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.

(Huffington Post)   The House Republicans' budget includes cost savings brought about by Obamacare. Awkward   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 126
    More: Interesting, humans, House Republicans, obamacare, Republican, Betsy McCaughey, Louise Slaughter, deem and pass, dual mandate  
•       •       •

2287 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Sep 2013 at 1:13 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-23 03:25:27 PM  

Aristocles: This will make it more difficult to repeal, as BOB and dems have tied jobs to the legislation


Who is Bob?
 
2013-09-23 03:31:48 PM  

ValisIV: Ricardo Klement: ValisIV: Ricardo Klement: mediablitz: In before "HuffPo, so I will ignore it" posts.

You can have a return on investment - but as I said in my next paragraph, the investment has to have a chance to return. There has been no such chance in Obamacare - it hasn't been implemented yet.

True, but you can predict some of the returns, the ROI of job creation and effect of healthy employees is known. Like investing in a retirement plan. You can know about what to expect.  The CBO has already said what the ROI expected from Obamacare is.  Not necessarily perfect, but going from other nations and past trends, that ROI is expected to be fairly positive. It's not just rolling the dice and praying for a 7.


Maybe so, but the comment is that Obamacare created jobs, not that it will create jobs. At the moment, it's an investment.
 
2013-09-23 03:42:44 PM  

grumpfuff: cranked: Is someone still trying to make BOy Bands happen?

No, his Battery Operated Boyfriend is acting up again and he feels he has to tell us all about it.


Are you sure he isn't fantasizing about "Bend Over Boyfriend"

/I'd GIS it, but I'm at work.   It is an exercise left up to the reader.
 
2013-09-23 03:45:59 PM  

Ricardo Klement: ValisIV: Ricardo Klement: ValisIV: Ricardo Klement: mediablitz: In before "HuffPo, so I will ignore it" posts.

You can have a return on investment - but as I said in my next paragraph, the investment has to have a chance to return. There has been no such chance in Obamacare - it hasn't been implemented yet.

True, but you can predict some of the returns, the ROI of job creation and effect of healthy employees is known. Like investing in a retirement plan. You can know about what to expect.  The CBO has already said what the ROI expected from Obamacare is.  Not necessarily perfect, but going from other nations and past trends, that ROI is expected to be fairly positive. It's not just rolling the dice and praying for a 7.

Maybe so, but the comment is that Obamacare created jobs, not that it will create jobs. At the moment, it's an investment.


I suppose you think that the healthcare exchanges will just set themselves up on 10/1 and be staffed entirely with robots.
 
2013-09-23 03:48:28 PM  

ManateeGag: Moosecakes: Is BOB Barack OBama? That's a new one to me.

he's trying to make it a meme.  its a stupid meme and we all just laugh at him for it.


You do have to admit that it's better than Hussein, however.
 
2013-09-23 03:50:20 PM  

Muta: Who is Bob?



mynews13.com, mynews13.com, mynews13.com

mynews13.com, mynews13.com, mynews13.com, or cbsfwbam.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-09-23 03:52:47 PM  

I_Am_Weasel: Well.  Of course.  They're not trying to get rid of Obamacare because it's bad, they're trying to get rid of it because it's good.

("Good", in this case, is relative).

The last thing they want is something working out well for Joe average citizen that is a product of the Democrats.

If it was truly bad for the country, they'd be hands off and let the mess be placed at the feet of the Democrats.  The effort they've been putting in to trying to kill it is testament to just how frightened they are that people will like it when it's full implemented and understood.


scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net

Think how they handle a situation they know will work out best for them. The Killian Memo.   The 'th' suffix as part of 187th was in superscript (showing it was done with Microsoft Word instead of a 1960s typewriter).

littlegreenfootballs.com

They knew the document was a fake, irrespective of the debate of the story's accuracy, so they were quiet for days. Why stop an opponent from shooting themselves in the foot so close to the finish line?

Now compare that to the ACA. They have pinned Obama's name to it. Obamacare. But the funny thing about epithets are: they have a way of becoming the accepted name of what you were ridiculing, like with The Big Bang. So there it is. They named something hoping it would fail, not considering what it all meant historically it it were a resounding success. This could have been their Romney moment. Instead, they turned it into their Romney moment...! So do they relinquish their cards? Hell no! Never surrender! They NEVER surrender!

