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.

(The New Republic)   Those who benefit most from Obamacare are the same people who are most against it. This is why we can't have nice things   (tnr.com) divider line 329
    More: Ironic, obamacare, federal benefits, unpopularity, health law, government insurance, working poor  
•       •       •

3021 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Jun 2012 at 3:42 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-23 10:54:30 PM  
Amen to the headline, its been proven time and again to me personally. I don't begrudge them but it's getting really hard to keep it up and not just blow up and be like YOU GET shiat FOR FREE I DON'T, what's wrong with helping those down and out, you are? Personally, I don't want to sit at home all day afraid someone is going to go through my pile of trash.
 
2012-06-23 10:55:08 PM  

SouthernFriedYankee: Gyrfalcon: We still have poverty because the people getting assistance today are not the same ones who were getting it five years ago. Or do you believe that we have a single cadre of "poor" who never get richer and a larger cadre of "wealthy" who never get poor? Poverty isn't a stagnant condition. You could be poor someday; a bad illness or a business failure or a special-needs kid, and you could be as poor as any of the people you despise so much.

You miss the point. We've spent $15 trillion on the War on Poverty over 4 decades, and the percentage of people in it has not decreased; in fact, through the miracle of tabbed browsing, I was able to do a quick search and find this story about poverty being the second highest percentage in 45 years. Now I know, "but Bush." Enough. Obama's had three years. For the first two, he had huge majorities in both houses of Congress. He got practically everything he wanted. 5 trillion in deficit spending in not even 4 years. It. Has. Not. Worked.


He did not get "practically everything he wanted." He was stymied by unanimous Republican filibusters at every single turn. Lieberman stabbed him in the back over giving all Americans the option to enroll in Medicare in particular. And he did not have two years of supermajority rule to "shove shiat down America's throat" either. As for the whole poverty issue, that's what happens when you let a bunch of bankers turn our economy into the world's largest casino, install themselves as the house, and force people to play a losing game.
 
2012-06-23 11:01:29 PM  

cchris_39: Expand the welfare rolls - more great original thinking from the left.


keep squeezing blood from the middle and lower classes - more great yada yada

also the topic is not welfare rolls, but i understand you're using it as a catch-all derogatory term
 
2012-06-23 11:08:33 PM  
There's not a single solitary person in this country that would ultimately benefitfrom ObamaCare. Not even one.

So perhaps you meant to say 'The people liberals would like to convince that ObamaCare would actually help them are proving more difficult to lie to than liberals would like'
 
2012-06-23 11:14:06 PM  

tony41454: Over 65% of the American public DO NOT WANT ObamaCare. Shows how "in tune" our "President" is, doesn't it?


yes we know regressive agitprop has been working overtime to pull the wool over people's eyes to disparage the very bill, the parts of which they favor, but when it's called "obamacare", it's a paper plate of dried boogies

btw, never seen anyone yet on the right respond why a heritage-foundation-created idea like insurance mandates, promoted by cons and repubs for years, is suddenly omfg soshulism govt takeover evil liberalism.

bueller?
 
2012-06-23 11:16:57 PM  

randomjsa: There's not a single solitary person in this country that would ultimately benefitfrom ObamaCare. Not even one.


I think the entire country and everyone living in it would benefit from Obama sending SEAL Team 6 to assassinate you in the middle of the night.
 
2012-06-23 11:26:13 PM  

randomjsa: There's not a single solitary person in this country that would ultimately benefitfrom ObamaCare. Not even one.

So perhaps you meant to say 'The people liberals would like to convince that ObamaCare would actually help them are proving more difficult to lie to than liberals would like'


i lolled
 
2012-06-23 11:35:41 PM  
Obamacare has nothing to do with healthcare. It has everything to do with government control over every aspect of your life. If Democrats can nationalize your body, you can no longer own yourself.
Creepy.
 
2012-06-23 11:41:23 PM  

randomjsa: There's not a single solitary person in this country that would ultimately benefitfrom ObamaCare. Not even one.

