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 74
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-06-23 10:44:09 AM  
12 votes:

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.
2012-06-23 11:35:34 AM  
8 votes:
It's called voting Republican. For the vast majority of those who vote that way, they are voting against their own interests.

Actually, I saw a quote yesterday that said it best, though this is rough: "Socialism will never succeed in America because the poor view themselves as temporarily impoverished millionaires." It sums up the stupid that is voting Republican nicely.
2012-06-23 02:22:11 PM  
6 votes:
pbh.pbhmedianetwork.netdna-cdn.com
2012-06-23 01:04:44 PM  
5 votes:

Weaver95:
the other thing that gets me is the religious angle. Christ made if VERY clear - it is the duty of christians everywhere to help the sick and poor. you wanna be in the silly hat club, you help the sick and poor. Period. No exceptions. But the GOP wants to STOP helping the sick and poor. they want to make it MORE difficult for the sick and poor to have access to affordable medical care. Then the GOP turns around and says that they're 'Christian' and very moral people.

it's almost as if the Republican leadership wants to force Christians to reject Christian morality.


If Jesus Christ showed up today, Republicans and Teabaggers would crucify him again. No way would they tolerate a homeless, unemployed dude who hung out with street people, defended prostitutes, and had the nerve to ask the rich for money to feed the poor.
2012-06-23 12:56:34 PM  
5 votes:

Lorelle: Weaver95: not to mention wall street and bank bailouts. see - that's the bit that really floors me. Ok, fine - I get the whole 'not liking government spending' on people thing. But if you're going to say that government shouldn't spend money helping out private citizens and/or organizations than be consistent about it...you can't support government bailouts of wall street and/or bankers either.

But that's different! According to the GOP, if you give the rich more money, eventually it will trickle down to the unwashed masses, and then EVERYONE will be rich!

That's what Reagan told us in 1980. I naively believed him; then again, I was 18 years old.


the other thing that gets me is the religious angle. Christ made if VERY clear - it is the duty of christians everywhere to help the sick and poor. you wanna be in the silly hat club, you help the sick and poor. Period. No exceptions. But the GOP wants to STOP helping the sick and poor. they want to make it MORE difficult for the sick and poor to have access to affordable medical care. Then the GOP turns around and says that they're 'Christian' and very moral people.

it's almost as if the Republican leadership wants to force Christians to reject Christian morality.
2012-06-23 12:33:18 PM  
5 votes:

voltOhm: That's because they know that you can't get something for nothing and that taking stuff from one person to give to another is STEALING, even if it's the government that's taking it. Why would anyone be in favor of that?


bankers, for one. Wall street, for another. why are bailouts for banks and CEOs good, but we can't help the sick and poor without the GOP getting into a snit over it?
2012-06-23 11:50:54 AM  
5 votes:

voltOhm: That's because they know that you can't get something for nothing and that taking stuff from one person to give to another is STEALING, even if it's the government that's taking it. Why would anyone be in favor of that?


No, it's not stealing. It's taxation. I'm cool with paying my taxes to help those less fortunate than myself, defend the country, provide invaluable services to all including myself.

/Don't be such a selfish dick.
2012-06-23 05:06:57 PM  
4 votes:

SouthernFriedYankee: It's just that simple.


It needs to be, otherwise people as dumb as yourself wouldn't be able to be conned into believing it.
2012-06-23 06:05:54 PM  
3 votes:

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.


We are a nation of overgrown children that squandered the post WWII prosperity that gave them everything they wanted and now want no part of its upkeep. They'd rather us slide into 3rd world squalor than pay taxes for a civilized society.
2012-06-23 04:08:13 PM  
3 votes:
Americans are their own worst enemies. That's usually how it goes for large empires right before they collapse into obscurity.
2012-06-23 04:06:28 PM  
3 votes:
It's easy to get people to vote against their interests. Claim a different group is benefiting more than the chosen voting block (or just invent a group from whole cloth and claim they are benefiting more), and watch your little voters push their way to the front of the voting line to take something away from themselves.

If you don't want your citizens to have job safety, tell them some other group is getting better job safety, and you have the chance to take that away from them if you vote on X. Don't want them to have healthcare? Tell them someone else is benefiting from the healthcare law, and voters have the chance to take it away. Repeat as often as you'd like; it's not like the American voter is going to catch on any time soon.
2012-06-23 12:28:16 PM  
3 votes:
The same people who don't want others to have access to affordable healthcare because it costs money have no problem with their tax dollars being wasted on unnecessary wars and corporate welfare.
2012-06-23 08:57:59 AM  
3 votes:
That's because they know that you can't get something for nothing and that taking stuff from one person to give to another is STEALING, even if it's the government that's taking it. Why would anyone be in favor of that?
2012-06-23 07:05:50 PM  
2 votes:

Weaver95: voltOhm: That's because they know that you can't get something for nothing and that taking stuff from one person to give to another is STEALING, even if it's the government that's taking it. Why would anyone be in favor of that?

bankers, for one. Wall street, for another. why are bailouts for banks and CEOs good, but we can't help the sick and poor without the GOP getting into a snit over it?


