March 25th, based on his chronology of Jewish and Christian history, presumably contained in his Chronographia. So he suggested that Christ became incarnate on that date; this makes perfect symbolic sense, since at the Incarnation, the new creation began. According to Julius, since the Word of God became incarnate from the moment of his conception, this meant that, after 9 months in the Virgin Mary's womb, Jesus was born on December 25. The anonymous author of the work De Pascha Computus, likely written in the 3rd century, and attributed to Cyprian, too speculated the world was created on March 25th. However, since the sun was created on the fourth day of creation, the author speculates that Christ was born on March 28th, not March 25th. Thus, unlike Julius, this author conceives of Christ's incarnation beginning at Christ's birth, rather than his conception. How did this anonymous author reach his conclusions about the date of creation? Based on a synthesis of the time of Passover, the vernal equinox, and a prophecy from Malachi about the "Sun of Righteousness." While the scope of the influence of Julius and the anonymous author of De Pascha Computus upon their peers is unknown, nonetheless, we encounter reasons why the date of December 25th was chosen for the birth date of Jesus that are rooted in Christian thought.

According to Get Religion, Hippolytus of Rome, writing around 225 AD, close to the time of Julius, may also mention the date of Christmas as December 25 ("eight days before the kalends of January"), in Commentary on Daniel. However, there is debate as to whether this line is genuine, or an interpolation in the genuine text of Hippolytus. The best manuscripts of Hippolytus mention both December 25th and April 2nd as possible dates for the birth of Jesus, although the latter could refer to his conception, which would then place his birth in December. In addition to Kelly's books, The Origins of the Liturgical Year provides much insight into the speculation discussed here.

There are other good, Jewish, Christian, and biblical reasons why Christians chose the date of December 25th. One is based on the estimated date of the death of Jesus, which some early Christians speculated happened on Friday, March 25th. Incidentally, this is historically impossible, since March 25th would not have been a Friday the year Jesus likely died. Nonetheless, based on the Jewish idea of the "integral age," that great prophets were conceived on the same date as their death, these early Christian writers thought that Jesus, who died on March 25th, was also conceived that date. Again, if we assume nine months in the womb, this means he was born on December 25th. The work De Solstitia et Aequinoctia Conceptionis et Nativitatis Nostri Iesu Christi et Iohannis Baptistae, falsely attributed to John Chrysostom, supports this view:

Therefore our Lord was conceived on the eighth day of the kalends of April in the month of March, which is the day of the passion of the Lord, and of his conception. For on the day he was conceived, on the same day he suffered (quoted in Stuhlman, Redeeming the Time).

Scholar William Tighe makes a strong case for his theory in his essay Calculating Christmas, which is apparently similar to arguments made by Louis Duchesne and Andre Wilmart years earlier. This line of speculation was occurring about the same time other Christians were speculating about the date of Christ's birth based on the date of creation. Perhaps this interest in December 25th among early Christians is because they were already celebrating Christmas on this date?

Yet another reason for choosing the date of December 25 is advanced by 4th century bishop and writer Saint John Chrysostom. According to this article from the North County Times, John Chrysostom reasoned:

Luke 1 says Zechariah was performing priestly duty in the Temple when an angel told his wife Elizabeth she would bear John the Baptist. During the sixth month of Elizabeth's pregnancy, Mary learned about her conception of Jesus and visited Elizabeth "with haste."

The 24 classes of Jewish priests served one week in the Temple, and Zechariah was in the eighth class. Rabbinical tradition fixed the class on duty when the Temple was destroyed in A.D. 70 and, calculating backward from that, Zechariah's class would have been serving Oct. 2-9 in 5 B.C. So Mary's conception visit six months later might have occurred the following March and Jesus' birth nine months afterward.

Thus, for John Chrysostom, the date of December 25 was based on Scripture and Jewish tradition. While it is possible John was mistaken, this demonstrates that Christians at the time were choosing the dates of feasts based on Scripture, not paganism.