That's the beauty of bluffing someone that bluffs all the time, especially when they claim they always have an unbeatable hand. Just wait until you have an incredible hand, and call their bluff. You can clean out an opponent that can't change their strategy from this obvious tactic time after time. When called, they'll double down. They'll go all in. The cards will be revealed. And that's when they go completely mad and throw in the deeds to their houses too.

TL;DR - they hide their good cards with silence. Their constant screaming is their 'tell' they're bluffing. And they're not very good at knowing when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em.
 
2013-09-23 03:55:09 PM  

Name_Omitted: Aristocles:  / I don't understand why dems and libs want the government, literally, up their asses.

Simple.  Early detection is the key to surviving prostate cancer.


Smart and Funny!
 
2013-09-23 03:56:09 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Maybe so, but the comment is that Obamacare created jobs, not that it will create jobs. At the moment, it's an investment.


That's not true.  The PPACA is a lot more than the insurance exchange.  It also expands community health services.  Many community health facilities have already received money to expand and have expanded resulting in construction jobs in addition to staffing positions and, on the secondary level, equipment purchases which also lead to job creation.  What's comical about it is that you'll often see Republicans cutting the ribbons or breaking ground at these expansion projects.

i.imgur.com
 
2013-09-23 03:57:05 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Ricardo Klement: ValisIV: Ricardo Klement: ValisIV: Ricardo Klement: mediablitz: In before "HuffPo, so I will ignore it" posts.

You can have a return on investment - but as I said in my next paragraph, the investment has to have a chance to return. There has been no such chance in Obamacare - it hasn't been implemented yet.

True, but you can predict some of the returns, the ROI of job creation and effect of healthy employees is known. Like investing in a retirement plan. You can know about what to expect.  The CBO has already said what the ROI expected from Obamacare is.  Not necessarily perfect, but going from other nations and past trends, that ROI is expected to be fairly positive. It's not just rolling the dice and praying for a 7.

Maybe so, but the comment is that Obamacare created jobs, not that it will create jobs. At the moment, it's an investment.

I suppose you think that the healthcare exchanges will just set themselves up on 10/1 and be staffed entirely with robots.


Let me ask you: if the health care exchanges are set up, and on 1/1, the GOP defunds and eliminates Obamacare entirely, won't it have been entirely a waste of time and money? Yes. Those jobs will have actually cost MORE in opportunity cost than they gained.

This isn't a difficult economic concept.
 
2013-09-23 03:57:45 PM  

Ricardo Klement: ValisIV: Ricardo Klement: ValisIV: Ricardo Klement: mediablitz: In before "HuffPo, so I will ignore it" posts.

You can have a return on investment - but as I said in my next paragraph, the investment has to have a chance to return. There has been no such chance in Obamacare - it hasn't been implemented yet.

True, but you can predict some of the returns, the ROI of job creation and effect of healthy employees is known. Like investing in a retirement plan. You can know about what to expect.  The CBO has already said what the ROI expected from Obamacare is.  Not necessarily perfect, but going from other nations and past trends, that ROI is expected to be fairly positive. It's not just rolling the dice and praying for a 7.

Maybe so, but the comment is that Obamacare created jobs, not that it will create jobs. At the moment, it's an investment.


I addressed this upthread and my post has been in a lot of posts since then.
 
2013-09-23 03:58:54 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Let me ask you: if the health care exchanges are set up, and on 1/1, the GOP defunds and eliminates Obamacare entirely, won't it have been entirely a waste of time and money? Yes. Those jobs will have actually cost MORE in opportunity cost than they gained.

This isn't a difficult economic concept.


Also not a difficult concept: the fact that Obama will never allow his signature to be defunded under any circumstances, and the GOP can't defund Obamacare without his signature on the bill. So, what you are arguing is entirely a moot point, and Obamacare has up until this point created jobs.
 
2013-09-23 03:59:03 PM  

Doc Lee: Ricardo Klement: Maybe so, but the comment is that Obamacare created jobs, not that it will create jobs. At the moment, it's an investment.

