Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wall Street Journal)   Obama has come through on his promise to fundamentally transform America   (blogs.wsj.com ) divider line 132
    More: Sad, obama, Medicaid Services  
•       •       •

4185 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 May 2012 at 10:45 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



132 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-29 10:37:02 AM  
Trolltastic headline, subby.
 
2012-05-29 10:48:04 AM  
in before bububbbubut BUSH!
 
2012-05-29 10:48:18 AM  
Surely there couldn't be more people in need of assistance after a "The. Worst. Possible. THING!" recession in the evers? It must be Barack, beating his Taxbongo.
 
2012-05-29 10:48:51 AM  
to be fair, in a republican utopia there would be no medicaid and their only problem would be what do do with the corpses.
 
2012-05-29 10:49:08 AM  
The number is a lot higher than 50%. They're just not including types of welfare like child credits and mortgage deductions. Then it approaches 90%, but since public assistance is for bad people (read poor), it's not counted like that.
 
2012-05-29 10:50:36 AM  
I wish government would stop providing services to people who aren't me.
 
2012-05-29 10:50:52 AM  
A 10% increase in the face of 1. the retirement of the boomers and 2. the nastiest recession since the 30s?

Whatever. Go on and believe whatever silly ass shiat you care to.
 
2012-05-29 10:50:52 AM  
Surely this has nothing to do with baby boomers retiring.
 
2012-05-29 10:51:42 AM  
I wonder if you figure in tax deductions/loopholes for large businesses and the benefit of paying 15% on capital gains how things really look. The wealthy disproportionately receive benefits, but they don't come in the form of basic life necessities.
 
2012-05-29 10:52:11 AM  
Don't we want the government to help people during hard times? I don't see how this is bad.
 
2012-05-29 10:53:09 AM  
Subby: imgon.net


People who respond anyway: us.123rf.com
 
2012-05-29 10:53:34 AM  
As a Christian Nation, it is or moral imperative to help those who require our assistance and love.

The current administration, by helping those least among us and showing love, kindness and mercy to those less fortunate is doing nothing less than following the teachings of Jesus. God bless them.
 
2012-05-29 10:53:42 AM  
The problem isn't with Obama. The problem isn't with Bush.

The problem is with Republicans who promised they would never raise taxes on the wealthy, close loopholes, or let tax cuts expire. The problem is with Republicans who claim they would not accept a 10:1 decrease in spending with increase in taxes. The problem is with Republicans who refuse to compromise with Democrats, who are for spending cuts in logical places that will hurt the citizenry as minimally as possible.

The party of fiscal responsibility spent the last several years ensuring that we would be where we are now, and the useful idiots that support them are expendable.
 
2012-05-29 10:54:21 AM  

Clownmug: I wish government would stop providing services to people who aren't me.


This X all the numbers.

I love hearing from my grandma "I don't believe in social medicine. That's socialist and we're not that." Yes, grandma. Medicine should only be publicly available and free to everyone as old or older than you.

Also, to the headline: yes, I wish Obama was a republican and promised me nothing by way of change. Much better.
 
2012-05-29 10:54:39 AM  
The largest % of that is to say we have lots of old poor people. If only we had started actual death panels we could have significantly reduced the amount of lazy assholes relying on government assistance.
 
2012-05-29 10:55:16 AM  
If only he would start murdering baby boomers and could've prevented the 2008 recession.
 
2012-05-29 10:55:46 AM  

Wendy's Chili: Surely this has nothing to do with baby boomers retiring.


Nope it's my bootstrappy generation's fault. Just look at the Occupy movement, dirty unwashed 20 somethings in the streets whining over nothing! Get a job you government leeches!

/i'm trying has hard as i can to hold a straight face.
 
2012-05-29 10:56:00 AM  
How many SS beneficiaries are created every day? Ok then.
 
2012-05-29 10:56:26 AM  

Kaeishiwaza: As a Christian Nation, it is or moral imperative to help those who require our assistance and love.

The current administration, by helping those least among us and showing love, kindness and mercy to those less fortunate is doing nothing less than following the teachings of Jesus. God bless them.


But they support gay marriage, therefore Fartb0ng0 is the Anti-Christ and Palin is retroactively declared president.
 
2012-05-29 10:57:34 AM  
Anyone know the percentage of Fortune 500 Companies that recieve special tax breaks or other forms of government assistance?

I'd wager it is above 90%.
 
2012-05-29 10:58:38 AM  
Oh WSJ why are you so funny.

Newest numbers came out yesterday showing that government benefits have finally plateaued and in many cases are for the first time going down since the start of the recession.

What does the WSJ do, show a graph that goes WAY back to make the plateau invisible.

//Yes I know its the opinion section, so why do we pretend its news?
 
2012-05-29 10:59:31 AM  

Muta: Anyone know the percentage of Fortune 500 Companies that recieve special tax breaks or other forms of government assistance?

I'd wager it is above 90%.


Hold on i got this one.

Uh..uh...