So perhaps you meant to say 'The people liberals would like to convince that ObamaCare would actually help them are proving more difficult to lie to than liberals would like'


Unmitigated bullshiat. The "cannot decline people due to prexisiting conditions" clause alone will benefit the hell out of my girlfriend/future wife, when I go into the work force. What with her having a stroke at *23* due to prescribed medication, and all, most insurance companies wouldn't farking touch her otherwise.

So you know what?

Fark you.

/She's fine now, thankfully, but they still won't touch her.
 
2012-06-23 11:45:59 PM  

marilyn: Obamacare has nothing to do with healthcare. It has everything to do with government control over every aspect of your life. If Democrats can nationalize your body, you can no longer own yourself.
Creepy.


How cute. Here's a quarter. Go play a song on the jukebox.
 
2012-06-23 11:46:25 PM  

marilyn: Obamacare has nothing to do with healthcare. It has everything to do with government control over every aspect of your life. If Democrats can nationalize your body, you can no longer own yourself.
Creepy.


wtfamireading.jpg
 
2012-06-23 11:47:36 PM  

randomjsa: There's not a single solitary person in this country that would ultimately benefitfrom ObamaCare. Not even one.

So perhaps you meant to say 'The people liberals would like to convince that ObamaCare would actually help them are proving more difficult to lie to than liberals would like'


please stop what you're doing. i ask you as one human to another, both of us with hearts, minds, and internets. please stop, and find another way to entertain yourself.
hugs,
capnblues
 
2012-06-24 12:23:35 AM  

marilyn: Obamacare has nothing to do with healthcare. It has everything to do with government control over every aspect of your life. If Democrats can nationalize your body, you can no longer own yourself.
Creepy.


this derp is a thing of beauty
 
2012-06-24 12:32:57 AM  
That's because they are just doing what they are told! They are too stupid to know any difference and just wait for their corporate whore overlords to tell them what to say and what to do!
 
2012-06-24 12:37:10 AM  

cherrydog: this derp is a thing of beauty


as beautiful as a goblin shark maybe.
 
2012-06-24 12:38:56 AM  
Being poor isn't a crime or worthy of punishment.

It's hard to remember that after a few hours of listening to talk radio.
 
2012-06-24 12:44:24 AM  

Felgraf: randomjsa: There's not a single solitary person in this country that would ultimately benefitfrom ObamaCare. Not even one.

So perhaps you meant to say 'The people liberals would like to convince that ObamaCare would actually help them are proving more difficult to lie to than liberals would like'

Unmitigated bullshiat. The "cannot decline people due to prexisiting conditions" clause alone will benefit the hell out of my girlfriend/future wife, when I go into the work force. What with her having a stroke at *23* due to prescribed medication, and all, most insurance companies wouldn't farking touch her otherwise.

So you know what?

Fark you.

/She's fine now, thankfully, but they still won't touch her.


Me too. That preexisting condition clause has kept me from having private insurance for nearly 30 years. If I don't have work insurance, I don't have insurance--I ran out my COBRA and Cal-Cobra last year. I kept up with my insurer on a continuation clause until they jacked my rates AGAIN. Now if I get sick it's on the County dime.

So that makes two people who would ultimately benefit from Obamacare. You lose, randommotherf*cker.
 
2012-06-24 12:49:52 AM  

Truncks1: marilyn: Obamacare has nothing to do with healthcare. It has everything to do with government control over every aspect of your life. If Democrats can nationalize your body, you can no longer own yourself.
Creepy.

wtfamireading.jpg


Please, let me.

scranton.mylittlefacewhen.com
 
2012-06-24 12:51:05 AM  

cherrydog: just gonna point out the obvious fact that both sides think they're "better" than the other side


Not gonna disagree with you here.

I do not think I'm better than anyone. I think my ideas are correct; if I didn't I wouldn't hold them, obviously. But this doesn't translate into me being superior to someone who disagrees with me.
 
2012-06-24 12:57:04 AM  

Serious Black: He did not get "practically everything he wanted."


I am so motherfarking sick of that talking point, that he had some supermajority to rule the world with and create any legislation he personally felt like the whole time. Like there isn't such a thing as a blue dog democrat (among other factors).
 