That's not true.  The PPACA is a lot more than the insurance exchange.  It also expands community health services.  Many community health facilities have already received money to expand and have expanded resulting in construction jobs in addition to staffing positions and, on the secondary level, equipment purchases which also lead to job creation.  What's comical about it is that you'll often see Republicans cutting the ribbons or breaking ground at these expansion projects.

[i.imgur.com image 640x361]


You don't get a return on investment the moment you make the investment. It pays off over time. What you guys are doing is saying, "Look! We just cut the ribbon on our first store! We're now rich!" Um, don't you need the revenues to actually happen first?
 
2013-09-23 04:03:11 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Also not a difficult concept: the fact that Obama will never allow his signature to be defunded under any circumstances, and the GOP can't defund Obamacare without his signature on the bill. So, what you are arguing is entirely a moot point, and Obamacare has up until this point created jobs.


If that's supposed to say "Obama will never allow his signature on the PPACA", fine.

If, however, it's supposed to read "Obama will never allow his signature bill", I must take exception - Obama only got involved with PPACA at the 11th hour, and never really made specific demands of the final bill (as I recall). I do remember him saying to Congress "Look, just give me a bill I can sign. Work it out however you will, but give me SOMETHING."

By calling it "ObamaCare", the GOP made it his signature effort. (I suppose it is the largest/most visible thing achieved during term #1, but it's hardly got his Kenyan fingerprints all over it.)
 
2013-09-23 04:05:03 PM  

show me: Ricardo Klement: ValisIV: Ricardo Klement: ValisIV: Ricardo Klement: mediablitz: In before "HuffPo, so I will ignore it" posts.

You can have a return on investment - but as I said in my next paragraph, the investment has to have a chance to return. There has been no such chance in Obamacare - it hasn't been implemented yet.

True, but you can predict some of the returns, the ROI of job creation and effect of healthy employees is known. Like investing in a retirement plan. You can know about what to expect.  The CBO has already said what the ROI expected from Obamacare is.  Not necessarily perfect, but going from other nations and past trends, that ROI is expected to be fairly positive. It's not just rolling the dice and praying for a 7.

Maybe so, but the comment is that Obamacare created jobs, not that it will create jobs. At the moment, it's an investment.

I addressed this upthread and my post has been in a lot of posts since then.


I addressed your point. There is an opportunity cost for that money you spent to create those jobs. That opportunity cost equals other jobs.
 
2013-09-23 04:07:44 PM  

Muta: Aristocles: This will make it more difficult to repeal, as BOB and dems have tied jobs to the legislation

Who is Bob?


You can thank Brickhouse for this nickname.  I'm pretty sure I saw the thread where AiryTesticles asked him permission to use it and brick gave the go ahead.
 
2013-09-23 04:13:47 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Ricardo Klement: Let me ask you: if the health care exchanges are set up, and on 1/1, the GOP defunds and eliminates Obamacare entirely, won't it have been entirely a waste of time and money? Yes. Those jobs will have actually cost MORE in opportunity cost than they gained.

This isn't a difficult economic concept.

Also not a difficult concept: the fact that Obama will never allow his signature to be defunded under any circumstances, and the GOP can't defund Obamacare without his signature on the bill. So, what you are arguing is entirely a moot point, and Obamacare has up until this point created jobs.


No it hasn't. Not yet. Money is fungible. That money came from somewhere, and that somewhere is a place that has less money for jobs of its own.
 
2013-09-23 04:45:04 PM  
The GOP has been figuring those savings into their budget proposals since Ryan was running for VP.
 
2013-09-23 05:02:04 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Obama only got involved with PPACA at the 11th hour, and never really made specific demands of the final bill (as I recall).


You recall really wrongly. The only reason for PPACA was Obama.
 
2013-09-23 05:03:59 PM  

Ricardo Klement: No it hasn't. Not yet. Money is fungible. That money came from somewhere, and that somewhere is a place that has less money for jobs of its own.


You're kidding, right.
 
2013-09-23 05:06:09 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Ricardo Klement: No it hasn't. Not yet. Money is fungible. That money came from somewhere, and that somewhere is a place that has less money for jobs of its own.

You're kidding, right.


Please don't.  Anyone that stupid is either trolling, or so dense that no amount of evidence will change his mind.
 