My parents were the ultra-Christian TeaPublican variety who suddenly flashed a white-hot cruel streak when it came to the idea of providing health care to the indigent. After a lifetime of worshiping my mom and dad, one day I realized that they were farking jerks. It was a sad and life-altering realization.

Sure, they spent that one day a year on a church outing to sort items at the food bank, thus deriving self-satisfaction of spreading Jesus' love. But the other 364 days? Fark you, I got mine. The very idea of a society that even attempts to look after the least powerful was abhorrent to them. Yet I was still subject to lectures about Jesus and how teh homogheys and MSNBC are a terminal cancer on some imagined, exceptionally American way of life.

I understand that it isn't fair to paint with a broad brush, but fark...how do we characterize people who seem to get pleasure from others' suffering? Maybe I am a hard-drinking, womanizing, and impulsive asshole, but goddammit I still have a stronger moral base than the modern right. I'd like to think that if I'm ever judged, some of my dumber decisions would be mitigated by the fact that I've done my best to leave my community in slightly better shape than I found it. That's what separates "us" from "them."
2012-06-23 06:32:17 PM  
2 votes:

SouthernFriedYankee: The problems you have with the GOP are also the problems of the Dems. It boils down to the top 0.01% systematically raping the entire citizenry in every sphere of life.


That must be why Obama and the Democrats:

1) increased food stamp spending to help people make ends meet during a recession,

2) repeatedly extended unemployment benefits,

3) made part of his historical legacy enacting health care reform which increases the availability of Medicaid by significantly loosening its eligibility requirements, subsidized other low earners to buy health insurance if they couldn't afford to buy it themselves, and required insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing medical conditions

4) enacted Wall Street reform which, though incomplete, still pissed off Wall Street

5) enacted credit card reform which makes it harder for banks to dick people over with made up fees,

Because Obama, the Demonrats, and the Republicans are all equally bad.

/end tone of irony here
2012-06-23 06:14:07 PM  
2 votes:

SouthernFriedYankee: Weaver95: SouthernFriedYankee:
Democrat policies are unsustainable. Collectivism and command economies always fail. the European socialist countries are going to collapse when the US finally has to default on its debt and can't be the world-police any more. US taxpayers foot the bill to keep shipping lanes open for countries that in turn devalue their currancies to win the trade war wi ...

um...what are you talking about?

I'm saying that the euro countries don't have to pay for all of their own defense, because 'Murica spends a farkton of money policing shipping lanes. We also maintain all these huge military bases all over the world, thus relieving them of the need to maintain standing armies large enough to actually defend themselves if the shiat were ever to hit the fan. This frees up a lot of cash to be spent on socialist programs, healthcare, welfare, etc.

When we can't afford to do that any more - and the day is rapidly approaching - these socialist "utopias" are going to be in for a bit of a rude awakening.


We had no problem affording these programs in 2000. Hell, we were actively paying off our debt AND affording these programs.

What on earth do you think might have occurred between 2000 and 2003 to cause American deficit spending to begin once again in earnest?

Perhaps a very poorly designed restructuring of the American tax code?
/And 2 wars on the credit card
//And an unfunded and uncontrolled massive expansion of Medicare
///All with a republican congress and administration
////With a huge assist from the blue dog conservadems and democratic corporatist allies
//SLASHIES OVERLOAD FOR TRUTH!!!!!!
2012-06-23 04:53:07 PM  
2 votes:

relcec: X-boxershorts: relcec: X-boxershorts: badhatharry: Granted, not taking benefits offered by the government is a difficult concept for liberals to grasp.

How so? I am not taking advantage of the food stamp program, although while unemployed I believe I could qualify for it. Yet at the same time, I believe it should also be strengthened some. $1.54 a meal is not sufficient, especially in more rural areas of the US where food costs tend to be higher.

where did you get $1.54 from?
http://www.ndhealth.gov/dhs/foodstampcalculator.asp

Take the food stamp challenge and get back to me

Link

The number I posted might be a bit off. It could be LESS per meal.


I gave you the link to the DHS calculator that tells you what a family in poverty will receive.
I don't give a f*ck if the Queen of England declares you only get $1.44 a day in food stamp allowance when I know from the DHS's mouth they pay $3-4 a day for those at the poverty line.
a family of two at the federal poverty line of $1260.83 income a month with $750 in rent and $125 in utility bills gets $241 a month, or $120.5 per person per month, or $4.01 per day, not $1 and whatever like you people always claim.

use the calculator you pos.


Emphasis mine. And this is why reading is fundamental.

Most people eat more than 1 meal a day. Three, in fact.

What's 4/3?
2012-06-23 04:51:31 PM  
2 votes:

relcec: LouDobbsAwaaaay: relcec:

LouDobbsAwaaaay 2012-06-06 12:18:15 AM
I've lived in it since I was six months old, and I feel like an outsider now. I hope to actually be an outsider soon enough.

did you realize your skills were not as valuable as you had thought?