2012-06-24 01:01:26 AM  

Truncks1: When you say shiat like :

SouthernFriedYankee:

The Democrats say the answer is to take all the middle and upper middle class's money and give it to the poor.

It means you're a troll, congratulations.


Except for the incovenient fact that it is their answer: more taxes, more spending. Always. The only reason Obama hasn't raised taxes is because a big percentage of the country went a bit apeshiat when he suggested it (remember "letting the Bush tax cuts expire"? Letting a tax cut expire is a tax increase, no matter how you try to spin it.) Which means both parties are the party of don't tax & spend, which is not sustainable, unless you wanna learn Mandarin. I do not.

However, the fact is that if they thought they could get re-elected while raising taxes, they'd do it. Except on the oligarchs. And it would be very easy to do; create a brand-new tax bracket for people making over $1 million/year. Also, you could actually give a $500 - 750K exemption on capital gains taxes per year, and then raise the rates up to about 20%. All of that is doable stuff. But they won't do any of it, because the oligarchs have bought them all off. Thus, I say that the Democrats want to take all the middle anmd upper middle class's money and give it to the poor (and to their oligarch cronies, but that's another story). And when I say this, I am correct.
 
2012-06-24 01:05:04 AM  

Tor_Eckman: You've been labeled as a troll because you spout nothing but talking points that have all been shot down here so many times that it's not worth the trouble to do it again. But just for shiats and grins, let's look at the national debt so far under Obama:

graph.jpg

Now you'll notice, most of the 5 trillion you mentioned above is related to ongoing spending policies that he had nothing to do with. So your point is bullshiat.


Try again.
 
2012-06-24 01:09:07 AM  

cherrydog: marilyn: Obamacare has nothing to do with healthcare. It has everything to do with government control over every aspect of your life. If Democrats can nationalize your body, you can no longer own yourself.
Creepy.

this derp is a thing of beauty


So derp merely means "disagree with leftists." Got it.
 
2012-06-24 01:09:39 AM  
Yeah lets go back to the good old days where private companies denied life-saving care. It is the American Way for the "market forces" to decide winners and losers based on net worth.
 
2012-06-24 01:11:21 AM  

OneBrightMonkey: Being poor isn't a crime or worthy of punishment.


Being successful doesn't obligate us to give the unsuccessful whatever the leftists think us owe them, either. And you aren't going to shame us into thinking otherwise.
 
2012-06-24 01:15:37 AM  

rev. dave: Yeah lets go back to the good old days where private companies denied life-saving care. It is the American Way for the "market forces" to decide winners and losers based on net worth.


Destroying the private health care system is not a good trade off for ending the pre-existing condition. I think it's crap too, but we don't need 2500 pages to end PEC clauses and extend coverage to age 26.

Can anyone tell me why pre-existing condition clauses even came into being? Hint: they were for one year. What were they trying to prvent?
 
2012-06-24 01:17:04 AM  

SouthernFriedYankee: cherrydog: just gonna point out the obvious fact that both sides think they're "better" than the other side

Not gonna disagree with you here.

I do not think I'm better than anyone. I think my ideas are correct; if I didn't I wouldn't hold them, obviously. But this doesn't translate into me being superior to someone who disagrees with me.


you're not getting it. conservatives also believe they are "better", "superior" to liberals. but you were repeatedly making the charge one-sided against the left

a tendency very common among "moderates" and "independents"
 
2012-06-24 01:17:14 AM  

SouthernFriedYankee: Truncks1: When you say shiat like :

SouthernFriedYankee:

The Democrats say the answer is to take all the middle and upper middle class's money and give it to the poor.

It means you're a troll, congratulations.

Except for the incovenient fact that it is their answer: more taxes, more spending. Always. The only reason Obama hasn't raised taxes is because a big percentage of the country went a bit apeshiat when he suggested it (remember "letting the Bush tax cuts expire"? Letting a tax cut expire is a tax increase, no matter how you try to spin it.) Which means both parties are the party of don't tax & spend, which is not sustainable, unless you wanna learn Mandarin. I do not.

