CZAR Cass Sunstein: Who is he?

[veritas]

Why don't you wait until he does something objectionable? Czars should be big picture people, observing smaller components and making adjustments when they find something that make be more workable.

You got rid of Jones, and I think that was a bad move, the guy had a lot of good ideas, a lot of them anti-big government and practical solutions. But he didn't get out of the gate because of paranoia. Our loss. I hope he turns it around and makes big piles of money and rubs your noses in it.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Why don't you wait until he does something objectionable? Czars should be big picture people, observing smaller components and making adjustments when they find something that make be more workable.

You got rid of Jones, and I think that was a bad move, the guy had a lot of good ideas, a lot of them anti-big government and practical solutions. But he didn't get out of the gate because of paranoia. Our loss. I hope he turns it around and makes big piles of money and rubs your noses in it.

I wasn't all that fired up with jones, this guy was my "bad czar" but glenn beck chose to go after van jones and then talk radio followed when beck got ratings from it.

I'm glad that a racist is gone from the czar position though.

 

[veritas]

I'll be happy when the racists in congress are eliminated. That southern contingent makes me cringe.

 

[The T]

This guy has some ideas that I would not like to see in practice.

The theories and ideas make intellecutal sense. It just leaves me with that "wrong" feeling when i think about them being implimented. Social engineering sounds like a bad idea IMO.

Sunstein is one who professes to be a Constitutiional Scholar, but voices anything BUT Constitional ideals...

OK to take organs with NO CONSENT?

The Fuckstick under his ideas ASSumes too much and thinks that just because people are citizens their property (in this case ORGANS), are ripe for taking without consent.

Another Obama Idot that needs to resign.

 

[concept]

In protecting safety, health, and the environment, government has increasingly relied on cost-benefit analysis. In undertaking cost-benefit analysis, the government has monetized risks of death through the idea of "value of a statistical life" (VSL), currently assessed at about $6.1 million. Many analysts, however, have suggested that the government should rely instead on the "value of a statistical life year" (VSLY), in a way that would likely result in significantly lower benefits calculations for elderly people, and significantly higher benefits calculations for children. I urge that the government should indeed focus on life-years rather than lives. A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people. The hard question involves not whether to undertake this shift, but how to monetize life-years, and here willingness to pay (WTP) is generally the place to begin. Nor does a focus on life-years run afoul of ethical limits on cost-benefit analysis. It is relevant in this connection that every old person was once young, and that if all goes well, young people will eventually be old. In fact, a focus on statistical lives is more plausibly a form of illicit discrimination than a focus on life-years, because the idea of statistical lives treats the years of older people as worth far more than the years of younger people. Discussion is also devoted to the uses and limits of the willingness to pay criterion in regulatory policy, with reference to the underlying welfare goal and to the nature of moral and distributional constraints on cost-benefit balancing.

It seems like a talking out of both sides of your mouth statement here. I could be wrong.

SSRN-Lives, Life-Years, and Willingness to Pay by Cass Sunstein

hmmm.. almost death panel-like.

 

[veritas]

In protecting safety, health, and the environment, government has increasingly relied on cost-benefit analysis. In undertaking cost-benefit analysis, the government has monetized risks of death through the idea of "value of a statistical life" (VSL), currently assessed at about $6.1 million. Many analysts, however, have suggested that the government should rely instead on the "value of a statistical life year" (VSLY), in a way that would likely result in significantly lower benefits calculations for elderly people, and significantly higher benefits calculations for children. I urge that the government should indeed focus on life-years rather than lives. A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people. The hard question involves not whether to undertake this shift, but how to monetize life-years, and here willingness to pay (WTP) is generally the place to begin. Nor does a focus on life-years run afoul of ethical limits on cost-benefit analysis. It is relevant in this connection that every old person was once young, and that if all goes well, young people will eventually be old. In fact, a focus on statistical lives is more plausibly a form of illicit discrimination than a focus on life-years, because the idea of statistical lives treats the years of older people as worth far more than the years of younger people. Discussion is also devoted to the uses and limits of the willingness to pay criterion in regulatory policy, with reference to the underlying welfare goal and to the nature of moral and distributional constraints on cost-benefit balancing.

It seems like a talking out of both sides of your mouth statement here. I could be wrong.

SSRN-Lives, Life-Years, and Willingness to Pay by Cass Sunstein

hmmm.. almost death panel-like.

Not at all. Behavioral economics is really out there. But the government does study lots of these things to try and get a read on where things need to be done. Trying to properly express groups of people mathematically is difficult. If you had taken any time to try to understand what is written, you wouldn't make such stupid statements.

 

[Polk]

It seems like a talking out of both sides of your mouth statement here. I could be wrong.

SSRN-Lives, Life-Years, and Willingness to Pay by Cass Sunstein

hmmm.. almost death panel-like.

Not at all. Behavioral economics is really out there. But the government does study lots of these things to try and get a read on where things need to be done. Trying to properly express groups of people mathematically is difficult. If you had taken any time to try to understand what is written, you wouldn't make such stupid statements.