Holy crap I have a stalker. Who do I report this kind of thing to?


I just want assholes like yourself to actually leave when you say you will.
unfortunately you people rarely have skills necessary to make it the f*ck out of the country.


Skills like your mad math skills for instance?

I mean really, can you explain how a guy that is "smarter than 99% of you assholes" (your quote) can't figure out that $4.01 per day equals $1.37 per meal?
2012-06-23 04:07:17 PM  
2 votes:

Dufus: Expanded availability to healthcare is something good. Government intervention seems like the way to get it until things happen like drug companies learning that the government won't pay as much for some drugs so they stop producing effective meds. Even if you are willing to pay youself, the drugs no longer exist.

Why do I think this? So far this year 4 of the meds my wife needed were pulled from the market for "Re-formulating". Turns out that just prior to that decision the drugs had been reclassified by Medicare/Medicaid. The substitutes don't work as well and have more side-effects.

Expanding the healthcare is a good thing unless that healthcare becomes less effective.


In my own lifetime the entire concept of a not for profit healthcare system, which my parents and I found quite affordable, was completely tossed out the window under the premise that the profit motive and competition will drive costs down.

How's that working out for ya so far?

/They did this same damn thing with energy generation and distribution too.
//And how's THAT working out for ya?
2012-06-23 03:50:26 PM  
2 votes:

voltOhm: That's because they know that you can't get something for nothing and that taking stuff from one person to give to another is STEALING, even if it's the government that's taking it. Why would anyone be in favor of that?


Because "I've got mine, fark you" is an unsustainable economic model, despite what Ayn Rand says.
2012-06-23 12:53:11 PM  
2 votes:

Weaver95: not to mention wall street and bank bailouts. see - that's the bit that really floors me. Ok, fine - I get the whole 'not liking government spending' on people thing. But if you're going to say that government shouldn't spend money helping out private citizens and/or organizations than be consistent about it...you can't support government bailouts of wall street and/or bankers either.



OK, I'll try to keep it simple. Bankers and investors are job creators. They create jobs. They're good for America.

Sick people can't work. They create no jobs. They are bad for America. Sick people are lucky we let them keep their citizenship.

And since I have a better chance of becoming a billionaire Wall Street investor than I do of ever needing the health care system, I'm OK with this.

/One cannot see the countless examples of the horrible consequences of Republican Ideology, both intended and unintended, without realizing exactly how incredibly sick these people really are.
2012-06-23 12:44:18 PM  
2 votes:
Expanded availability to healthcare is something good. Government intervention seems like the way to get it until things happen like drug companies learning that the government won't pay as much for some drugs so they stop producing effective meds. Even if you are willing to pay youself, the drugs no longer exist.

Why do I think this? So far this year 4 of the meds my wife needed were pulled from the market for "Re-formulating". Turns out that just prior to that decision the drugs had been reclassified by Medicare/Medicaid. The substitutes don't work as well and have more side-effects.

Expanding the healthcare is a good thing unless that healthcare becomes less effective.
2012-06-23 12:42:14 PM  
2 votes:

Lorelle: The same people who don't want others to have access to affordable healthcare because it costs money have no problem with their tax dollars being wasted on unnecessary wars and corporate welfare.


not to mention wall street and bank bailouts. see - that's the bit that really floors me. Ok, fine - I get the whole 'not liking government spending' on people thing. But if you're going to say that government shouldn't spend money helping out private citizens and/or organizations than be consistent about it...you can't support government bailouts of wall street and/or bankers either.

I think that's really what illustrates the flaws in what passes for Republican philosophies these days: they do give government bailouts a free pass. And if you say it's ok for the Fed to bail out a banker who f*cked up...then you cannot say it's a bad idea for government to help out the sick and poor. open the door to spend public money to help out a CEO, and you open the door to government helping out everyone who needs public assistance. its no different - public assistance is public assistance is public assistance. Be it a CEO needing a bailout or a single mother with 4 kids from 3 different fathers. you help one, you help them all.
2012-06-24 08:39:15 PM  
1 votes:

Smackledorfer: 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.


What's weird and sad is, it used to be like that, and not so very long ago. I can still remember when the Republicans were not all about trashing the Democrats--they might attack each other individually, but never to the detriment of the country. There's always been friction between the rich and poor; but this attitude of "let's screw the country because we don't like the President" is new and frightening. There's always been a tendency for parties to support "our" President and undermine "their" President; and for Presidents to ignore data from one side if it puts their side in a bad light.

I have this uneasy feeling that it stems from the failed attempt to impeach and convict Clinton: "They" wanted paybacks for Watergate and didn't get it, so now if they can't destroy a President personally, they have to do it nationally. I also suspect that, had there not been a war in the way, Bush would have gotten the same treatment from the Democrats.
2012-06-24 06:01:43 AM  
1 votes:

SouthernFriedYankee: Obama's had three years. For the first two, he had huge majorities in both houses of Congress. He got practically everything he wanted.


