On Entitlements, Elizabeth Warren Says "the Metric is Money"

Should health programs be judged by funding, or by quality of care?


If you want to understand the fundamental divide over how people conceive of America's entitlement programs, it's worth looking at a back and forth between Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) and Tom Price, the Republican congressman who is Donald Trump's pick to run the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

In the exchange, which took place during Price's Senate hearing yesterday, Warren asks Price if he will commit to not using his administrative authority to "carry out a single dollar of cuts to Medicare or Medicaid eligibility or benefits."

Price responds that dollar spent shouldn't be the metric by which the program is judged. Instead, he says, what's important when judging these programs if whether beneficiaries are receiving appropriate care.

As is often the case in these hearings, Warren barely lets him respond before she interrupts, with an apology, and then goes on to insist that Price's view is incorrect. "The metric is money," she says. (Watch a clip of the exchange after the jump.)

Warren's question is designed to test whether Price will commit to Donald Trump's campaign trail promise not to cut funding for those programs, but at heart it presumes that the most important measure of success for a government program is its funding level.

Price, in contrast, argues for measuring the effectiveness and results of programs, and then balancing those results against the cost of a given program and, presumably, the cost of available alternatives.

What Warren seems to want from Price is a commitment to spend more regardless of a program's results. Warren's statement that "the metric is money" is a surprisingly blunt expression of a view of public policy that puts funding itself before measured results or any potential trade-offs.

This way of understanding of government programs and their funding presents some obvious problems.

For one thing, they always lead to calls for more federal spending, because any result, good or bad, is proof that more funding is needed. For another, they are unsustainable in the face of the long-term fiscal problems that programs like Medicare are facing. Even if federal officials decline to make cuts of any kind, eventually funding for the country's major entitlements will simply be insufficient to cover program costs. The programs, in effect, will cut themselves. Meanwhile, holding to the strictest version of Warren's no-cuts-to-anything approach would prevent the sort of technocrat reforms championed by many liberal defenders of entitlements.

In other words, even though it is typically espoused by those, like Warren, who view themselves as defenders of entitlements, it prevents improvement and reform, and leads to the exactly the sort of troubled finances we see throughout the system. In the long term, it's a view that undermines the programs it is designed to defend.

Warren's funding-first view of government is common to Democrats, but not limited to them. Republicans tend to hold some version of it, but for defense spending. Both parties are selectively devoted to sensible cuts to programs they dislike and not-so-sensible defenses of spending on programs they do like. That dynamic tends to provide a (highly imperfect) check in the system, since politicians tend to favor one side or the other.

As the next administration settles in, then, what is especially worrying is that Donald Trump, who has called for both increasing military spending and resisting cuts to entitlements, is the rare politician who appears to support both.


NEXT: LGBT Activists Hold Dance Party Protest Outside Mike Pence's Home

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “The metric is money”

    The best summation of the intellectual bankruptcy of the modern left I’ve yet seen.

    1. If you spend a ton of money on it, then your intentions are good, and intentions are all that matter.

      1. Spend money, take money, waste money. Does it really matter as long as the money is flowing through their hands and not someone else’s?

        1. I’m sure they would be okay with taxing the 1% so they could dump the money in a landfill. Income equality is just that important.

          1. The dumping money in a landfill would be good to reduce inflation. No easier way to steal your wealth than cheapening your money

            1. Damn your nimble fingers!

          2. This could help combat inflation.

          3. The ultimate carbon tax.

          4. “Oh, I remember the MoneyHole! We’ve had it for years.”

    2. Spot on.

      And they always conveniently forget whose money they’re throwing around… without any expectation of results.

      When I spend my money, I have a minimum expectation for what that money will get me. When the government spends my money, I’m, what? Supposed to just be super impressed that they’re spending it? Fuck these people.

    3. Gotta keep all those “dedicated public servants” employed digging holes and refilling them.

    4. Helicopters! We got helicopters! Just hold that basket out!

    5. Tort lawyer versus surgeon on money versus care…typical.

        1. Actually, I think she was a bankruptcy lawyer.

          1. She taught bankruptcy law, but as far as I can tell, never practiced. She is just another useless academic turned politician with no real world experience of trying to solve any problem.