I'd also pretty interesting to note that conservatives are some of the biggest advocates of this field, especially as it pertains to environmental regulation.

 

[Zoom-boing]

PP, here's some more background on him.

Based on this alone, the guy should be gone:

"In his 2004 book, Animal Rights, he suggested that animals ought to be able to bring suit, with private citizens acting as their representatives, to ensure that animals are not treated badly."

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/SunsteinCass.html

 

[Sinatra]

I'll be happy when the racists in congress are eliminated. That southern contingent makes me cringe.

Liberals are the true racists of modern America...

 

[Sinatra]

PP, here's some more background on him.

Based on this alone, the guy should be gone:

"In his 2004 book, Animal Rights, he suggested that animals ought to be able to bring suit, with private citizens acting as their representatives, to ensure that animals are not treated badly."

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/SunsteinCass.html

He is definitely extreme - though more of a scientific belligerent than Van Jones, who was just an outright belligerent. It is a tougher case to make against Sunstein, even though it is an equally worthy one as Van Jones.

We shall see...

 

[The T]

In protecting safety, health, and the environment, government has increasingly relied on cost-benefit analysis. In undertaking cost-benefit analysis, the government has monetized risks of death through the idea of "value of a statistical life" (VSL), currently assessed at about $6.1 million. Many analysts, however, have suggested that the government should rely instead on the "value of a statistical life year" (VSLY), in a way that would likely result in significantly lower benefits calculations for elderly people, and significantly higher benefits calculations for children. I urge that the government should indeed focus on life-years rather than lives. A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people. The hard question involves not whether to undertake this shift, but how to monetize life-years, and here willingness to pay (WTP) is generally the place to begin. Nor does a focus on life-years run afoul of ethical limits on cost-benefit analysis. It is relevant in this connection that every old person was once young, and that if all goes well, young people will eventually be old. In fact, a focus on statistical lives is more plausibly a form of illicit discrimination than a focus on life-years, because the idea of statistical lives treats the years of older people as worth far more than the years of younger people. Discussion is also devoted to the uses and limits of the willingness to pay criterion in regulatory policy, with reference to the underlying welfare goal and to the nature of moral and distributional constraints on cost-benefit balancing.

It seems like a talking out of both sides of your mouth statement here. I could be wrong.

SSRN-Lives, Life-Years, and Willingness to Pay by Cass Sunstein

hmmm.. almost death panel-like.

Indeed.

 

[The T]

I'll be happy when the racists in congress are eliminated. That southern contingent makes me cringe.

Liberals are the true racists of modern America...

They have been for Decades even a Century since the Civil War. Remember the infamous "Carpetbaggers"? Guess whom?

It continues to this day with a different face.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Thank you to Pale Rider for showing us ANOTHER aspect of CZAR Cass Sunstein

It's the "Fairness Doctrine," repackaged and reintroduced. obama's nazi style, storm trooper, czars will NOT be happy until they SHUT ALL CONSERVATIVE TALK AND DISSENSION DOWN. So get ready people, YOU could be the NEXT person told to SHUT THE HELL UP, FUCK your constitutional rights.

Cass Sunstein drafted 'New Deal Fairness Doctrine'​

Asserts government should regulate broadcasting as an imposed end to segregation.

By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

JERUSALEM – President Obama's newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, drew up a "First Amendment New Deal," a new "Fairness Doctrine" that would include the establishment of a panel of "nonpartisan experts" to ensure "diversity of view" on the airwaves, WND has learned.

Sunstein compared the need for the government to regulate broadcasting to the moral obligation of the U.S. to impose new rules that outlawed segregation.

Until now, Sunstein's radical proposal, set forth in his 1993 book "The Partial Constitution," received no news media attention and scant scrutiny.

In the book – obtained and reviewed by WND – Sunstein outwardly favors and promotes the "fairness doctrine," the abolished FCC policy that required holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner the government deemed was "equitable and balanced."

Sunstein introduces what he terms his "First Amendment New Deal" to regulate broadcasting in the U.S.

His proposal, which focuses largely on television, includes a government requirement that "purely commercial stations provide financial subsidies to public television or to commercial stations that agree to provide less profitable but high-quality programming."

Sunstein wrote it is "worthwhile to consider more dramatic approaches as well."

He proposes "compulsory public-affairs programming, right of reply, content review by nonpartisan experts or guidelines to encourage attention to public issues and diversity of view."

The Obama czar argues his regulation proposals for broadcasting are actually presented within the spirit of the Constitution.

(He's a bald faced, communist, Hugo Chavez, lying fucking, shit stain. What part about "FREEDOM OF SPEECH" doesn't this cock sucker understand? YES, at this point, I truly HATE obama and everything he stands for.)

"It seems quite possible that a law that contained regulatory remedies would promote rather than undermine the 'freedom of speech,'" he writes.

Sunstein compares the need for the government to regulate broadcasting to the moral obligation of the government stepping in to end segregation.

Cass Sunstein drafted 'New Deal Fairness Doctrine'