Come on, dude. Seriously?

Against my better judgement I trudged through this entire thread; read every post. Since you weren't being inflammatory with your comments I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt, even when I recognized some blatant talking points in your posts. I agree with some of your ideas, though I disagree with more of them. Which is fine, we don't have to agree. I wasn't ready to classify you as a troll or anything.

In one of your posts, you invite anyone interested to have an intelligent discussion (didn't quote that post) and then you come out with this, and this is where you lost me. If you don't believe this, then you're a troll for posting it. If you do believe it, then, I'm sorry to say, you're deluding yourself. Before Obama was sworn in congressional Republicans went on record that their primary goal was to ensure he only got one term. Wrap your head around that. In the middle of two wars and the worst recession in generations, their primary goal had nothing to do with helping the country.

You came down a bit hard on liberals in general (before you started arguing with specific ones) and you said that neither party represents your interests. You're not alone in that viewpoint. There are many people who feel they aren't truly represented by either party and that, indeed, "both sides are bad." The thing is, though, is that right, wrong or indifferent, we only have the two choices when it comes time to vote (yes, I know third parties exist). That's why so many voters feel they're choosing the lesser of two evils when they go to the ballot box. You haven't openly stated it, but some of your comments make it seem as if you'd advocate not voting since neither of the major parties come anywhere close to representing your ideals.

You might want to keep that in mind when you perceive some liberal as claiming to be better than their conservative counterpart. Sometimes that's a fair viewpoint considering that better = not worse. And if trying to get something, even a less than satisfactory, watered down version of legislation, isn't better than refusing to compromise in a vain attempt to ensure the ill conceived primary goal of the Republican congress, then please tell me how it's worse.

/with small words, please
//and pictures
2012-06-24 04:04:40 AM  
1 votes:
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 02:54:17 AM  
1 votes:

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 02:49:12 AM  
1 votes:

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 02:41:36 AM  
1 votes:
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 01:24:21 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2012-06-23 11:47:36 PM  
1 votes:

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
2012-06-23 11:35:41 PM  
1 votes:
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 11:16:57 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:27:27 PM  
1 votes:
How could anyone be against a health care reform bill written by the insurance companies? It's a mystery.
2012-06-23 08:12:05 PM  
1 votes:

SouthernFriedYankee: bugontherug:

That must be why Obama and the Democrats:

1) increased food stamp spending to help people make ends meet during a recession,
Undoing most of the Clinton era welfare reform and adding billions to the deficit, yeah.
2) repeatedly extended unemployment benefits,
Thus spending up the unemployment insurance pools of the state, thus forcing the federal gov't to pick up the check, also adding billions to the deficit. Absolutely.
3) made part of his historical legacy enacting health care reform which increases the availability of Medicaid by significantly loosening its eligibility requirements, subsidized other low earners to buy health insurance if they couldn't afford to buy it themselves, and required insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing medical conditions
All of which is done at the expense of others.
4) enacted Wall Street reform which, though incomplete, still pissed off Wall Street
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
5) enacted credit card reform which makes it harder for banks to dick people over with made up fees,
Yes, that was great, wasn't it?! Now I pay a $10 fee on my checking account, which I didn't pay before. Obama really showed them, didn't he? And small banks are dying under the weight of the regulations, while the big banks that caused all the problems had a hand in writing the "reform." BTW, Paypal gets to charge stupid transaction fees to sellers because it's not classified as a bank, even though it walks, quacks and swims like one. Super-spiffy, that bank reform.
Because Obama, the Demonrats, and the Republicans are all equally bad.
I understand that you're not going to get it. I am a small-government, personal freedom, anti-oligarch conservative; this is true. But there is no political party who advances my ideals, and there hasn't been for a long, long time. I think your worldview and ideas are dead wrong, and I won't be shy about saying so. But you'd do better to address what I actually believe, instead of all this s ...


Fascinating. Virtually none of this post addresses the original point of contention: re: both sides are equally bad, serving only the interests of the top .001%. I've pointed out several reforms which have helped and will continue to help millions of people well outside that income range.. You've responded with "well, I disagree with all of this as a matter of policy." But you have not demonstrated how:

1) increasing food stamp benefits doesn't help people who can't afford to buy their own food, or how food stamps help people in the .001%
2) extending unemployment benefits doesn't help people who can't find work, or how extending unemployment benefits helps the .001%
3) PPACA doesn't help people with pre-existing conditions, and people who otherwise could not afford to buy health insurance. Nor how mandating coverage for people with pre-existing conditions and indigents helps the .001%.
4) How the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform bill, while inadequate, helped Wall Street, who lobbied vigorously against its passage, and now give overwhelmingly to Republicans.
5) How credit card reform doesn't help people--mostly very poor, and outside the .001%--who've been historically targeted for bogus fees and transactions structured to create faux overdrafts.