However, the fact is that if they thought they could get re-elected while raising taxes, they'd do it. Except on the oligarchs. And it would be very easy to do; create a brand-new tax bracket for people making over $1 million/year. Also, you could actually give a $500 - 750K exemption on capital gains taxes per year, and then raise the rates up to about 20%. All of that is doable stuff. But they won't do any of it, because the oligarchs have bought them all off. Thus, I say that the Democrats want to take all the middle anmd upper middle class's money and give it to the poor (and to their oligarch cronies, but that's another story). And when I say this, I am correct.


You can keep saying it, but you're still wrong.
 
2012-06-24 01:24:21 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Me too. That preexisting condition clause has kept me from having private insurance for nearly 30 years. If I don't have work insurance, I don't have insurance--I ran out my COBRA and Cal-Cobra last year. I kept up with my insurer on a continuation clause until they jacked my rates AGAIN. Now if I get sick it's on the County dime.

So that makes two people who would ultimately benefit from Obamacare. You lose, randommotherf*cker.


Yes, I'm aware that by screwing up the system for absolutely everyone, making it worse for absolutely everyone, and lowering the quality of care for absolutely everyone might seem like it's ultimately a good thing if you get something out if it in the short term but you're burning down the house to keep yourself warm for awhile.

And everyone else in the house, hot, cold, or otherwise, is going to suffer for it, but hey, you got to be warm for a little while so screw everyone else as long as you got what you wanted here and now.

How about we let liberals set up their own insurance company and let them run it with the rules they think are fair and right. I'm totally sure it won't go bankrupt and out of business in less than a decade.

Now if you'd like to create some reform that was not intentionally designed to "burn the house" down so to speak then let's hear it but ObamaCare is, as I said, going to burn the whole house down to keep some people warm... But then again, that's precisely what it was intended to do. It was designed to be a disaster so government could step in again and be the solution in a 'Yes, we burned the house down, but trust us, we're going to rebuild a much better house now...!' moment.
 
2012-06-24 01:27:14 AM  

SouthernFriedYankee: Truncks1: When you say shiat like :

SouthernFriedYankee:

The Democrats say the answer is to take all the middle and upper middle class's money and give it to the poor.

It means you're a troll, congratulations.

Except for the incovenient fact that it is their answer: more taxes, more spending. Always. The only reason Obama hasn't raised taxes is because a big percentage of the country went a bit apeshiat when he suggested it (remember "letting the Bush tax cuts expire"? Letting a tax cut expire is a tax increase, no matter how you try to spin it.) Which means both parties are the party of don't tax & spend, which is not sustainable, unless you wanna learn Mandarin. I do not.

However, the fact is that if they thought they could get re-elected while raising taxes, they'd do it. Except on the oligarchs. And it would be very easy to do; create a brand-new tax bracket for people making over $1 million/year. Also, you could actually give a $500 - 750K exemption on capital gains taxes per year, and then raise the rates up to about 20%. All of that is doable stuff. But they won't do any of it, because the oligarchs have bought them all off. Thus, I say that the Democrats want to take all the middle anmd upper middle class's money and give it to the poor (and to their oligarch cronies, but that's another story). And when I say this, I am correct.


If you chose to live in ignorance at what Democrats actually want - I can't convince you otherwise. Making generalizations that fit your own world view is no way to ever convince anyone that you're right. If you don't want to be considered a troll (and I think you probably think its a badge of honor), you'd just stop and argue against things democrats actually want instead of what you perceive. The "both sides are bad" argument you make is not helping anyone chose better government officials and just continues to spread outright misinformation about both sides and the people they represent.

I don't always agree with republicans but I understand where their arguments are coming from (most of the time) and I understand they want to make the country better in a different way. I hate even the argument that Dems want big government and "tax and spend" because it hasnt been true at all, everyone would want smaller and more efficient government, but Dems simply do not think the private sector can be trusted to handle certain industries, while many Republicans believe that the private sector should be used with everything. Republicans don't trust government because there is not a good metric for evaluating many government functions, while businesses always have a solid evaluation tool - profits.
 