STOP YOUR WAR ON THE JOB CREATORS

/victory lap on Fox News
//i'm a little bored at work
 
2012-05-29 10:59:33 AM  
People have to survive somehow in an economy where decent jobs keep getting outsourced.

Why would anyone want to work a crappy job for minimum wage if welfare pays better?
 
2012-05-29 10:59:55 AM  

Kaeishiwaza: As a Christian Nation, it is or moral imperative to help those who require our assistance and love.

The current administration, by helping those least among us and showing love, kindness and mercy to those less fortunate is doing nothing less than following the teachings of Jesus. God bless them.


Somewhere, a Teabagger's head just asploded.
 
2012-05-29 11:00:46 AM  
Do contracts to build jets at $150,000,000 a piece when the ones they started making 38 years ago and cost 90% less to make yet still would afford us air superiority today count as government handouts?
 
2012-05-29 11:00:51 AM  
Letting the 2013 provisions come into force would be like dealing with a weight problem by cutting off your right arm. It may not be popular, but a long-term, well-planned diet is the only solution.

Maybe somebody should have mentioned this factoid to the Republcans on the so-called Super Committee at some point.

Counting Medicare and SS as "benefits"?

Because people don't pay into those programs now?

/Rupert Murdoch has fundamentally transformed the WSJ.
//Not in a good way.
 
2012-05-29 11:01:37 AM  
The Census data show that 16% of the population lives in a household where at least one member receives Social Security and 15% receive or live with someone who gets Medicare.

In conclusion, for some crazy communist reason, Obama has personally caused there to be a shiatload of old people.
 
2012-05-29 11:01:47 AM  
si.wsj.net

In other news, the percentage of household with at least one person recieving government benefits has risen under every president since at least 1983 - including St. Reagan, slayer of cadillac welfare queens. Also, the only time it has ever gone down was under a demon-crat.

Good trolling by the WSJ by restricting their numbers to the catch-all 'some government benefit', which includes boomers going on medicare and social security as they age into those programs.
 
2012-05-29 11:04:13 AM  
I'm just waiting for broke teabaggers to start showing up with "keep gumbermint offa my food stamps!" placards.
 
2012-05-29 11:06:06 AM  

DarnoKonrad: The number is a lot higher than 50%. They're just not including types of welfare like child credits and mortgage deductions. Then it approaches 90%, but since public assistance is for bad people (read poor), it's not counted like that.


Came here to say this. The mortgage deduction is extremely expensive welfare, and most of the money goes to rich white folks. Now, I wonder why the WSJ isn't complaining about that one?
 
2012-05-29 11:07:01 AM  
Nu-uh! The problem with this country is people on the OTHER side. Not mine. The OTHER side!
 
2012-05-29 11:09:44 AM  
Would Subbo be happier if the headline read "Half of Americans now homeless, starving, and ready to riot"?
 
2012-05-29 11:13:47 AM  
"Government benefits?" As in, people who benefit by anything the government does? How is it that 50% of Americans never use roads, breathe clean air, or rely on the military/police to keep them safe at night? We're much more bootstrappy than I ever imagined.

Oh, wait, receiving government benefits means being poor. That makes more sense now.
 
2012-05-29 11:15:34 AM  
The mortgage deduction was introduced in 1913 by the most progressive Democratic President we had until 2008, Woodrow Wilson.
Social Security was introduced in 1935 by FDR (another Democrat). It is not an entitlement if you have worked your whole life and paid money into the system. If you have not worked and get social security, it is an entitlement. The problem is that there used to be 40 working people vs. one retired person and now it is a three to one ratio.
Food stamps are an entitlement because no one pays into a food stamp system.
Medicare was introduced by Democratic President Johnson in 1965 (are we starting to see a pattern here?).
 
2012-05-29 11:15:34 AM  
Job Creators: Someone who has done all they could to avoid doing the thing that is inherent in their title has actually managed to create 1 or 2 jobs for claims processors.
 
2012-05-29 11:15:50 AM  
Now that's Hope and Welfare you can believe in.
 
2012-05-29 11:18:13 AM  
The is how big government statists work. They get everyone dependent on government. And once everyone is dependent on government, you have complete control over everyone. Once someone is dependent on government, they vote in more big government statists (to increase their current benefits.)

Reagan drastically reduced the number of people dependent on government.

How is a nation with 50% of their citizens dependent on the government for handouts a free nation? And how can people possibly castigate the rich when that small pool of people are paying for the benefits received by 50% of this country?
 
2012-05-29 11:18:27 AM  

cehlen: The mortgage deduction was introduced in 1913 by the most progressive Democratic President we had until 2008, Woodrow Wilson.
Social Security was introduced in 1935 by FDR (another Democrat). It is not an entitlement if you have worked your whole life and paid money into the system. If you have not worked and get social security, it is an entitlement. The problem is that there used to be 40 working people vs. one retired person and now it is a three to one ratio.
Food stamps are an entitlement because no one pays into a food stamp system.
Medicare was introduced by Democratic President Johnson in 1965 (are we starting to see a pattern here?).