You have not demonstrated these things, because you cannot do so. You cannot do so, because they are false. Food stamps help the hungry, not the rich. Unemployment benefits help the unemployed, not the rich. Pre-existing condition discrimination, health insurance subsidies, and expanded Medicaid coverage helps those people, not the rich. Dodd-Frank, while inadequate, restricts Wall Street in ways it doesn't like. And credit card reform helps the victims of fee gouging.

But you'd do better to address what I actually believe, instead of all this strawman and ad hominem. I know it works on the typical GOP cheerleader, but it isn't going to work on me.


It's a good thing I manufactured no strawmen, nor hurled any ad homs. You, however, have falsely accused me of manufacturing strawmen, and hurling ad homs. Both forms of strawmen and ad hom in and of themselves. Tsk tsk.
2012-06-23 07:33:34 PM  
1 votes:

SouthernFriedYankee: You don't read very well, do you? I said both parties are bad


Yeah, I got that. Just like every other ashamed Republican in existence. And just like every other ashamed Republican in existence, you think it's a totally unique perspective.

You couldn't possibly be more like all of your brethren. A million individual snowflakes, marching in lock-step to the beat of their own drum.
2012-06-23 06:27:04 PM  
1 votes:

SouthernFriedYankee: LouDobbsAwaaaay: But not GOP, no sir-ee. That would mean having to inherit all the toxic politics that go along with them. Much easier to just support them and defend them without taking ownership of the stuff you support and defend them for.

I voted for Obama in 2008, because I saw full well how BushCo had sold us all out to the banksters, and I knew McCain would be BushCo's third term. I was a self-directed trader at that time (less than 50K, because I know you'll ask), so I had a front row seat for the creation and detonation of the financial crisis.

Instead, Obama has proved to be Bush's third term and Carter's second, all at the same time. The only thing missing is the high interest rates, and that's on Bernanke; trust me, he isn't doing us any favors. Volcker ran interest rates high to break the back of inflation; right now, inflation is going crazy, as anyone who remembers what prices were at the grocery store just a few years ago, or has been watching the commodity prices over the last decade. Unemployment is close to 20%, by the time you count the underemployed and the folks who've just given up looking.

The problems you have with the GOP are also the problems of the Dems. It boils down to the top 0.01% systematically raping the entire citizenry in every sphere of life. Obama hasn't stopped it, and he won't.

I'm not defending the GOP; I'm saying both sides are wrong and both sides are farking us up badly, and in ways that aren't all that different, overall. You like the flavor of the shiat the Dems are feeding the country better than the GOP flavor, so you think Dems good/GOP bad. I'm saying you are wrong and misguided.

But by all means, keep attacking me personally. Obviously, that's all you can do.


There's only 1 way to stop it.

A complete sweep of Congress.
Highly unlikely.
Barring that, the lesser evil is to finally make the Republicans in congress accountable for 1996-2006

Either one would be a major wake up call to Congress.

We'd probably need to undo Citizen's United and enact some form of public campaign finance system first.
2012-06-23 06:04:17 PM  
1 votes:
Funny... I didn't think the insurance companies, pharma companies and lawyers and their lobbyists were against this law.
2012-06-23 05:57:31 PM  
1 votes:
subby, just because you can benefit from a stupid socialist program, doesn't mean you don't have a brain and principles and can't be opposed to it.
2012-06-23 05:46:21 PM  
1 votes:

Tor_Eckman: What I am saying is that the lobbyists had much more actual influence on Lieberman than they had on Obama.

It may seem like picking nits, but I believe that it's a nit worth picking.


That might be true, but the White House still literally sat down with the lobby and promised that a Public Option would never make it into the final bill. That paints a picture that's quite a bit different from "his hands were tied".
2012-06-23 05:41:35 PM  
1 votes:

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Tor_Eckman: He knew Lieberman would never give him the vote he had to have to pass anything with a public option. He had to make a deal with the lobbyists or there would have been no health care reform bill passed for him to sign at all. As he usually does, he did what he could to get shiat done. It may not have been exactly what he or you or I wanted, but he got it done.

He got done precisely what the lobby allowed him to get done and not a single thing more than that. Ultimately we're still trapped by them, and no progress can be made without their say-so. Who you wish to blame on the House or Senate floor for that seems like a secondary issue to me.


What I am saying is that the lobbyists had much more actual influence on Lieberman than they had on Obama.

It may seem like picking nits, but I believe that it's a nit worth picking.
2012-06-23 05:40:03 PM  
1 votes:

Tor_Eckman:
The GOP leadership has their own Christ. It's certainly not the one I learned about during my 12 years of Catholic school, that's for sure.


agreed. the god the GOP worships isn't Christ. which isn't to say that the Republicans lack faith. i'm sure they are very faithful to their god(s)...they're just not worshiping the christian deity is all.
2012-06-23 05:39:42 PM  
1 votes:

Serious Black: relcec: MFAWG: St_Francis_P: My 85-year old father, who was a staunch Republican all his life, thought we ought to have some form of universal healthcare. I doubt the issue will quietly disappear.

