Posted on | October 1, 2013 | 97 Comments
“Swing voters.” “Independent voters.” “Low-information voters.”
President Obama’s re-election campaign engaged in a sophisticated microtargeting effort that, among other things, aimed TV ads at viewers of late-night comedy, ESPN and the TV Land network.
In other words, the president’s campaign deliberately sought potential voters who were apathetic, disengaged from politics and current affairs, whose lack of interest in (and consequent ignorance of) the political process made them “persuadable” to Obama.
This is how you get weird exit-poll results like 18% of Ohio voters who described themselves as “conservative” voting for Obama.
Obama was re-elected with a hurricane-force tailwind of ignorance, by voters who don’t even know who Harry Reid is, which makes it rather difficult for them to blame Reid for the shutdown.
Stupid voters elect drunks to Congress — the House floor smelled like a distillery during last night’s 9 p.m. vote – and we are subjected to the pathetic spectacle of politics-by-opinion-poll:
Why is the media even asking questions like this? Are the people who answer polls like this fully-informed about the complex causation factors whereby government policy affects economics?
People who don’t currently have health insurance are likely to believe that ObamaCare will “help” them, if they think of it as a something-for-nothing giveaway — “Free Stuff!” — but as P.J. O’Rourke once observed about rent-control policies, the problem with something-for-nothing is that you quickly run out of something and end up with a whole lot of nothing. Demand for anything worth having will inevitably exceed the supply, and this is why we have prices. Attempts to evade the market mechanism of prices, whether through mandates or subsidies or some other government regulatory apparatus, tend to produce market distortions and shortages.
Federal and state governments have been interfering with the market mechanisms of the medical industry and health insurance for decades, and have “succeeded” in the way such interventions usually do, by making everything more complicated, and more expensive for everybody except for those who get health care “free.” Of course, someone must pay for “free” health care, and the transfer of this cost from the recipient of treatment to taxpayers has consequences.
If people need “free” health care because they are able-bodied but unemployed, wouldn’t we have more jobs and better jobs if the economy were prosperous and growing? And if we had lower taxes and fewer regulations, wouldn’t the economy be more healthy?
Furthermore, wouldn’t the economy be stronger overall — wouldn’t there be more demand for goods and services — if people had more incentive to work harder, work more efficiently and work longer hours, in order to make themselves so valuable as workers that employers would compete to hire them, offering health-insurance benefits as a bonus to secure their services? Yet if we establish a system where people receive health insurance whether they are working or unemployed, whether they are efficient and diligent or unproductive and slothful, haven’t we thereby removed a basic incentive to hard work? And, when you think about it, haven’t we removed an incentive to good health?
Have another donut, fatso! Don’t worry about the consequences, because the government will pick up the tab for your heart medicine, your diabetes treatments and therapy for your bad knees.
Also, they’ll pay for your Viagra, because fat guys need love, too.
What about malingerers and hypochondriacs? Everybody knows that some people fake illness, or use relatively minor maladies as an excuse to avoid work. And everybody knows people who are pathologically obsessed with their health, rushing to the doctor every time they get an ache or pain. Some people so enjoy the sympathy they get for being sick that they define their existence by their diseases. You meet these people and haven’t talked to them for five minutes before they start telling you about their “chronic fatigue syndrome” or bipolar disorder or whatever it is that keeps them going to the doctor every week to treat a problem that never gets better.
It would be unfair to say that all such people are suffering from psychosomatic illness or are merely too weak-minded to overcome minor difficulties, but this whiny victimhood attitude — “Feel sorry for me, I’m sick!” — seems far more commonplace now than it was 20 or 30 years ago, and excuse me for suspecting that malingerers and hypochondriacs enthusiastically support ObamaCare.
Subsidizing weaklings and whiners, by providing them “free” health care at taxpayer expense? Not just “no” — hell, no.
Not even the most conservative Republican in Congress is going to say this, because they don’t want to sound “mean-spirited,” but frankly I think we need more mean-spiritedness in Washington. We need politicians who aren’t constantly flattering the idiots who vote for them, who don’t pander to lazy moochers who look at government as if it were Santa Claus giving them Christmas presents.
What we have now is a government of the moochers, by the moochers, for the moochers, with subsidies and free stuff for all.
Or, at least, we had this government, before it shut down. And the idiots chattering on cable TV news shows seem to think this shutdown is a bad idea, for which somebody deserves blame.
If you take that kind of frantic nonsense seriously, you should seek psychiatric treatment immediately. Send the bill to ObamaCare.
I was going to make a shutdown joke, but I can't, because they shut down the federal joke supply.
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) October 1, 2013