Democrats care about America?
 
2012-05-29 11:19:19 AM  
Do you drive on roads? Do you walk the streets at any point in your life without fear of invasion or rape? Then you might just be receiving a government benefit.

49.1%? try 100%
 
2012-05-29 11:22:38 AM  

cehlen: The mortgage deduction was introduced in 1913 by the most progressive Democratic President we had until 2008, Woodrow Wilson.
Social Security was introduced in 1935 by FDR (another Democrat). It is not an entitlement if you have worked your whole life and paid money into the system. If you have not worked and get social security, it is an entitlement. The problem is that there used to be 40 working people vs. one retired person and now it is a three to one ratio.
Food stamps are an entitlement because no one pays into a food stamp system.
Medicare was introduced by Democratic President Johnson in 1965 (are we starting to see a pattern here?).


Yeah, if you care about the homeless, poor, hungry, or sick, you're probably a democrat.
 
2012-05-29 11:22:43 AM  
It's just the Murdoch alternative reality press. Nothing to see here folks unless you want your IQ shaved.
 
2012-05-29 11:23:27 AM  

TheNewJesus: Do you drive on roads? Do you walk the streets at any point in your life without fear of invasion or rape? Then you might just be receiving a government benefit.

49.1%? try 100%


cache.gawker.com

These dumbasses will always see the benefits they receive from the government as necessary but if anybody else receives government benefits they are simply moochers. It's difficult to be a Republican and not be a hypocrite.
 
2012-05-29 11:25:31 AM  

TheNewJesus: Do you drive on roads? Do you walk the streets at any point in your life without fear of invasion or rape? Then you might just be receiving a government benefit.

49.1%? try 100%


But...but...the Atlases did it all by themselves. They are good little boys. They aren't at all like you bad little boys.
 
2012-05-29 11:25:36 AM  
Further proof the rich need to pay more of their fair share.
 
2012-05-29 11:26:32 AM  

Wendy's Chili: Surely this has nothing to do with baby boomers retiring.


They actually mention that in TFA. Still, subby's headline should get a few good runs from the resident trolls...
 
2012-05-29 11:27:06 AM  

SlothB77: Reagan drastically reduced the number of people dependent on government.


He actually increased spending and government hiring. Him kicking the poorest people in the teeth was just some of that "Nice Guy" stuff that everyone loved him for.
 
2012-05-29 11:27:10 AM  

xanadian: Wendy's Chili: Surely this has nothing to do with baby boomers retiring.

They actually mention that in TFA. Still, subby's headline should get a few good runs from the resident trolls...


Also: don't call me Shirley.

:-/
 
2012-05-29 11:27:40 AM  

SlothB77: The is how big government statists work. They get everyone dependent on government. And once everyone is dependent on government, you have complete control over everyone. Once someone is dependent on government, they vote in more big government statists (to increase their current benefits.)

Reagan drastically reduced the number of people dependent on government.

How is a nation with 50% of their citizens dependent on the government for handouts a free nation? And how can people possibly castigate the rich when that small pool of people are paying for the benefits received by 50% of this country?


MOOOORRRRROOOOOONNNNNN

The top 50% of Americans pay nearly 100% of the federal income tax, but 100% of Americans pay sales tax, property tax, earnings tax, etc. where they live. It's also worth noting that the bottom 50% of Americans have nearly 0% of the country's wealth.

Being rich doesn't make you better than the rest of us. All that we demand is that everyone pays taxes in proportion to their wealth. We castigate the rich because they pay far less, as a proportion of their wealth, than the average citizen.
 
2012-05-29 11:28:11 AM  

max_pooper: TheNewJesus: Do you drive on roads? Do you walk the streets at any point in your life without fear of invasion or rape? Then you might just be receiving a government benefit.

49.1%? try 100%

[cache.gawker.com image 468x336]

These dumbasses will always see the benefits they receive from the government as necessary but if anybody else receives government benefits they are simply moochers. It's difficult to be a Republican and not be a hypocrite.


I believe the term benefits is related to direct monetary payment of support or entitlement in this context, but keep farking that chicken.
 
2012-05-29 11:28:53 AM  

DarnoKonrad: The number is a lot higher than 50%. They're just not including types of welfare like child credits and mortgage deductions. Then it approaches 90%, but since public assistance is for bad people (read poor), it's not counted like that.


Actually they don't say what types of "benefits" they include. I've read studies on government benefits that do in fact include deductions for things like mortgage interest, and if only 26% receive Medicaid and 16% receive Social Security, even assuming no overlap between the two that still leaves a lot of people who aren't old or poor who receive "benefits". Plus the article is trolly because it's not talking about the percentage of population who receive benefits, it's the percentage of the population who live in a household where "at least one member received some type of government benefit". Not sure how they count "household", but it could mean that if I have a job and my father is on Social Security, me and my family get counted in that 49% too.
 
Displayed 50 of 132 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report