This bears repeating: universal care as well as the mandate to purchase are both Republican ideas.

The fact that they now oppose it is mere partisan hackery

and they are terrible ideas that were always opposed by liberals and progressives for very good reasons.
the fact that it is supported by you is merely because you are partisan douchebag.

I think you mean the mandate is a terrible idea rather than the idea of universal health care. Or at least that's my assumption since you're one of the biggest champions of Medicare for All that I know.


yes. this is where you and I agree completely.
we need medicare for all. universal is the only answer for our problems.

it is thoroughly humanitarian and the ability to slow inflation to a reasonable level should overcome any objection to more directly paying for other peoples healthcare (which we all do in any event). without massive reform we'll all be paying for eachothers healthcare (or lack of it) anyway, and we'll all be paying much more to do it too.
2012-06-23 05:21:37 PM  
1 votes:

rudemix: There should be opt in taxes. I can opt for my taxes to pay for socialized medicine but not war.


Can't really do that for war, but wouldn't the Public Option have essentially been an opt-in program like this? I remember the right-wing screaming that it would have been a nightmarish-ly awful insurance system, but simultaneously that it would have been so good that it would put all of the private insurers out of business.

Sadly, Obama dropped it after talking to some lobbyists.
2012-06-23 05:17:49 PM  
1 votes:

New Farkin User Name: relcec: oh, 1.50 per meal.
boy was I wrong.

Cool. You admitted your mistake. That is one step closer to becoming a rational human being. Keep up the good work!

/That is honestly more than can be said of many farkers and politicians. not much of a comparison i know.


You didn't read my posts above. This is what he does. Calls people assholes and pos's and farking retards and then when his point is totally dismantled he admits defeat and slinks away.

He is not anywhere near to becoming a rational human being.
2012-06-23 05:15:33 PM  
1 votes:
seriously - who in their right mind actually believes that the GOP is for a 'level playing field'? that's mind blowing. the Republicans are VERY obvious about their agenda and it does not benefit anyone except the top 5% of the country. i'm willing to bet that most of us in the politics tab ain't in that elite club so why would you vote for an agenda that does not and will never benefit you? esp when most GOP voters are of the 'f*ck you I got mine' mentality.

logically, most GOP voters (esp the purely economic theory ones) should be voting Democrat. that's the only party that has a policy agenda that directly benefits their bottom line.
2012-06-23 04:57:04 PM  
1 votes:
oh, 1.50 per meal.
boy was I wrong.
2012-06-23 04:51:20 PM  
1 votes:

relcec: I just want assholes like yourself to actually leave when you say you will.
unfortunately you people rarely have skills necessary to make it the f*ck out of the country.


Here's the part that makes me chuckle. I apparently said something in some post-Walker-election thread that twisted you up so bad you carried the rage around inside you for 17 straight days. Then you saw me post here and thought to yourself "this is my time to strike". You have specific quotes of mine committed to memory. Meanwhile, I have no farking clue who you are.

So is the revenge as sweet as you thought it would be? Is this a dish best served cold?

/I'm living rent-free inside your head and I didn't even know it
//thanks for melting down and letting me know
2012-06-23 04:49:01 PM  
1 votes:

Lorelle: But that's different! According to the GOP, if you give the rich more money, eventually it will trickle down to the unwashed masses, and then EVERYONE will be rich!


Just the very idea of people being glad for anything to "trickle down" is dehumanizing and degrading.
2012-06-23 04:42:06 PM  
1 votes:

relcec: X-boxershorts: relcec: X-boxershorts: badhatharry: Granted, not taking benefits offered by the government is a difficult concept for liberals to grasp.

How so? I am not taking advantage of the food stamp program, although while unemployed I believe I could qualify for it. Yet at the same time, I believe it should also be strengthened some. $1.54 a meal is not sufficient, especially in more rural areas of the US where food costs tend to be higher.

where did you get $1.54 from?
http://www.ndhealth.gov/dhs/foodstampcalculator.asp

Take the food stamp challenge and get back to me

Link

The number I posted might be a bit off. It could be LESS per meal.


I gave you the link to the DHS calculator that tells you what a family in poverty will receive.
I don't give a f*ck if the Queen of England declares you only get $1.44 a day in food stamp allowance when I know from the DHS's mouth they pay $3-4 a day for those at the poverty line.
a family of two at the federal poverty line of $1260.83 income a month with $750 in rent and $125 in utility bills gets $241 a month, or $120.5 per person per month, or $4.01 per day, not $1 and whatever like you people always claim.

use the calculator you pos.


I used the farking calculator you childish dickhead. I posted it upthread asshole

What a farking jerk you are.
2012-06-23 04:41:20 PM  
1 votes:

relcec: X-boxershorts: relcec: X-boxershorts: badhatharry: Granted, not taking benefits offered by the government is a difficult concept for liberals to grasp.