      1. A tort lawyer would not care if an operation cost $1 or $1,000,000. It is the result of the surgery that determines if the client/patient and lawyer make money or not.

    6. As I recall, that was the exact way the Obama Administration determined whether the stimulus was effective, how much of the allocated money for a given subprogram was spent. Not any measure of effectiveness, just spent.

      And of course, this is how politicians who promote the federal government putting its fingers everywhere would like to measure their programs. The money spent is something they can point to that everyone can see. Results are murkier, or completely unknowable,

  2. Elizabeth Warren says [stupid thing]
    I’m shocked.

    1. Progs everywhere: [immediately share said stupid thing all over Facebook]

      1. You misspelled “Derpbook.”

      2. Checked Derpbook, you are the prognosticator of prognosticators!

        1. I haven’t even been on the ‘Book in a year!

          1. I wouldn’t either, but my 12 yo daughter has an account and I have to keep an eye on it.

            1. Helps with dates too, huh?
              (asking for OMWC and Crusty)

              1. Not sure what you’re implying here, but my dating life is nonexistent; and my daughter’s had better be, too.

                1. To TS: Ha, ha! Funny.

            2. my 12 yo daughter has an account

              Isn’t the minimum age 14?

              1. Legally it’s 13

      3. My new fave on Derpbook is from friends of mine who assured everyone in 2008 that anyone who was critical of Obama’s Peace Prize was suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome who now solemnly warn everyone that the American Reich begins tomorrow.

        Oh, and that Betsy DeVos is completely unqualified to be Ed Secretary. I get not liking her but unqualified?

        1. b/c she didn’t know the IDEA Act which impacts 10-15% of students. the ones severely disabled. she should take some shit for that.

          1. 10-15% of students are not severely disabled.

            1. by my count, it’s closer to 70%

        2. I’m loving the derpbook “Petition to Have X Persons Cabinet Nomination Withdrawn Due To Lack Of Qualifications” posts.

          Go thank Harry Reid for why your pathetic whining is essentially irrelevant.

        3. well, these are the people who think Hillary was the Best Qualitfied Presidential Candidate EVER so you know they have standards!

        4. “She likes charter schools, there4 she 2 stoopid 2b publick skool fod werker.”

        5. My proggie friends were beating her up over the grizzly bear comment. She used a poor example, but she never said all schools need guns to ward off grizzly bears like they thought she said.

        6. Betsy DeVos is a completely different story and clearly unqualified to be Ed Sec. For some reason, that rube believes that someone would have to pay for the free education. What part of “free” don’t you understand, Betsy????? If you can’t handle simple math like that, how could you be EdSec?!?! #idiot #feelthebern #belieber #capitalismismurder

        7. Her biggest sin (and other Trump appointees) is that does not accept public education is a positive right.

      4. Progs everywhere: [immediately share said stupid thing all over Facebook]

        “Watch Elizabeth Warren DESTROY dumb Republican.”

    2. Since these nominees have a lock on the process, with a Republican majority, why don’t any of them give the straight-up answer when asked these derpy questions?

      Warren: [Will you commit to not] carry out a single dollar of cuts to Medicare or Medicaid eligibility or benefits?
      Price: No way. If I can help more people for less money, I am sure as hell going to do it. Money should not be the metric for–
      Warren: The metric is the money.
      Price: What kind of car do you drive, Ms. Warren? Some sort of Prius? If the metric is money, why aren’t you driving a Lamborghini Veneno?

      *Bonus points, this sort of obnoxious flouting of the senate etiquette rules probably get you a gold star during the Trumpening. A yuge gold star.

    3. Warren arrives home from the auto repair shop.

      Husband: “Liz, did they fix the brakes on the car?”

      Liawatha: “Who cares, I paid $550.”

  3. I was surprised to see that Liz “Dances with Lies” Warren wasn’t on the Senate Indian Affairs committee.


      1. Only an Indian can do something like this!

      2. They thought about that for a long time, and then they decided they had thought about it long enough.

  4. Wow. This is a very embarassing type-0/editing failure

    is the rare politician who appears to support both.

