So.... What is the answer to this argument?

(*I* understand what the answer is, but you really should mention it for the benefit of all the readers, not just those in the know)

You're right. Kilmeade and Pence really don't know any better.

That doesn't excuse people like John Boehner, though. He certainly knows it's nonsense. He's just a liar.

And yet these are the very same people who wholeheartedly accept the half-baked theory that drastically cutting taxes will actually increase the amount of money the government takes in.

You know, despite it never having actually worked that way when Coolidge did it, or Reagan did it, or Dubya did it.

Doocy!

Sorry. I just like saying that. As you were.

I disagree! I don't think Mike Pence can be as stupid as this and still function at a minimum level as a Representative. He knows, however, that much of his constituency is easily manipulated, so if it takes willful deception and lies to get what he wants, so be it.

But hold on one second, because the answer to this question (taxes are going up) has seemed to elude the GOP for awhile. Tim Noah has had some good posts on this to the effect that the GOP HASN'T gone bananas over the fact that the Medicare surtax is going up by over 2% in this bill, or that the excise tax is, well, a tax increase. So the continued confusion on the part of the GOP about how you can spend money and save it, too, is probably preferable to the alternative, which is endless GOP bleating about tax increases in order to kill grandma.

That Pence and Doocy don't know what they're talking about and that they also are trying to mislead people are not mutally exclusive realities.

"I think they really doesn't understand the basics of the debate. Fox & Friends and the House Republican Conference cover health care policy with all the sophistication of a kindergarten finger-coloring class."

I think you need to apologize for offending sophisticated kindergarten children for this crack!

So.... What is the answer to this argument?

This is actually a reasonably good question. I've been strongly advocating for health insurance reform in a variety of venues over the past year and have occasionally struggled to elucidate a talking point which I've read or researched myself but can't remember the details of off the top of my head, and searching blog archives leaves much to be desired. It might be grand if, the next time we do this, there were a progressive talking points site listing the top 50 wingnut FAQ and annotated responses. Is anyone aware of such a thing already?

I think even Fox viewers really could understand this if the Talking Fox Heads wanted in the slightest to explain it.

For me, the examples came pretty early in life.

1) I was working but not getting paid much. I then paid a lot to go to college. When I graduated, I started working making a lot more - and came out way ahead on the deal. Its called investing: you spend money in the short term, and come out ahead financially over a longer term.

2) Perhaps an even better example: When I graduated, I was renting an apartment and paying a landlord a fair sum for my living space. I then spent what at the time seemed a faint-inducing ginormous sum to buy my first house. I paid a surprisingly small amount more in monthly payment, but got a large tax deduction and a much nicer place, and actual equity. All in all, I paid what seemed a lot up front, maybe a little more per month gross (less net after the tax deduction) and was way ahead on having a better place to live and actual equity in my hands rather than the landlord's hands.

The only explanation for this being so hard to grasp is that Pence et al still live in their Mothers' basements and have fake diplomas they bought online.

On Bill Maher last week, Senator Bennet of Colorado was explaining to Bill that costs would grow at a slower rate than they're growing now and that's why it saves money. He just went on and on with numbers and percentages - I understood him, but still my eyes were crossing. Your average Tea Partier hears somebody like this guy talking and thinks, "What a load of ooh-la-la! Who's gonna believe that?"

As usual, the Democrats are doing a terrible job of controlling the language of the debate. They never get out in front of anything and put it in terms that ordinary, non-political junkies are going to understand. They let the Republicans create the talking points (and honestly, I don't know about Mike Pence, but I really do think John Boehner is too stupid to follow complicated stuff), they end up playing defense, and they look like losers.

Makes me crazy.

I should add. . .

you spend money in the short term, and come out ahead financially over a longer term.

While I disagree with how they did it, Congress has actually even remedied the issue of the budget being worse financially over a short term by having payment mechanisms kick in before many of the benefits. sort of like knowing you want to buy something (health care) so you save up for it for a few years first. I happen to disagree with this as a matter of policy: the health of Americans should not be treated like any ol' materialistic consumer good. But it fixed a problem in my analogy that may otherwise have left fake-budget-hawks something to complain about.

Other questions Brian Kilmeade has:

1] Why do we need billion-dollar booster rockets to get the Space Shuttle into space? Can't we just walk there?