2012-06-24 01:27:57 AM  

SouthernFriedYankee: cherrydog: marilyn: Obamacare has nothing to do with healthcare. It has everything to do with government control over every aspect of your life. If Democrats can nationalize your body, you can no longer own yourself.
Creepy.

this derp is a thing of beauty

So derp merely means "disagree with leftists." Got it.


no dude. derp in this case refers to every cracked notion in this gem.

here, take my hand:

"nothing to do with healthcare"

"control over every aspect of your life"

"nationalize your body" [my favorite]

"no longer own yourself"

"creepy"

and like such as

this should be evident to anybody who is rational and fair-minded.

i thought maybe you even, espcially as an "independent"?

perhaps i'm mistaken
 
2012-06-24 01:35:13 AM  

randomjsa: Gyrfalcon: Me too. That preexisting condition clause has kept me from having private insurance for nearly 30 years. If I don't have work insurance, I don't have insurance--I ran out my COBRA and Cal-Cobra last year. I kept up with my insurer on a continuation clause until they jacked my rates AGAIN. Now if I get sick it's on the County dime.

So that makes two people who would ultimately benefit from Obamacare. You lose, randommotherf*cker.

Yes, I'm aware that by screwing up the system for absolutely everyone, making it worse for absolutely everyone, and lowering the quality of care for absolutely everyone might seem like it's ultimately a good thing if you get something out if it in the short term but you're burning down the house to keep yourself warm for awhile.

And everyone else in the house, hot, cold, or otherwise, is going to suffer for it, but hey, you got to be warm for a little while so screw everyone else as long as you got what you wanted here and now.

How about we let liberals set up their own insurance company and let them run it with the rules they think are fair and right. I'm totally sure it won't go bankrupt and out of business in less than a decade.

Now if you'd like to create some reform that was not intentionally designed to "burn the house" down so to speak then let's hear it but ObamaCare is, as I said, going to burn the whole house down to keep some people warm... But then again, that's precisely what it was intended to do. It was designed to be a disaster so government could step in again and be the solution in a 'Yes, we burned the house down, but trust us, we're going to rebuild a much better house now...!' moment.


wow.

again:

were the conservatives in error to give birth to the concept of the insurance mandate via the heritage foundation?

what's the solution from cons for the problems of our healthcare costs, quality and coverage?

awaiting with baited breath for any response from the right.
 
2012-06-24 01:53:02 AM  

Benni K Rok: One of the burdens of society is having to pay taxes. Taxes that provide for services I use, such as roads, and services that I hope to not need to use, such as the fire department.

One of the benefits of society is that my taxes pay for stuff that I can't afford by myself, such as roads and fire protection.

One of the benefits of having medicare in place is that I don't have to worry about paying for my parents medical care. I know they can't afford to pay for it. I know I can't afford to pay for it.

One of the benefits of food stamps, medicaid, and welfare is that it allows people around me to have access to things like health care, food, a place to live. If they can't legally get those things, they either go without, or turn to crime. I don't want people breaking into my house to steal things so they can get food or medicine. That is why we have a safety net.


/I'll start voting Republican once I'm a multi-millionare. Until then, I'll start looking out for people that have a direct impact on my life.


This makes me think of when I was having a talk with my super conservative future brother-in-law when he was ripping on people the welfare systems because some people exploit it. I told him I'd rather see some people who do not deserve mercy get it than people who do deserve mercy not get it. Mind you, this talk happened two months after he got job after having gone through all unemployment extensions during which he got free room and board from his parents, free meals from my parents now and then on top of the free car maintenance from my dad.
 
2012-06-24 02:01:04 AM  

LaBlueSkuld: This makes me think of when I was having a talk with my super conservative future brother-in-law when he was ripping on people the welfare systems because some people exploit it. I told him I'd rather see some people who do not deserve mercy get it than people who do deserve mercy not get it. Mind you, this talk happened two months after he got job after having gone through all unemployment extensions during which he got free room and board from his parents, free meals from my parents now and then on top of the free car maintenance from my dad.


Conversation with coworkers the other day:

Them: all these people don't want jobs, they prefer welfare to having a job.

Me: Do you really think its preferable to be on welfare than having a job? That all these people are smart and could have great jobs but are just living the dream on the dole?