How so? I am not taking advantage of the food stamp program, although while unemployed I believe I could qualify for it. Yet at the same time, I believe it should also be strengthened some. $1.54 a meal is not sufficient, especially in more rural areas of the US where food costs tend to be higher.

where did you get $1.54 from?
http://www.ndhealth.gov/dhs/foodstampcalculator.asp

Take the food stamp challenge and get back to me

Link

The number I posted might be a bit off. It could be LESS per meal.


I gave you the link to the DHS calculator that tells you what a family in poverty will receive.
I don't give a f*ck if the Queen of England declares you only get $1.44 a day in food stamp allowance when I know from the DHS's mouth they pay $3-4 a day for those at the poverty line.
a family of two at the federal poverty line of $1260.83 income a month with $750 in rent and $125 in utility bills gets $241 a month, or $120.5 per person per month, or $4.01 per day, not $1 and whatever like you people always claim.

use the calculator you pos.


Wow. You've really lost it, haven't you?
2012-06-23 04:31:19 PM  
1 votes:

relcec: X-boxershorts: badhatharry: Granted, not taking benefits offered by the government is a difficult concept for liberals to grasp.

How so? I am not taking advantage of the food stamp program, although while unemployed I believe I could qualify for it. Yet at the same time, I believe it should also be strengthened some. $1.54 a meal is not sufficient, especially in more rural areas of the US where food costs tend to be higher.

where did you get $1.54 from?
http://www.ndhealth.gov/dhs/foodstampcalculator.asp


I qualify for $218/mo in foodstamp benefits. Divided by 30 that's 7 dollars a day for 2 people. Slighly over $1 per meal.

I love you man, you make my arguments so clearly.
2012-06-23 04:22:53 PM  
1 votes:

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.


I also favor single-payer, universal healthcare: medicare for everyone.
2012-06-23 04:17:33 PM  
1 votes:

relcec: MFAWG: St_Francis_P: My 85-year old father, who was a staunch Republican all his life, thought we ought to have some form of universal healthcare. I doubt the issue will quietly disappear.

This bears repeating: universal care as well as the mandate to purchase are both Republican ideas.

The fact that they now oppose it is mere partisan hackery

and they are terrible ideas that were always opposed by liberals and progressives for very good reasons.
the fact that it is supported by you is merely because you are partisan douchebag.


Not necessarily.

Even though there are better ways to provide for universal health coverage, the ACA was still a significant improvement.
2012-06-23 04:15:40 PM  
1 votes:

badhatharry: Granted, not taking benefits offered by the government is a difficult concept for liberals to grasp.


How so? I am not taking advantage of the food stamp program, although while unemployed I believe I could qualify for it. Yet at the same time, I believe it should also be strengthened some. $1.54 a meal is not sufficient, especially in more rural areas of the US where food costs tend to be higher.
2012-06-23 04:13:47 PM  
1 votes:

relcec: when are you leaving for Canada?


... ?
2012-06-23 04:13:24 PM  
1 votes:

St_Francis_P: My 85-year old father, who was a staunch Republican all his life, thought we ought to have some form of universal healthcare. I doubt the issue will quietly disappear.


This bears repeating: universal care as well as the mandate to purchase are both Republican ideas.

The fact that they now oppose it is mere partisan hackery
2012-06-23 04:11:32 PM  
1 votes:

Dufus: Expanded availability to healthcare is something good. Government intervention seems like the way to get it until things happen like drug companies learning that the government won't pay as much for some drugs so they stop producing effective meds. Even if you are willing to pay youself, the drugs no longer exist.

Why do I think this? So far this year 4 of the meds my wife needed were pulled from the market for "Re-formulating". Turns out that just prior to that decision the drugs had been reclassified by Medicare/Medicaid. The substitutes don't work as well and have more side-effects.

Expanding the healthcare is a good thing unless that healthcare becomes less effective.


It's a global market, dude! Just buy them from Europe, Mexico, Canada or India. Human life has a higher value in these places which is why meds cost 10% what they do in the US. Mexico, India, isn't that ironic?
2012-06-23 04:08:57 PM  
1 votes:

Tyrone Slothrop: voltOhm: That's because they know that you can't get something for nothing and that taking stuff from one person to give to another is STEALING, even if it's the government that's taking it. Why would anyone be in favor of that?

Because "I've got mine, fark you" is an unsustainable economic model, despite what Ayn Rand says.


Far better to follow the morally superior tenet of "Fark you, give me yours"
2012-06-23 04:08:33 PM  
1 votes:
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.
2012-06-23 04:06:44 PM  
1 votes:

GAT_00: Actually, I saw a quote yesterday that said it best, though this is rough: "Socialism will never succeed in America because the poor view themselves as temporarily impoverished millionaires." It sums up the stupid that is voting Republican nicely.