2013-09-23 06:21:27 PM  

Infernalist: cameroncrazy1984: Ricardo Klement: No it hasn't. Not yet. Money is fungible. That money came from somewhere, and that somewhere is a place that has less money for jobs of its own.

You're kidding, right.

Please don't.  Anyone that stupid is either trolling, or so dense that no amount of evidence will change his mind.


This is why it hasn't created jobs. You have to overcome the opportunity cost. To argue this created "jobs" in any MEANINGFUL sense is to argue congress could have hired a bunch of people to stand around picking their noses. (Besides, the House already has all those jobs.)

Until Obamacare actually kicks in, those jobs have not yet returned as much to the economy as they've taken out in opportunity costs, including employment.
 
2013-09-23 07:17:53 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Infernalist: cameroncrazy1984: Ricardo Klement: No it hasn't. Not yet. Money is fungible. That money came from somewhere, and that somewhere is a place that has less money for jobs of its own.

You're kidding, right.

Please don't.  Anyone that stupid is either trolling, or so dense that no amount of evidence will change his mind.

This is why it hasn't created jobs. You have to overcome the opportunity cost. To argue this created "jobs" in any MEANINGFUL sense is to argue congress could have hired a bunch of people to stand around picking their noses. (Besides, the House already has all those jobs.)

Until Obamacare actually kicks in, those jobs have not yet returned as much to the economy as they've taken out in opportunity costs, including employment.


So what you're saying, is that in addition to not wanting to allow folks to have access to healthcare, Republicans are actively trying to drive up unemployment?
 
2013-09-23 07:40:44 PM  

Dr Dreidel: cameroncrazy1984: Also not a difficult concept: the fact that Obama will never allow his signature to be defunded under any circumstances, and the GOP can't defund Obamacare without his signature on the bill. So, what you are arguing is entirely a moot point, and Obamacare has up until this point created jobs.

If that's supposed to say "Obama will never allow his signature on the PPACA", fine.

If, however, it's supposed to read "Obama will never allow his signature bill", I must take exception - Obama only got involved with PPACA at the 11th hour, and never really made specific demands of the final bill (as I recall). I do remember him saying to Congress "Look, just give me a bill I can sign. Work it out however you will, but give me SOMETHING."

By calling it "ObamaCare", the GOP made it his signature effort. (I suppose it is the largest/most visible thing achieved during term #1, but it's hardly got his Kenyan fingerprints all over it.)


Great, then he shouldn't have a problem defunding it instead of holding America hostage.
 
2013-09-23 07:49:15 PM  

timujin: So what you're saying, is that in addition to not wanting to allow folks to have access to healthcare, Republicans are actively trying to drive up unemployment?


Well, yeah.

The GOP goal is for the average American consumer to be paid $5/hr, have no health care, and no assistance to buy food. So they'll have no money to spend at Wal-Mart, which will have empty shelves anyway because the GOP has refused to pay for interstate bridge repairs over the last generation, and nobody can pass a CDL test thanks to their education cuts. And in turn, there will be no consumer or commercial vehicle traffic to pay for domestic gasoline and diesel products.

Then, at long last, they can declare victory over the liberal socialists.
 
2013-09-23 08:07:44 PM  

timujin: Ricardo Klement: Infernalist: cameroncrazy1984: Ricardo Klement: No it hasn't. Not yet. Money is fungible. That money came from somewhere, and that somewhere is a place that has less money for jobs of its own.

You're kidding, right.

Please don't.  Anyone that stupid is either trolling, or so dense that no amount of evidence will change his mind.

This is why it hasn't created jobs. You have to overcome the opportunity cost. To argue this created "jobs" in any MEANINGFUL sense is to argue congress could have hired a bunch of people to stand around picking their noses. (Besides, the House already has all those jobs.)

Until Obamacare actually kicks in, those jobs have not yet returned as much to the economy as they've taken out in opportunity costs, including employment.

So what you're saying, is that in addition to not wanting to allow folks to have access to healthcare, Republicans are actively trying to drive up unemployment?


Republican opposition to Obamacare is largely the result of politics, but there has been a philosophical shift as well with regards to government intervention. So some people have genuine reasons not to like it, especially libertarian-types. But mostly, it's political nonsense.
 
Displayed 26 of 126 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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