Them: They are smart enough to get good jobs.

Me: So why aren't you guys on the dole?

Them: because life is better having a job.

Me: So why do you think they want to not have a job?

Them: Because they are idiots, I don't think they realize how much better off you are with a job.


Now, the them likely referred mostly to blacks, since we are in the downriver area. That could be meant as racist, or not, you can never be sure. But what struck me was this belief that nobody was worse off than my coworkers in terms of natural gifts, talent, skills, opportunity, etc. They all also agreed you were much better off working and drawing a decent wage/salary than living the shiat life of foodstamps and welfare. And yet they still insisted that these people would choose that and couldn't possibly have the actual hardships that would lead them to deserving the help.

Its mindboggling.
 
2012-06-24 02:18:08 AM  

relcec: If you wanted something nice I guess you should have objected to the plan to create a federal mandate to purchase overpriced insurance from for profit insurance company blood suckers then, you bunch of mildly retarded corporatist political sycophants.


Why, again, did B. Hussein Osama propose a public option? And which party obstructed its passage?
 
2012-06-24 02:41:36 AM  
I know that this will come as a shock to most farkers, but not everybody bases their political opinions on what's in it for them.
 
2012-06-24 02:46:49 AM  

cherrydog: perhaps i'm mistaken


There is something to the idea that once the government gains sufficient control over heathcare, they can control practically every aspect of a person's life, because practically every aspect of a person's life can be described and viewed in terms of being a health-related issue.

Look at what the clowns on both sides of the isle have done with the concept of "terror." There's practically nothing that the government can't give itself the power to do any more, because they've defined practically every aspect of our lives in terms of the terrorist threat. Now they're trying to get control over the rest of our lives under the guise of "health."

She didn't explain it out like that, but I got what she meant, which is why I reacted to you calling it "derp." Are you cool with all the Patriot Act crap that Bush started and which Obama has ramped up? The oligarchs know the economy is going to collapse sooner rather than later, and all these "terror" laws are really about making sure a desperate citizenry can't rise up against them - we'll all be "terrorists" for opposing the cronyistic system that's putting the finishing touches on global neofeudalism.
 
2012-06-24 02:48:43 AM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: relcec: If you wanted something nice I guess you should have objected to the plan to create a federal mandate to purchase overpriced insurance from for profit insurance company blood suckers then, you bunch of mildly retarded corporatist political sycophants.

Why, again, did B. Hussein Osama propose a public option? And which party obstructed its passage?


See, the republicans only got in the way because they have a superior reform in mind, which they haven't really explained to the public yet (and didn't attempt any time they held the legislature in the last 2 decades).

But 0bongo had full control for like 2 years, and everyone would do exactly what he wanted, and he totally sold out to the insurance companies out of pure evil and greed.

Worst case scenario: both sides are bad. And also, of course the average american thinks that the truth lies in the center of the two sides, regardless of who is stretching the truth more. Foxnews crafts a humdinger of a lie and Obama exaggerates a cost estimate, and that means the -13 averages with the +1, and the truth which is really a 0 is now viewed as a -6.

Bullshiat like that is why we can't get anything done in this country. The same people irl biatching about obamacare fully admit that the republican party they've always voted for both halted reform under clinton and didn't do anything proactively during what, 6 years under bush's republican control?, and yet they are ready to vote republican again because Obamacare isn't what they want.
 
2012-06-24 02:49:12 AM  

verbal_jizm: voltOhm: taking stuff from one person to give to another is STEALING

It's called living in a society, dipshiat. God you people have the most childish way of looking at things.


I'll send a moving van to your house tomorrow to pick up all your stuff and bring it to my house. It's called living in a society.

www.geoffpinkus.com
You know, we're living in a society.
 
2012-06-24 02:49:32 AM  

cherrydog: were the conservatives in error to give birth to the concept of the insurance mandate via the heritage foundation?


Yes.

what's the solution from cons for the problems of our healthcare costs, quality and coverage?

Too long for a reply right now; it's damn near 2 am and I'm going to get of the internet for the night. Ask me again sometime. Really.
 