2] How do we know we can't breathe underwater? Has anyone tried just breathing water?

3] Why do we need bridges on our highways? Didn't the Dukes of Hazard just jump over that stuff?

4] How do we know dogs don't understand English? Has anyone asked them?

5] How can you be sure fire is hot? Has anyone bother to tou------ OW! GODDAMN IT!!!

If Obamacare passes, more people will be going to the doctor, which means that disease/injury statistics will rise. How can public health be improved and more people be "better off" with healthcare if national disease/injury stats are going up?

What did you really expect from the Beck News Channel? They say what their viewers want to hear. They are not going to upset anyones breakfast with the truth or facts.

@shortstop: You ARE joking, right?

Economies of scale

boxerchick: I am joking.

Fox appeals to the doorknobs who buy their school textbooks from Texas!

Even the name Fox & Friends sounds like a kiddie show. Like Dora, The Explorer.

Only in this case it's: Brian, The Lyin'.

Actually failing to answer the question posed by the Foxy dude is one of the great failures of our Democratic leadership. I think I understand how they are planning to reduce the deficit, but it would be nice to have a plain language explanation from our leaders. I have a hunch that any such explanation would be longer than the average sound bite.

shortstop may be joking, but in that sadly prescient way where what we see as a sarcastic joke the wingnuts see as a completely serious talking point for their PR memo next week.

I have a hunch that any such explanation would be longer than the average sound bite.

That, by the way, is my explanation of why we never hear an explanation. It is entirely possible that Pelosi and/or Obama have spent for hours explaining just how HCR will save money, but we never hear what they said because, as the Press is so fond of saying, the public hates policy details.

Oh, stop. Just trying to have a little fun.

Fox & Friends and the House Republican Conference cover health care policy with all the sophistication of a kindergarten finger-coloring class.

I think you give them too much credit, Steve, though I'd bet even money both Kilmeade and Pence probably still eat that paste out of the big plastic jar.

Kilmeade's advice to his viewers: If you find what you want on sale, don't buy it because it will cost you money! -Kevo

Spam not Filet Mignon. Yes this is spam and I admit it. It seems that mssrs Kilmeade and Pence would be unable to understand what the hell was going on if someone said "I have to save money so I'm buying spam not filet mingon."

The would say huh wah how can you save money by buying ?

Now I'm not saying the Senate bill is Spam or that the current system is filet mignon. I'm just saying that Mrss Kilmeade and Pence better not let their hubbies do the shoping.

This probably isn't a good example for Republican anti-enviros, but no one seems to have an issue with the notion that buying compact fluorescent light bulbs saves on your electric bill. Kilmeade is doing the equivalent of saying, "Oooh, ooh, but you're _paying_ for the light bulb, so it _costs_ you money!" You're buying something new that phases in to replace something old and wasteful. It really doesn't seem that confusing.

I guess they could be saying "The plan costs $900 billion, but it has the effect of reducing government spending from $X trillion to ($X trillion-$130 billion), a savings of $130 billion."

You would think Republicans would understand the concept of investing now to save money later. Isn't this kind of a business basic?

Shortstop: Thank you! It IS funny, but Zeitgeist is right - I hear things just as "funny" come out of the mouths of the wingnuts on a daily basis. Ugh.

Lots of fun analogies here. But I think they actually think we shouldn't be spending anything on healthcare. Never mind that we're already paying through the nose for the un- and underinsured via our own higher healthcare and premium costs -- they can and do ignore that.

So, FlipYrWhig, they're probably not coming from a place in which you compare the cost of incandescent bulbs and CFs -- they don't see anything wrong with sitting around in the dark.

Shouldn't an elected official have to have an IQ of, oh I don't know, 80 or 90 to serve? That's still scraping the bottom of the barrel (hiya Sarah, you betcha!), but it's a start.

boxer: zeitgeist gets a little sad about the satire sometimes. He'll feel better when he can have that lacerated head looked at after all that banging-on-our-desks stuff we've all been doing lately. There's also chocolate, and we must never forget that in our hour of stress.

Glad someone covered for me since I'm one of those crayon-pushing dim bulbs who had not a clue. But at least I know better than to side with FUX NEWZ over the CBO.