    It should be

    is the *common* politician who appears to support both.

    Most politicians support expanding spending in most areas. It allows them to buy off more voters.

    1. This. The most dovish Democrat in Congress will support defense spending, as long as it’s in his/her district.

      1. Waaait…. you make it sound like these people don’t have any principles…

        1. Oh they have at least one principle… “do whatever will get me re-elected”

    2. “No, fuck you, cut spending.”

  5. So warren hated obamacare’s 700bb cuts to medicare, right?

    1. No, she loved them, because she knew they would never actually happen. It was all about getting their fat fingers around the balls of the health care system. Now, whenever a company does something that the bureau-state doesn’t like, it can just SQUEEZE! and voila, said company backs down.

  6. We use funding as a measure of public schools, and they’re doing awesome!

    1. It’s the labor theory of value applied to government spending.

      1. my proggy friend whined about that. They just can’t contemplate value as what people are willing to pay for it.

        I can’t draw anything, but I worked REALLY hard on this painting, please pay me a lot of money for it! I put a lot of labor into it

        1. And my art degree has me in $100,000 of loan debt!

        2. “The value of a thing is what that thing will bring”

          1. really it’s them bitching that others don’t value things the same way they do

  7. Warren’s statement that “the metric is money” is a surprisingly blunt expression of a view of public policy that puts funding itself before measured results or any potential trade-offs.

    We already knew this… now we just know it.

  8. How many masks do these people have, anyway? Because hardly a day goes by that they don’t discard another one.

    1. It’s like when you play peek-a-boo with a baby.

      You cover your face and go ‘boo!’ when you uncover it, and the baby laughs uproariously.

      Well, they think we’re the baby.

      And we’re not laughing.

  9. Should have said back to her “So by your metric the VA is run just fine, eh?”

  10. Alternative response:

    “You’re right, Senator Warren. The metric is money – the less we spend, the better.”

    1. Your talents are wasted, RC

      1. RC Dean for head of the DOJ!

    2. Clearly the answer is to injure or infect the poor and elderly. That spending metric will shoot up nicely.

      1. He should have asked Warren about the blankets.

      2. He should have asked Warren about the blankets.

  11. Her understanding of the use of metrics is plainly dim at best.

  12. I really have to wonder what the long-term thinking of the technocratic wing of the Democratic Party is. These people are smart enough to know that the funding of existing entitlements is not sustainable, and that raising taxes on the rich alone doesn’t come close to solving the problem. Yet they never acknowledge the obvious fact that there is then a choice between spending cuts and raising taxes across the board.

    Bernie Sanders, for all his faults, at least acknowledged that taxes would have to be raised on everyone under his plans. Yes, his plans were stupid and counterproductive, and the funding was still not all there under any reasonable analysis, but he at least acknowledged this fact.

    The technocratic wing is supposed to be the realm of really smart experts, and they won’t acknowledge this. They aren’t as smart as they think they are, but I think the explanation here is that there is no long-term plan because they know in the short-run they can run on spending increases while only raising taxes on the rich, which is a platform that sells better than the alternatives currently, and when the shit hits the fan, they can blame Republicans for protecting the 1% and causing the mess.

    1. If California is any indication, they will raise taxes on everybody but just put up the smoke-screen of raising taxes on “the rich” even more. The real revenue increase will come from the former, but they will pretend like it came from the latter. The real problem, however, will continue to be that they raise spending faster than revenue.

      1. It’s harder to do that at the national level. There’s no national sales or property taxes. And people generally pay attention to federal income tax more than state since it’s a larger bill. I don’t think you can raise taxes significantly on a broad basis at a national level without people noticing.

        1. At the national level, they get to create debt instead of directly raising taxes. It has the same effect but is much better hidden.

    2. there is no long-term plan because they know in the short-run they can run on spending increases while only raising taxes on the rich

      This. They have very little incentive to worry about long-term problems. Why would they? They don’t bear the cost of those problems. But they do reap the short-term benefits of making the long-term problems worse.

    3. These people are smart enough

      I think your mistake is obvious.