David Morrison explains yet another possibility, again providing a rationale for the choice of December 25:

The angel Gabriel appeared to Mary "in the sixth month" of the Jewish year...that is, in Adar (our February/March). Count nine months for the pregnancy and you come to Kislev (our November/December). According to some Church Fathers, Jesus was born during Channukah. Therefore, Jesus Christ was born of the Holy Virgin Mary in Bethlehem of Judaea in the Jewish month of Kislev (December) during the Festival of Lights. And I say likely on what is December 25th.

So, we have multiple reasons why ancient Christians chose December 25th as the date to celebrate the birth of Jesus. And while we may not agree with the reasoning behind the choice of December 25th, nonetheless, there are no pagan conspiracies at work, and no evil machinations of the emperor Constantine, just solid Christian symbolic reasoning. This is not surprising, considering Christians of the time were very concerned about the influence of paganism, and took great pains (even giving their lives) to avoid worshiping or celebrating non-Christian gods. Besides, virtually every historical and Apostolic Christian church celebrates the birth of Jesus on December 25 (those using the Gregorian calendar that is), and it is highly unlikely every Church in every region caved into pagan influence so readily. While all of these explanations are certainly subject to questions and certain criticisms, they certainly are worth exploring.

At this point, you may be asking, "but wasn't Christmas chosen to counter pagan festivals?" Well, yes, in a sense, but not in the same way that the anti-Christmas crowd claims. According to Dr. Kelly, Christians of the late third and early fourth centuries had been engaged in a propaganda war with pagans since the Emperor Aurelian established the Sol Invictus, the feast of the unconquered Sun, on December 25th. For Christians, Jesus is the true Sun, the Sun of Righteousness (a title derived from Malachi 4:2). In fact, Aurelian may have established the Sol Invictus because of the rising popularity of Christianity, and may have established the date of the Sol Invictus in response to Christian celebrations already occurring that day! Since Christians probably accounted for ten percent of the population of Rome at the time, this is not far-fetched in the least.

Note that all the Christian references to the consideration of March 25th as the conception of Christ and December 25th as the birth of Christ predate any pagan references to the exact date of December 25th being used for a particular festival.


Again, more references to take seriously. There are many "history" articles on the internet that make general claims about events without sources. What are the actual sources of the time that demonstrate their case though?

Touchstone Archives: Calculating Christmas

Why December 25?

Why is Christmas Celebrated on December 25?

Did the Romans Invent Christmas? | History Today

How December 25 Became Christmas - Biblical Archaeology Society

But again, unable to read or understand anything there, you repeated yet again:

There is no reason to have Christianity placed where it did

Except for the numerous reasons I just gave you and the numerous cites I just linked.

You can make a rationale disagreement against the arguments and sources I list. But when you seem completely incapable of even engaging with them, do you not understand why you've always got me making faces at your posts?


This is how you argue. You quote some unfounded BS promoted from bad sources, you're put in your place by people detailed all sorts of cited evidence, logic, and common sense, but because it doesn't agree with what you already believe, you ignore it and keep regurgitating your same pre-formed opinions over...and over....and over again.

And then you accuse the people arguing with you of being biased, or name-calling, or not citing enough.

We're tired of it.

 

[hashmander]

Republicans call Obamacare a 'failure.' These 7 charts show they couldn't be more wrong

racism is a terrible thing boy. put a black face on something that should be pretty universally accepted as BETTER THAT WHAT WE HAD BEFORE and all right wingers have to do is tell these white folks that the kenyan socialist is trying to destroy them and their families and it's game over. i'm reading the article on this page about the rust belt trump voters and it's just taken as an article of faith to them that a good white businessman like trump wouldn't get rid of something that helps them and replaces it with rich right wing nonsense.

 

[Mr swag]

It's over,

Rand Paul said that trump told him over the phone that he will only repeal and replace, he will not repeal only

They will never have the votes

 

[David_TheMan]

Or when you were confused as hell about Saturnia, I never countered you there either, right?






And apparently being unable to read or understand those links, you followed up by posting:



Which I followed with:






But again, unable to read or understand anything there, you repeated yet again:




Except for the numerous reasons I just gave you and the numerous cites I just linked.