2012-06-24 02:50:55 AM  

SouthernFriedYankee: There is something to the idea that once the government gains sufficient control over heathcare, they can control practically every aspect of a person's life, because practically every aspect of a person's life can be described and viewed in terms of being a health-related issue.


No, there is nothing to that idea but whargarble. But feel free to connect those dots. Instead of just claiming the argument exists in theory: make it yourself.

Comparing Obamacare to the Patriot act is just lunacy.
 
2012-06-24 02:53:07 AM  

LaBlueSkuld: This makes me think of when I was having a talk with my super conservative future brother-in-law when he was ripping on people the welfare systems because some people exploit it.


I rip on the people who exploit it, but not on the people who truly need it. My mom's been a tax preparer for 26 years, and I can tell you a lot about how they do exploit it. And yes, earned income tax credits count as welfare in my mind; you get more money back than you paid in. And yes, republicans started it (Ford) and ramped it up (Reagan).
 
2012-06-24 02:54:17 AM  

Smoking GNU: Americans are their own worst enemies. That's usually how it goes for large empires right before they collapse into obscurity.


You do know what the "bread" in "bread and circuses" was, don't you?
 
2012-06-24 02:58:22 AM  

Smackledorfer: The same people irl biatching about obamacare fully admit that the republican party they've always voted for both halted reform under clinton and didn't do anything proactively during what, 6 years under bush's republican control?,


Yes they did. They passed the Medicare prescription drug bill, which added a shiat-ton to the deficit.

Oh, you meant they didn't do anything good. Well, you're right, there.
 
2012-06-24 03:03:18 AM  

Smackledorfer: No, there is nothing to that idea but whargarble. But feel free to connect those dots. Instead of just claiming the argument exists in theory: make it yourself.

Comparing Obamacare to the Patriot act is just lunacy.


When you don't take slippery slopes and governmental creep into account, then yes, you arrive at your point of view. I do consider those things, so I have a different view.

And seriously: is disagreeing with you folks derp - or wharrgarbl?

/derpy wharrgarbl FTW!!
 
2012-06-24 03:44:41 AM  

SouthernFriedYankee: When you don't take slippery slopes into account


Link

I only take them into account when people connect the dots.

Mentioning that you use a slippery slope while refusing to connect the dots is like a child picking his nose and showing it to his mom. You may be proud of yourself for using one, but it just makes you look ignorant to everyone else.

I expect the next step to be moving the goalposts as far from "once the government gains sufficient control over heathcare, they can control practically every aspect of a person's life, because practically every aspect of a person's life can be described and viewed in terms of being a health-related issue." as possible while suggesting its basically the same thing?
 
2012-06-24 04:04:40 AM  
Somewhat off-topic, but ...

My parents were working-class folks who always voted Democrat. They told me that the Dems usually favored trying to help the "little guy" while Republicans were more about helping Big Business. As I grew older, I realized that both a pure Democratic (or pure Republican, for that matter) platform of policies was a Bad Thing(tm), and that both viewpoints were needed to moderate each other's excesses.

A good example of this was something I read in one chapter of Robert Hooke's book, "How To Tell The Liars From The Statisticians"; the chapter about Type I and Type II errors. A type I error is, using a burglar alarm analogy, the alarm not going off when someone breaks and enters, while a type II error is a false alarm. Another example Hooke gave was a quotation from the Book of Common Prayer, something about "we have done things that we shouldn't have done and we have left undone things which we ought to have done." The first would be a type II error and the second a type I error.

Hooke carries this idea into American politics, stating that on some issues such as welfare and social programs, Liberals go all out to avoid the type I error of someone not getting benefits who needs them, while conservatives work hard at reducing type II errors of people getting benefits who don't actually need or deserve them. (He gave a second example where the two political groups' positions were reversed, but I don't remember what it was nor can I find the book right now. Something about military spending or something like that, I think: liberals not wanting to spend any more than necessary on our military in order to use the money elsewhere, on programs that would benefit more Americans; and conservatives wanting a strong a military as possible in order to be a deterrent to aggression and further our agenda in the world: something like that.)