    4. They believe we will ‘grow our way out’ of pur fiscal problems perpetually.

      Unfortunately Piketty was right about one thing: we are likely entering a period of stagnation where each permit of growth is harder won than the last. Curiously the same progressives who love the guy ditched this contention that underpin his whole theory.

  13. As the next administration settles in, then, what is especially worrying is that Donald Trump, who has called for both increasing military spending and resisting cuts to entitlements, is the rare politician who appears to support both.

    In what universe is a politician who promises to increase military spending and resist cuts to entitlements “rare”?

    The “rare” ones are the ones who DON’T do this.

    1. Trump is the only one who publicly called for this.

  14. I’ve got a homelessness problem we should put lizzy in charge of. She’d fit right in. Spending on the problem is higher than ever, and the problem is worse than ever.

    1. Because it needs moar funding. Duh. It’s like you don’t even government.

  15. This whole thing reminds me of that line Dan Aykroyd has in Ghostbusters: “You don’t know what it’s like out there! I’ve worked in the private sector. They expect results.”

  16. BTW, I often disagree with you Suderman, but you have your moments.

  17. I think at first Warren was trying to say that Trump made the metric money with his own statements.

    In other words, her question had absolutely nothing to do with discovering whether Price would make a good HHS. Her question was 100% grandstanding (I guess for the tiny percentage of people who watch C-SPAN or clips of Elizabeth Warren videos) in an attempt to either paint Price into a box with Trumps words or make Trump look like a liar. Then she gets on a roll lecturing Price like he’s worse than an idiot child so she can make herself look high and mighty. I think this is what’s known as “destroying” your opponent. Politics at its finest.

    1. From what I’ve seen of all of these confirmation hearings, all they are is a chance for Senators to climb on their soapboxes and bloviate about whatever topic seems to catch their fancy. Why else would a Senator harass the nominated HHS Secretary about global warming? They are just making speeches.

      1. If I were ever a nominee I don’t think I’d tolerate it very well.

        Gotta love how they go on and on to make their damn point and then when the nominee tries to give an intelligent answer they say “Look, time is very short here.”

        1. God knows I wouldn’t. I turned down an association GC job (which has a lot of lobbying) because, as I told the departing GC “I couldn’t hide my contempt for the people you have to deal with”.

          1. But if you killed just one politician it would have all been worth it.

      2. From what I’ve seen of all of these confirmation hearings

        Aside from the Iran-Contra hearings, I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a hearing where 90% wasn’t a committee member bloviating in the hopes of getting a soundbite on local news.

  18. Costco fined for not pulling its weight in the War on Drugs.

    “Pharmacies across this country are on the leading edge of the battle against our prescription drug abuse crisis,” U.S. Attorney Annette Hayes of the Western District of Washington said in a statement. “A company such as Costco that distributes a significant volume of controlled substances has a responsibility to ensure it complies with regulations that help prevent opioids and other dangerous drugs from being misused or otherwise added to the illegal marketplace.”

    1. Damn. Costco is the most reasonable pharmacy around about filling scripts for my dog. That isn’t a joke, he has seizures and takes several different meds daily.

      1. DEA agent: Your “dog”? Riiiiight.

        1. He has super extra glaucoma, officer!

  19. I am convinced that Trump picked the libertarians only because they are the most despised.

  20. I am so sick of seeing her dried-up, pinched, whiny face.

      1. *Face, How Narrows with Gazes*

  21. She’s the grownup on fiscal matters in the room. That’s why she will not allow his obfuscations to derail her gotcha.

  22. “The metric is money,” she says.

    Government, in a nutshell.

    1. Well, government in a 1000lb bomb, but sure, I get your point.

  23. Warren’s statement that “the metric is money” is a surprisingly blunt expression of a view of public policy that puts funding itself before measured results or any potential trade-offs.


  24. Forgive a dumb Canuck for what may be a total n00b question, but can any of these Democrats reasonably expect to block these appointments? Is Warren actually trying to stop this guy, or is she merely grandstanding?

    I’d understand they could block appointments if they had control of at least part of the deliberative bodies in question, but I was under the impression that they’re SOL on that front. Is this just Kabuki at this point?

