<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Baracktile Dysfunction part 3: Mandate for Mandates</title>
	<atom:link href="http://independentbloghorn.com/2009/04/baracktile-dysfunction-part-3-mandate-for-mandates/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://independentbloghorn.com/2009/04/baracktile-dysfunction-part-3-mandate-for-mandates/</link>
	<description>It takes something obnoxious to avert stupidity</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:45:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: It&#8217;s the economy, stupid! &#124; The Independent Bloghorn</title>
		<link>http://independentbloghorn.com/2009/04/baracktile-dysfunction-part-3-mandate-for-mandates/comment-page-1/#comment-246</link>
		<dc:creator>It&#8217;s the economy, stupid! &#124; The Independent Bloghorn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2009 06:18:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://independentbloghorn.com/?p=263#comment-246</guid>
		<description>[...] It is nice to see that Chuckles has made his way back to the Bloghorn for some rigorous debate!  Chuckles is in italics.  This is a comment from Baracktile Dysfunction 3. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] It is nice to see that Chuckles has made his way back to the Bloghorn for some rigorous debate!  Chuckles is in italics.  This is a comment from Baracktile Dysfunction 3. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chuckles</title>
		<link>http://independentbloghorn.com/2009/04/baracktile-dysfunction-part-3-mandate-for-mandates/comment-page-1/#comment-241</link>
		<dc:creator>Chuckles</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2009 05:47:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://independentbloghorn.com/?p=263#comment-241</guid>
		<description>If there&#039;s one thing I find absolutely adorable it&#039;s a conservative clinging to the notion of &quot;personal responsibility&quot;. It is precious beyond words. I feel like a grandmother resisting the impulse to pinch big chubby, freckley cheeks. 

I wish to warmly welcome these intrepid individuals clinging to the notion of &quot;you make your bed, now sleep in it&quot; solidly into the 21st century. But before I do that, I feel like I should welcome you into the 20th century.  I do this, because it was the late 19th century that did away with personal responsibility with actuarial sciences. Or let me say this more clearly: the State did not kill personal responsibility, insurance did. 

I think I understand the impulse, and feel free to tell me if I get it wrong: &quot;personal responsibility&quot; forces the moral imperative that actions have consequences, and we make better choices when we pay for our mistakes. This idea, while satisfying to the soul, is patently false. 150 years ago we began seeing the ENORMOUS efficiency gains brought about by risk assessment and insurance. Our society is where it is today because of it. To reverse this now, after a century and a half, would be cutting off our face to spite our nose. There would be nothing left.
  
We do not live on the Oregon Trail, friends. We all pay into systems based on systematic risk of us costing the system. You don&#039;t drive down the street, bump another car, or a kid, and pay tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for your lack of caution. You pay your insurance premium, your deductible, and the actuary reassess your risk, and you pay a new rate, or you are excused from the system (when your risk has become too great).

As for the rest of your article about congress having balls? Bread and circus. It was a show for angry Americans to see congress in action. What else could have been done? America didn&#039;t want a reasoned response. It wanted heads to roll. And who believes Obama was really &quot;choking on his own anger&quot; as he said. He didn&#039;t care. But they had to pretend, because the American people were so upset.

I close this with a warning that I hate the little comment box, I have not edited anything I&#039;ve written, and am much too lazy to paste it into Word for editing. Hope it makes some sense, but if it doesn&#039;t, allow me to concisely recap: You don&#039;t understand the economy.

I hope this was clear.

Hope you are well,
Chuckles</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If there&#8217;s one thing I find absolutely adorable it&#8217;s a conservative clinging to the notion of &#8220;personal responsibility&#8221;. It is precious beyond words. I feel like a grandmother resisting the impulse to pinch big chubby, freckley cheeks. </p>
<p>I wish to warmly welcome these intrepid individuals clinging to the notion of &#8220;you make your bed, now sleep in it&#8221; solidly into the 21st century. But before I do that, I feel like I should welcome you into the 20th century.  I do this, because it was the late 19th century that did away with personal responsibility with actuarial sciences. Or let me say this more clearly: the State did not kill personal responsibility, insurance did. </p>
<p>I think I understand the impulse, and feel free to tell me if I get it wrong: &#8220;personal responsibility&#8221; forces the moral imperative that actions have consequences, and we make better choices when we pay for our mistakes. This idea, while satisfying to the soul, is patently false. 150 years ago we began seeing the ENORMOUS efficiency gains brought about by risk assessment and insurance. Our society is where it is today because of it. To reverse this now, after a century and a half, would be cutting off our face to spite our nose. There would be nothing left.</p>
<p>We do not live on the Oregon Trail, friends. We all pay into systems based on systematic risk of us costing the system. You don&#8217;t drive down the street, bump another car, or a kid, and pay tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for your lack of caution. You pay your insurance premium, your deductible, and the actuary reassess your risk, and you pay a new rate, or you are excused from the system (when your risk has become too great).</p>
<p>As for the rest of your article about congress having balls? Bread and circus. It was a show for angry Americans to see congress in action. What else could have been done? America didn&#8217;t want a reasoned response. It wanted heads to roll. And who believes Obama was really &#8220;choking on his own anger&#8221; as he said. He didn&#8217;t care. But they had to pretend, because the American people were so upset.</p>
<p>I close this with a warning that I hate the little comment box, I have not edited anything I&#8217;ve written, and am much too lazy to paste it into Word for editing. Hope it makes some sense, but if it doesn&#8217;t, allow me to concisely recap: You don&#8217;t understand the economy.</p>
<p>I hope this was clear.</p>
<p>Hope you are well,<br />
Chuckles</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: C Stevens</title>
		<link>http://independentbloghorn.com/2009/04/baracktile-dysfunction-part-3-mandate-for-mandates/comment-page-1/#comment-185</link>
		<dc:creator>C Stevens</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:16:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://independentbloghorn.com/?p=263#comment-185</guid>
		<description>Very good points! I&#039;m not 100% convinced that allowing the banks to fail, or any other large corporation that employes a great number of workers, is the right way to go. What I am sure about is, we&#039;re greatly devaluing the US dollar by bailing out these banks and other large corporations. We all know that the devaluation of the US dollar is a VERY bad thing. So maybe it is best to just let these irresponsible corporations fail, take our lumps, learn from our mistakes and become stronger. I do feel that we are becomming a weaker nation due to these bailouts.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very good points! I&#8217;m not 100% convinced that allowing the banks to fail, or any other large corporation that employes a great number of workers, is the right way to go. What I am sure about is, we&#8217;re greatly devaluing the US dollar by bailing out these banks and other large corporations. We all know that the devaluation of the US dollar is a VERY bad thing. So maybe it is best to just let these irresponsible corporations fail, take our lumps, learn from our mistakes and become stronger. I do feel that we are becomming a weaker nation due to these bailouts.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