Anyway, Hooke concludes that you can't totally eliminate either kind of error, practically speaking, without instances of the other kind skyrocketing. Back to the burglar alarm analogy, if you increase the alarm's sensitivity enough so that it always detects burglars, it will also go off every time there's a gust of wind or a heavy truck drives past; and if you decrease it enough to avoid all false alarms it's almost guaranteed not to go off during some actual burglaries. He mentions that it may be possible to greatly reduce both types of errors through research and superior technology, but doing so adds other problems to the issue, usually that of more expense.

(Hooke also mentioned that if instead of using the emotionally-charged terminology that we use when discussing these issues, if we instead used the statistician's reference to type I and type II errors these discussions might be a lot cooler and more professional, with a greater chance of seeing the other side's viewpoint and reaching common ground.)

Where I'm going with this is that with a totally liberal government we'd end up wasting money on social programs that give benefits to those not in need while reducing the military to the point of ineffectiveness (to use just the two examples that Hooke gave) while with a purely conservative government in charge we'd end up with poor people homeless and starving with the military's budget out of control. So obviously, what's needed is that both groups exist, working together to hammer out compromises such that we end up with government policies that, for the most part, work OK and that we can live with.

The problem, as I see it, is that in the past several years, the GOP has been actively embracing members of its lunatic fringe in order to attract their votes; while at the same time their idea of "compromise" is more like "my way or the highway." You can even see it amongst the Republican base, seeing all issues as black and white (a "You're either with me or you're with the terrorists" mentality.) This does not bode well at all for the next several years in America. We could possibly end up with one of three scenarios: A) a landslide, overall Dem victory followed by years of spending in such ways that might end up disastrous for the economy and/or the country, B) a landslide Repub victory with the same implications, or C) a mixed bag of both, containing uncooperative Republicans and nothing whatsoever getting done, which would also have disastrous results. All because Republicans refuse to compromise on anything.

As an aside, it's always been the way that during any economic hard times, foreign immigrants (whether legal or not) have always served as a scapegoat, as have the extremely wealthy. When times are good and everyone's doing pretty well, no one really minds that much if foreigners want to come here and get a share, nor that the rich are getting richer. When times are hard, people look for someone to blame and want to pull them down. "Why should she be getting these social benefits and or a job when I can't get them? Why should he have all that money when I can't even afford my mortgage/student loan payments?" Hence, our current outcry against "foreigners coming here and taking our jerbs" and the OWS movement. Look at your history: at least for the first item I know there were race riots against Chinese in (I think) California and other western states in the late 1800s, and I've seen pictures of signs saying "Help Wanted: no Irish need apply." If almost everyone who wants a good, living-wage job can get one you don't see these things so much. During an economic bust it all comes boiling to the surface.

Just an observation.
 
2012-06-24 04:07:11 AM  

DrPainMD: verbal_jizm: voltOhm: taking stuff from one person to give to another is STEALING

It's called living in a society, dipshiat. God you people have the most childish way of looking at things.

I'll send a moving van to your house tomorrow to pick up all your stuff and bring it to my house. It's called living in a society.

[www.geoffpinkus.com image 223x243]
You know, we're living in a society.


You can't tell the difference between taxes and personal property? As I said, childish.
 
2012-06-24 04:31:57 AM  
I admit to skimming that post, Vinnie, but I agree. As you say though, the republicans are no longer capable of good original ideas for dems to balance out, nor are they interested in improving democratic ideas by presenting their own balance.

Instead they crash credit ratings while biatching about NPR, planned parenthood, homos,.and socialism. They break the programs they dislike to fulfill their predictions that the programs are bad.
 
2012-06-24 04:53:52 AM  

verbal_jizm: DrPainMD: verbal_jizm: voltOhm: taking stuff from one person to give to another is STEALING

It's called living in a society, dipshiat. God you people have the most childish way of looking at things.

I'll send a moving van to your house tomorrow to pick up all your stuff and bring it to my house. It's called living in a society.

[www.geoffpinkus.com image 223x243]
You know, we're living in a society.

You can't tell the difference between taxes

the money people would use to buy personal property and personal property? As I said, childish.

FTFY
 
Displayed 50 of 329 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | 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