    1. Yes, showtime for their supporters.

    2. The best they can do is try to get Republicans to touch third rails on the record.

      1. Like I said, intellectual bankruptcy.

      2. And if, as a potential appointee, you don’t even care if it’s a supposed “Third Rail”?

        I would’ve answered her question as a request for a fact: “Yes, Senator, money is the metric.” Note that in my response I wouldn’t have volunteered any info about whether it’s a good metric or whether it should continue being the metric, only its present status. Short, sweet, and utterly unhelpful to her.

        And the day my appointment was confirmed, I’d have a speech ready-to-go for the media, in which I acknowledged the Senator’s incisive observation that money was the metric, thanked her for pointing it out and highlighting it, and why it was now time to change that woeful fact.

      3. Haha, fiscal reform of the bureaucracy is s third rail? No budfy, that’s a fucking selling point. Even most Democrats will be embarrassed for Warren here, not price. Or for that matter DeVos, since most Americans favor school choice. Or the guy Sanders tried to ‘gotcha’ even after he wholly agreed with the scientific consensus on global warming (IPCC estimates the temperature change as a function of CO2 doubling is between 1.5 and 4, recently downgraded from 2 to 4, and some credible estimates from recent research with a lower bound closer to 1 degree. So yeah, there is definitely not ‘no debate’, Sanders is just plain retarded).

        All in all, mostly is the Dems embarrassing themselves.

  25. Does anyone have any idea what this cunt’s personal worth is?

    Off to google…

    1. Around 15M officially. I am guessing that means 100+

  26. Is Warren actually trying to stop this guy, or is she merely grandstanding?

    [insert knee-slap gif]

    1. Okay. Kabuki it is then.

      Like I said elsewhere ? this guy should’ve brought a smartphone packed to the gills with games. Might as well get some enjoyment out of this process.

  27. RE: On Entitlements, Elizabeth Warren Says “the Metric is Money”
    Should health programs be judged by funding, or by quality of care?

    Elizabeth Warren, aka, Pochantas, is correct.
    Money solves all problems, and as Comrade Krugman has said many times, the government just needs more of the little people’s money if The State is to solve all your problems.
    More money for The State will improve the quality of care in any government program.
    Take social security for example. If SS had more money, there would be no more incompetence or fraud in the program.
    One must have faith in our beloved socialist slavers fucking up our lives and the treasury draining social programs if we are to become a true socialist utopia that Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela now enjoy.
    So cough it up, people.
    Cough it up now!

  28. A while ago, George Will distilled the essence of progressivism into what he called progressives’ one-word catechism: “More.”

    Evidently Liz Warren agrees.

  29. I am so sick of seeing her dried-up, pinched, whiny face.

    She probably spent thousands of hours in front of the mirror perfecting that haughty exasperated schoolmarm look.

    1. Nah. It comes naturally, I have no doubt. Her particular special version of RBF.

      1. I believe that look comes from jamming a pickle up your ass. I’m not going to personally test the theory, but it sounds plausible.

    2. Tony does it bother you if you dont have freedom to control me?

      Do you like bee hives?

  30. I love how the senators will repeatedly cut off the respondents by saying “how limited on time” they are, then proceed to grandstand for another 5 minutes, repeating the same statements over and over.

    1. Yeah, if I was on the receiving end of this treatment, I’d be tempted to play a game on a smartphone while they were bloviating. The gentleman in this clip is a paragon of politeness, which she doesn’t deserve.

    2. They’re being truthful… they only have 5 minutes to grandstand.

  31. “The metric [that I’m asking about] is money.” Are you people really this dumb or are you just pretending?

    And Republicans don’t care about metrics of social good anyway. If they did they’d long ago have abandoned their stupid market-worshiping bullshit.

    1. Tell us more about how markets don’t deliver social goods. It’s just fascinating how, in a market economy, no one has any incentive to produce goods and services that people need. Why, the last time I went to the grocery store, all the shelves were empty because the market wants me to starve!

      1. They would be empty if nobody had built a road to the store.

        I can’t further respond to your insane strawman.