You can make a rationale disagreement against the arguments and sources I list. But when you seem completely incapable of even engaging with them, do you not understand why you've always got me making faces at your posts?


This is how you argue. You quote some unfounded BS promoted from bad sources, you're put in your place by people detailed all sorts of cited evidence, logic, and common sense, but because it doesn't agree with what you already believe, you ignore it and keep regurgitating your same pre-formed opinions over...and over....and over again.

And then you accuse the people arguing with you of being biased, or name-calling, or not citing enough.

We're tired of it.

Its over breh, we know you have a complex, you just gonnna have to deal with it.
Want to bump the thread up, bump it.

So I never countered your ridiculous claims about Lincoln? Let's go over that one again, in detail.





Which he got from a NeoConfederate associated with a White Supremacist organization.







Lincoln was shot on April 14th, but the Civil War didn't end until May/June. Lee had surrendered his troops in Virginia, but Johnston's troops were still fighting in North Carolina, Taylor's troops kept fighting in Alabama and Mississippi, Forrest's men were still fighting in Tennessee and elsewhere, and Taylor and Watie still had forces west of the Mississippi. And John Wilkes Booth had been planning his kidnapping/assassination plot for months specifically in order to give the Confederate forces one last desperate chance to win.





No I didn't.

This was one of many points where your reading comprehension failed you. This is what I stated consistently from my very first post on the issue:



When you are constantly misreading things in order to fit an argument around them, maybe you need to reevaluate your own arrogant presumptions about how well you read and argue.






John Wilkes Booth was a slavery sympathizer and Southern sympathizer who had praised succession before Lincoln even took office. Booth's desire to kill Lincoln, Grant, Johnson, and Seward had nothing to do with "Lincoln was a crooked politician". The original plot wasn't even to kill Lincoln, it was to kidnap him and hold him ransom until the North agreed to release all Southern POWs, thereby prolonging the war and giving the South a chance to retain slavery. He tried to carry it out on March 17 but got thrown off by a change in plans by Lincoln. He changed the plot from kidnapping to murder after Lee surrendered, and told his co-conspirator Lewis Powell that Black rights were the reason behind it:

"At least one listener interpreted this speech as moving Lincoln closer to the radical Republicans. "That means ****** citizenship," snarled John Wilkes Booth to a companion. "Now, by God, I'll put him through. That is the last speech he will ever make."

There is historical dispute over whether Booth said those exact words or not after that particular speech, but no dispute whatsoever that it matched Booth's expressed views about Black citizenship and Black rights in general, nor that such feelings were an important aspect of his hatred towards Lincoln.

Your ONLY counter to that was a NeoConfederate's writings.





This would be the same Thomas DiLorenzo who is an affiliated scholar with the League of the South, a White Supremicist organization and is described by the SPLC as "one of the scholars at the core of the neo-Confederate movement". That's who David gets his history from.








How did you feel about that?






Also, the reviews listed on wikipedia for the book you're caping for are laughingly bad:








Here's the best quote:



Yep, that's the guy you're running with. Perhaps you should take another look at the material?





The 13th Amendment was basically forced though by Lincoln, and the 15th Amendment wasn't passed until four years after Lincoln died.

I have no idea what point you were trying to make, but by citing the 13th and 15th Amendment at the same time, you clearly proved that you were confused.






Lincoln had just been reelected four months earlier with 55% of the vote and won nearly every state in the Union. By people who hated him?

And THEN he had accepted Lee's surrender.

And THEN he was skilled by a slavery sympathizer.
But now he was going to be "one of the most hated presidents in US history" at that moment?

The next year in 1866, the Radical Republicans associated with Lincoln won Congress in one of the biggest landslides in American history, 175 to 49 in the House and 15 to 2 in the Senate. It was the biggest pickup in Senate seats in election history. In the next presidential election, Lincoln's General Grant, as corrupt as he was, won 53% of the vote and an electoral landslide, even taking half of the South.
Lincoln was still hated by Americans across the country, but his party and his general were taking every election in the country. Riiiigghttt..