It also explains why the poor GOPers are so damn adamant against raising taxes on the rich who can EASILY take a tiny hit and still live comfortably: they see themselves as being millionaires any second now. At any point their ship will come in and they will be rich, so they don't want to pay more taxes on their imaginary riches.
2012-06-23 04:05:47 PM  
1 votes:

voltOhm: That's because they know that you can't get something for nothing and that taking stuff from one person to give to another is STEALING, even if it's the government that's taking it. Why would anyone be in favor of that?


photos1.blogger.com

It's fun to take from liberals, but we don't need no dental work.
2012-06-23 04:02:22 PM  
1 votes:
The GOP base vote GOP because they want to stick it to the libs, regardless of how much damage they do to themselves in the process. Its like trying to blow a raspberry at someone but in the process you end up cutting off your arm, foot and nose and lose a couple of major organs. but fark that noise about living well, you got one on those old libs!

GOPers take pyrric victories to heart.
2012-06-23 03:55:37 PM  
1 votes:
Ah, the GOP.

Getting morons to vote against their economic self interests using divide and conquer strategies and dog whistle racism is kinda their forte.
2012-06-23 03:45:23 PM  
1 votes:
What really kills me is the concept (like the argument I had here a few months back with some asshole) that some of these people, even before the Medicaid cap is raised, will not apply for government help - preferring instead to suffer (and hurt their children) so that they can "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" or whatever.

fark that. If you qualify for assistance, take the farking assistance. Don't let your goddamn petty politics endanger your children.
2012-06-23 03:44:35 PM  
1 votes:
it's simple: republicans have long gotten their constituents to vote against their interests using the three Gs: guns, god and gays. it's also why they oppose education so vehemently. an intelligent populace is much less likely to vote against its interests.
2012-06-23 01:10:17 PM  
1 votes:

Weaver95: Lorelle: Weaver95: not to mention wall street and bank bailouts. see - that's the bit that really floors me. Ok, fine - I get the whole 'not liking government spending' on people thing. But if you're going to say that government shouldn't spend money helping out private citizens and/or organizations than be consistent about it...you can't support government bailouts of wall street and/or bankers either.

But that's different! According to the GOP, if you give the rich more money, eventually it will trickle down to the unwashed masses, and then EVERYONE will be rich!

That's what Reagan told us in 1980. I naively believed him; then again, I was 18 years old.

the other thing that gets me is the religious angle. Christ made if VERY clear - it is the duty of christians everywhere to help the sick and poor. you wanna be in the silly hat club, you help the sick and poor. Period. No exceptions. But the GOP wants to STOP helping the sick and poor. they want to make it MORE difficult for the sick and poor to have access to affordable medical care. Then the GOP turns around and says that they're 'Christian' and very moral people.

it's almost as if the Republican leadership wants to force Christians to reject Christian morality.


Yeah, I have trouble picturing Christ campaigning against universal health care.
2012-06-23 01:01:52 PM  
1 votes:

Dufus: Why do I think this? So far this year 4 of the meds my wife needed were pulled from the market for "Re-formulating". Turns out that just prior to that decision the drugs had been reclassified by Medicare/Medicaid. The substitutes don't work as well and have more side-effects.


It's Medicare/Medicaid's fault that the drugmakers are more interested in money than health?
2012-06-23 12:52:23 PM  
1 votes:

Weaver95: not to mention wall street and bank bailouts. see - that's the bit that really floors me. Ok, fine - I get the whole 'not liking government spending' on people thing. But if you're going to say that government shouldn't spend money helping out private citizens and/or organizations than be consistent about it...you can't support government bailouts of wall street and/or bankers either.


But that's different! According to the GOP, if you give the rich more money, eventually it will trickle down to the unwashed masses, and then EVERYONE will be rich!

That's what Reagan told us in 1980. I naively believed him; then again, I was 18 years old.
2012-06-23 12:26:53 PM  
1 votes:

voltOhm: That's because they know that you can't get something for nothing and that taking stuff from one person to give to another is STEALING, even if it's the government that's taking it. Why would anyone be in favor of that?


A toll both will be erected at the end of your driveway shortly.
2012-06-23 12:07:17 PM  
1 votes:
Now that the Supreme Court has left the fate of the Affordable Care Act hanging another few days, it seems an opportune moment to pose a question that has been growing on me after several recent reporting trips: why aren't the most obvious beneficiaries of the law more aware of it?

Because FoxNews
2012-06-23 12:06:23 PM  
1 votes:
www.modleft.com
2012-06-23 11:49:12 AM  
1 votes:
With very few exceptions, people who are impoverished are in that position due to ignorance, and chronic bad decision making.

That's why they vote GOP, even though the party's unspoken platform is to utterly guarantee that impoverished people will never have the opportunity to better themselves.
2012-06-23 11:16:54 AM  
1 votes:
My 85-year old father, who was a staunch Republican all his life, thought we ought to have some form of universal healthcare. I doubt the issue will quietly disappear.
 
Displayed 74 of 74 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report