        1. People wouldnt trade goods because there is no road for cars? How did west of the appalachians get settled initially without roads?

          My god you are a dumbass.

          1. Slowly and dangerously.

            1. And her in a nutshell is Tony’s approach to life.

        2. ROADS!

          Another intellectually bankrupt argument.

          1. You’re not allowed to mention the most obvious rebuttal to my crap, it’s in the rules!

            1. It’s not a rebuttal. It’s a red herring. Roads are mostly built by contractors and funded by taxes collected from property owners. The only thing the government was “necessary” for was subsidizing unnecessary roads after confiscating the property to build them.

              1. Nongovernment entities do not build roads. It’s just never happened. Crazy talk.

        3. There would be no government constructed roads if there was not preexisting private commerce to tax. The market precedes government, and any government that destroys its market will destroy its nation.

          1. Whoa tony he or she just put a fork in you

        4. They would be empty if nobody had built a road to the store.

          Hmmmm…check NYSE ticker. Yep, billions of shares changed hands again today.

    2. What are metrics of social good?

      Can you help me out for social goodness? Or are you a cheap miserable pos like the other progs i know

      1. Are more or fewer old people dying as a result of poverty? What’s the average life expectancy in the US, and how does it compare to other countries?

        If you don’t think that improving such metrics is the job of government, then you can’t really go around saying it is the job of government to do much less vital things like define the boundaries of your property or promote capitalism.

        1. Didnt it go down recently? Old people already had medicare so im not sure what you are talking about

          What metrics were improved by government and how? What are the results?

          1. You do know that Medicare is a government program, yes?

            1. Yea you said it helped life expectancy but i recall it went down.

              What are you basing your claim on? When to when

        2. At what cost? You can use your argument to justify totalitarianism.

          It isnt government’s job to take care of you. Stop being a cheap ass

        3. Once upon a time, there existed leftists who were smart and honest enough to recognize that without private property, markets, and capital accumulation, no amount of government action (= shooting people or threatening to shoot them) could accomplish socially beneficial ends. These people were known as anti-communists because they were smart enough to recognize that destroying human initiative and ingenuity resulted in far more suffering and poverty than existed originally.

          Then they all got lobotomies or died off, and now we’re left with you morons.

        4. Yeah, it says right there in that old dried up old parchment that the job of the government is to raise life expectancies. Yup.

          (insipid ‘welfare clause’ answer is expected)

          1. Look, the entirety of the document and its supporting documents is negated by a single clause. This is completely plausible and makes perfect sense. Just accept it and you too will learn to love the government.

        5. Tony dying would be a social good.

        6. Life expectancy – hummm how many new drugs come from private industry vs how many come from the government? You can even add Europe into the government.

          Wait just last year fat was bad for you, now it’s good and salt is bad..wait that’s not right…it’s sugar. Nice changing story. How many people has the government food guidelines killed Tony. I’m so glad the government is doing such a good job with their social good! I know it’s alllll feelings.

          Tony only cares about 2 old people. His parents because he lives in their shed (Basement was too good)

        7. In Venezuela? More, I think.

  32. That was almost the exact same exchange as between Betsy DeVos and Patty Murray – she wanted DeVos to commit to not cutting one dime of federal aid to schools and a promise to not attempt to privatize any schools as a good-faith token of her devotion to the chillllldrun. Because that’s how you measure how much our children is learning, by how much money is spent on their education.

    You always know it’s a fucked-up program when they measure its success by its inputs.

  33. Tony arent those roads leading to global calamity via climate change and lining pockets of oil fat cats

    1. Yep. Any prog who really cared about t global warming would want to privatize roads. If roads pay per use there’d be a lot less gratuitous driving.

      But alas they don’t really care.

  34. In the exchange, which took place during Price’s Senate hearing yesterday, Warren asks Price if he will commit to not using his administrative authority to “carry out a single dollar of cuts to Medicare or Medicaid eligibility or benefits.”

    Fuck this lying, hypocritical, POS bitch.

    1. Isn’t that a Congressional, not executive, prerogative? And if Congress orders it, what authority would he have to refuse?