Your cites for this were a blog post by a White rock musician from Texas and a book by a NeoConfederate aligned with the League of the South, a White Supremicist organization. And even your own cites defied you:

"How could a man elected president in November be so reviled in February? The insults heaped on Lincoln after his arrival in Washington were not the result of anything he himself had done or left undone. He was a man without a history, a man almost no one knew. Because he was a blank slate, Americans, at the climax of a national crisis 30 years in coming, projected onto him everything they saw wrong with the country. "

" It wasn’t until it became clear that the North was going to win the war that the tide of opinion started to change. His murder completely changed how people viewed him from then onward (thus began his rise to “sainthood.”)"

"It was only with his death that Lincoln's popularity soared."

Those quotes are all from YOUR OWN CITES.





Again, from your OWN cite:

"Lincoln was slain on Good Friday, and pastors who had for four years criticized Lincoln from their pulpits rewrote their Easter Sunday sermons to remember him as an American Moses who brought his people out of slavery but was not allowed to cross over into the Promised Land. Secretary of War Stanton arranged a funeral procession for Lincoln's body on a continental scale, with the slain president now a Republican martyr to freedom, traversing in reverse his train journey from Springfield to the nation's capital four years earlier. Seeing Lincoln's body in his casket, with soldiers in blue standing guard, hundreds of thousands of Northerners forgot their earlier distrust and took away instead an indelible sentimental image of patriotic sacrifice, one that cemented the dominance of the Republican Party for the rest of their lives and their children's."

Maybe you should have been more careful not to list such traitorous cites.








I suggest you repeat things back to yourself before you write them. Say it out loud, see how it sounds, see how the internal logic rolls and how it fits with what you've already claimed.

I mean .

You seem to be trying, but everything we discussed in that thread was discussed in that thread, if you want to bump the thread, do so and we will continue the convo, but this breakdown is pretty sad.

I need to just put one complete takedown of these corrupted ideas you regurgitate from your wealthy White capitalist mentors, because you keep putting these ridiculous uber-capitalist derived ideas out there and being completely unable to support them except by regurgitating the same talking points. I'm tired of it. I'll just refer back here any time you keep doing it again.

Here, I'm going all-in for once:






Hmmm.....wikipedia says:




And David says:





He might as well have copy-and-pasted it there.






You quoted the freaking right-wing ultra-capitalist propaganda machine The Heritage Foundation as your source on India

It's a capitalist propaganda mill that often uses racist means to further its goals

Even its own former workers call it propaganda.


And you kept referring to the "non-productive class" in India. Who the hell did you think you were referring to? Some imaginary bunch of Indians on welfare sitting at home watching TV? What the heck did you think the "non-productive class" has to do with the farmers and slum dwellers targeted by this move?






Of course, once you start believing things in that direction, you can't help flying in to cape for every uber-capitalist talking point. Here's David starting a thread on why Obamacare is killing so many people that it immediately caused national life expectancy to begin dropping.



Obamacare has led to a increase in US death rate

And then when laughed at for pages, he doubled down and tried to claim that the increase in obesity has no relation to lower death rates, and the increase in eating fast food and other unhealthy food has no connection to obesity, because....wait for it...there is no unhealthy food.






There is no unhealthy food, and obesity is good for you. This is about the most pro-corporate rambling on food I can imagine.




Then, of course, he goes all-in on poor people who can't pay corporations back their medical debt:










Of course, it's all to achieve the corporate dream:



It sounds like a fukking religious movement at this point.

More of the same of you crying and if you want to bump bump if not, the crying isn't helping you. I'm not going to go through each claim and waste time when the claim and the argumentation leading up with support is already there for you to read and you are just mad you weren't praised for being right, because I disagree with your poorly thought out opinion.

That said there is one claim you make that I will correct. I'm not a supply sider nor do I advocate it, I'm an austrian economic model supporter. There is overlap in areas of taxation (lowering it) and regulation (lowering it), those similarities also exist with austrian and chicago monetarist school. That said that you seem to think just those two principles means I'm a supply sider, again show your ignorance of economics.