Now if only someone would explain to me why my account balance at the bank is reported as an asset rather than a liability on the bank's balance sheet. I took an intro accounting class in college several hundred years ago. It launched my career - in another direction (computers). And since you asked, I suck at math, too.

Steve Benen asserts "For the record, I don't think Kilmeade and Pence are trying to deliberately mislead people".

Steve (or anyone reading this post) to you what do attribute proof and/or reasoning to support your assertion?

Are they just too stupid and complete failures at doing the intellectual investigation to backup what they say? They command and control a significant amount of media bandwidth. I am of the opinion that deliberately misleading people is a primary objective of Fox News in general and Republican leadership as well.

Now if only someone would explain to me why my account balance at the bank is reported as an asset rather than a liability on the bank's balance sheet.

I'm just guessing here, but I suspect it's because they can make loans based on those deposits, which earns them interest. Even if you earn interest on your account, it's less than they're earning from your money. Anything they can make money off of is an asset.

For the record, I don't think Kilmeade and Pence are trying to deliberately mislead people

Of course they are.

Having watched this freak show for the last year plus, can you honestly believe that these guys don't understand exactly what they are doing?

I disagree! I don't think Mike Pence can be as stupid as this and still function at a minimum level as a Representative.

From everything I've read from people who've actually met him, Pence really is that stupid.

Well, perhaps a more accurate description would be the one Molly Ivins applied to George W. Bush: "Not stupid, but willfully ignorant and proud of it."

But in either case, I think he actually doesn't understand this, whether it's because he's too thick or because he is completely unwilling to make any effort to learn.

shortstop -- the other thing we can expect to hear endlessly is that health care costs aren't going down, even though Democrats promised they would. This one is especially pernicious, because the concept of "we're saving money because costs are going up more slowly" is sincerely harder for a lot of people to grasp, even without wingnut BS artists working to misinform them.

I don't think Kilmeade and Pence are trying to deliberately mislead people.
=========================

Personally I can think of no reason to think that they are doing anything else but trying to deliberately mislead. That's what they do year in and year out for a living; why should today be any different?

So Redshift, if I can convince my neighbor to park his red Ferrari in my driveway, and I 'borrow' it to derive taxi income, I get to list said Ferrari on my credit application as part of my net worth? Who knew? No wonder I always sucked at accounting ;-)

I disagree with your conclusion that they just do not know any better. They know they are lying to deceive the public to achieve partisan ends.

zeitgeist @ 16:12, 16:16

That's a fine story. That's the way it was explained to me and I proceeded in that direction also. But in more recent times (and throwing in medical issues), it plays out more like a perfect storm. Maybe the next generation will buy into that again, who knows.

it plays out more like a perfect storm

At the risk of sounding like the old curmudgeon yelling at the damn kids to get off my lawn, let me add to the story what I see as the difference between it working out for me and not for those younger. I bought a house less than 2x our household income. We had a substantial rainy day fund. We took a perfectly conventional 30-yr fixed, 15% down. I was driving a Chevette.

Now I see "kids" with huge student loan debt, driving Beemers, and thinking they need to live in the burbs in a 3200-ft "starter" house which the bank tells them they can afford on this great interest-only, below-market ARM. My anacdotal take is that when the foreclosure wave hit around here, it hit the working poor of course, but it spared the middle and the next-most-hit were several new subdivisions of young families with a white-collar Dad, stay at home Mom, 2 infants and a starter mansion, no savings, and an ARM that just ratcheted up. Scores of those folks lost their houses, many when Dad the hotshot young stockbroker lost his job.

Old-guy moralizing off. Sorry. (But it is all part and parcel with that is wrong with our short-attention-span politics, too.)

I live in Massachusetts and can tell you that under the universal mandated health care plan that the costs have increased. Emergency room usage has not gone done, premiums have gone up (highest in the nation) and access to doctors take longer. The people here know this and that's why Scott Brown was elected. The demoncrats are going to have to vote to cut Medicare reimbursements to doctors by 21% in the fall and Medicare by $1.3B. If they do not go through with the cuts, then the CBO analysis is blown in the first year and deficit continues to explode.

thanks a million for your time, these messages entangle so many resolutions.