      1. Are yout talking about the spending or the act mentioned in the last line?

        1. That depends, does fucking a Senator constitute an act of interstate commerce?

  35. Found this reposted by someone on Facebook (so I don’t know the person who actually wrote it):

    “If you aren’t concerned about Betsy DeVos, you should be. Our tax dollars should not be funding private schools. If you need further evidence of why that is, please take a look at some excerpts from one of my middle school history textbooks from my Christian school (2006-2007). Blatant propaganda against feminism, socialism, people of color, and even John Steinbeck.”

    A lot of the pictures had legitimately stupid text, but the double standard and hypocrisy is astounding. Everyone knows public school textbooks never contain stupid or inaccurate material, and of course it’s totally ok to push blatant propaganda in favor of my ideologies in public schools, but parents send their kids to schools that do the opposite.

    1. When public schools force untrue crap on students, it’s also the Christians in Texas doing that.

      1. Look, it’s okay for us to spread propaganda, because somewhere somebody else is doing it, too!

      2. http://www.textbookreviews.org….._11_06.htm

        Just one of many pages with many examples of factual errors in Cakifornua 8th grade textbooks.

        But no, never happened, move along, government works!

    2. Blatant propaganda against … people of color

      I’d like to see what this entailed.

      1. Some of it was legitimately cooky “God sent the Cherokee on the Trail of Tears so they could become Christians” sort of nonsense.

        1. On a scale from:

          1: Scarcity is a fundamental law of economics
          10: FDR saved the country from the Great Depression

          I give it an 8

        2. Never heard that one before. tha fuck?

          1. I hadn’t either.

    3. Why do they have their middle school history books

    4. I suppose they’ve never considered the relative harm between having a few hundred people deciding acceptable viewpoints, versus a hundred million or so.

  36. Iowahawk:

    Tomorrow, let’s come together as Americans and be grateful for the peaceful transfer of power from the Iranians to the Russians.

    1. Comedy GOLD!

      I think you folks need to petition your FedGov to have Iowahawk declared a cultural treasure of the American people.

      1. Twitter Laureate

  37. Great assessment Mr. Suderman. The Elizabeth Warrens all over the country along with politicians on both sides of the fence who have failed to rein them in are responsible for our out of control debt. Your portrayal of Warren is that of someone who has a failure to think. What an incredible indictment of the fools in Boston who have put her and her compadre in the other house, Ed Markey, into office. We’re in for a very interesting next 4 years, and one can hope that some long needed sweeping changes are about to begin.

  38. “The metric is money,” she says.

    Well that just about says it all, doesn’t it? It is self-parody of the accusation that proggies and other big-gov’t types think that one can just throw (other peoples) money at something until the end of time. Results be damned.

    1. If this weren’t a pole-greasing exercise by the appointee, I would have loved this response as well:

      “So, in your view, it doesn’t matter what it is spent on, as long as we spend more and more?”

  39. On Entitlements, Elizabeth Warren Says “the Metric is Money”

    Good Marxist. Inputs are what matters. Outputs are inevitable results of the historical material dialectic.

  40. Dr. Price responds:

    “Senator, my authorized budget originates in congress and my instructions come from my president. I have agreed with the President Elect to serve the nation and will do whatever my conscience, the constitution, and my president allow. I am not authorized personal discretion over taking or using taxpayer’s funds.”

  41. You can trust Ms 1/32 on this. She no speak with forked tongue…

  42. It’s like the mentality of those who go to casinos. If you’re winning money, you’re on a roll and need to bet more. If you’re losing money, you have to win your money back and need to bet more.

    1. The Krugman wager?

  43. When on earth has the government been able or incentivized to adequately assess quality of service?

  44. Suderman get’s it almost right. But Margaret Thatcher understood looter metrics much more clearly than the blonde looter with the harangue. The only metric looters respect is OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY. That’s the stuff communism runs out of.

  45. Warren asks Price if he will commit to not using his administrative authority to “carry out a single dollar of cuts to Medicare or Medicaid eligibility or benefits.”

    I sure hope he will be cutting!

  46. my goodness….i just watched it. it’s even worse than the quote itself.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.