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.

(Yahoo)   You never go Full Vitter   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 99
    More: Amusing, David Vitter, beltway, Luke Russert, D.C. Madam, Jamie Dupree, Vitter Amendment  
•       •       •

3610 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Oct 2013 at 4:20 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-15 09:26:43 PM  
Family Valuestm Republican.
 
2013-10-15 09:28:16 PM  
The entire concept is insultingly petty.
 
2013-10-15 09:35:11 PM  
Fark, I am disappoint.

A full Vitter is like  Rusty Venture right?
 
2013-10-15 09:37:32 PM  
Nothing like shutting down the government and threatening to default on our debt unless your staff gets a massive pay cut.
 
2013-10-15 10:09:23 PM  

Mrbogey: Fark, I am disappoint.

A full Vitter is like  Rusty Venture right?


No, that's where take a scuba snorkel and you put your wang in the wee bendy mouth part, and you snake the other end up your back address, then you just grab the middle of that snorkel and you start farking your own arse and pulling on your own crank at the same time until you spend in your own jacksie!

THAT'S a full Vitter.
 
2013-10-15 10:37:33 PM  

Irving Maimway: Mrbogey: Fark, I am disappoint.

A full Vitter is like  Rusty Venture right?

No, that's where take a scuba snorkel and you put your wang in the wee bendy mouth part, and you snake the other end up your back address, then you just grab the middle of that snorkel and you start farking your own arse and pulling on your own crank at the same time until you spend in your own jacksie!

THAT'S a full Vitter.


For some reason, I had to read that 3 or 4 times to make sure that it did no, in fact, involve bees.

/disappointed no bees were involved.
 
2013-10-15 11:46:32 PM  

Elegy: Irving Maimway: Mrbogey: Fark, I am disappoint.

A full Vitter is like  Rusty Venture right?

No, that's where take a scuba snorkel and you put your wang in the wee bendy mouth part, and you snake the other end up your back address, then you just grab the middle of that snorkel and you start farking your own arse and pulling on your own crank at the same time until you spend in your own jacksie!

THAT'S a full Vitter.

For some reason, I had to read that 3 or 4 times to make sure that it did no, in fact, involve bees.

/disappointed no bees were involved.


Bees cost extra.
 
2013-10-15 11:55:06 PM  
It would be one thing if they were trying to limit the subsidies on Congressmen only.  I still wouldn't agree with it, but most members of congress are independently wealthy anyway and they make quite a nice salary for their gig.

The big issue I have with it comes down to requiring the same of their staffs.  Congressional staffers don't make much money, most don't have family wealth or much in the way of assets, and they have to live in one of the most expensive cities in the world due to their jobs.  There's no reason to put that burden on the staffers.
 
2013-10-16 12:02:00 AM  
Once again, this just backs up my Occam's Razor theory for understanding Republicans - they are dumb, and they are assholes. That's really all you need. There's very little other strategic explanation that's required to understand their actions.
 
2013-10-16 12:03:01 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: The big issue I have with it comes down to requiring the same of their staffs.  Congressional staffers don't make much money, most don't have family wealth or much in the way of assets, and they have to live in one of the most expensive cities in the world due to their jobs.  There's no reason to put that burden on the staffers.


Keep in mind, the version that the Senate was talking about was exactly this - it would only apply to Congresspeople themselves. The House GOP explicitly rejected that, saying it should include staffers.

Think about that assholery.
 
2013-10-16 12:07:48 AM  

Irving Maimway: Mrbogey: Fark, I am disappoint.

A full Vitter is like  Rusty Venture right?

No, that's where take a scuba snorkel and you put your wang in the wee bendy mouth part, and you snake the other end up your back address, then you just grab the middle of that snorkel and you start farking your own arse and pulling on your own crank at the same time until you spend in your own jacksie!

THAT'S a full Vitter.


It's when you sh*t and piss into your diapers, then jerk off into a prostitute's mouth, then you pull the diaper off and the hooker spits into the diaper and then the hooker slathers a dildo in the mixture of diaper goo and then rams your pooper with it while singing the Star Spangled Banner while you wear a baby bonnet and suck on another hooker's dessicated titty.

The Aristocrats.
 
2013-10-16 12:11:27 AM  
Their staff members should turn in their resignations en masse

/subsidize this, biatches
//I know they won't, but they should
 
2013-10-16 12:19:26 AM  
So it would cost more, be worse to workers and by the opposite of what they say it would be.

No wonder why the Republicans love it.
 
2013-10-16 12:27:49 AM  

Elegy: Irving Maimway: Mrbogey: Fark, I am disappoint.

A full Vitter is like  Rusty Venture right?

No, that's where take a scuba snorkel and you put your wang in the wee bendy mouth part, and you snake the other end up your back address, then you just grab the middle of that snorkel and you start farking your own arse and pulling on your own crank at the same time until you spend in your own jacksie!

THAT'S a full Vitter.

For some reason, I had to read that 3 or 4 times to make sure that it did no, in fact, involve bees.

/disappointed no bees were involved.


i.imgur.com
 
2013-10-16 12:33:54 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Their staff members should turn in their resignations en masse

/subsidize this, biatches
//I know they won't, but they should


They're way ahead of you:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/10/why-congressi on al-staffers-hate-the-vitter-amendement.html
 
2013-10-16 12:41:24 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: It would be one thing if they were trying to limit the subsidies on Congressmen only.  I still wouldn't agree with it, but most members of congress are independently wealthy anyway and they make quite a nice salary for their gig.

The big issue I have with it comes down to requiring the same of their staffs.  Congressional staffers don't make much money, most don't have family wealth or much in the way of assets, and they have to live in one of the most expensive cities in the world due to their jobs.  There's no reason to put that burden on the staffers.


Not to mention ex-Congressmen get all sorts of money from speaking fees, lobbying, etc that staffers don't. Congressional salaries are a drop in the bucket for these folks, even if they weren't stinking rich before they were elected.
 
2013-10-16 01:32:29 AM  
Holy Christ those comments are painful to read... my fault for bothering I guess.

The issue is NOT members of congress paying more for healthcare, the issue is the many, many people who work for shiat wages  for those congressmen that this bill seems to be intended to completely fark over...

I hate humanity.
 
2013-10-16 04:27:47 AM  
'Congressional Aides Withhold Sex Until Budget Compromise Is Reached'

http://www.theonion.com/articles/congressional-aides-withholding-sex -u ntil-budget-c,34151/
 
2013-10-16 04:28:52 AM  
All right Wall Street and lobbyists, it's time to pull on the choke collar and force the GOP to be reasonable or you stop donating to their reelection campaigns.
 
2013-10-16 04:38:08 AM  
 
2013-10-16 04:43:37 AM  

Rhino_man: Elegy: Irving Maimway: Mrbogey: Fark, I am disappoint.

A full Vitter is like  Rusty Venture right?

No, that's where take a scuba snorkel and you put your wang in the wee bendy mouth part, and you snake the other end up your back address, then you just grab the middle of that snorkel and you start farking your own arse and pulling on your own crank at the same time until you spend in your own jacksie!

THAT'S a full Vitter.

For some reason, I had to read that 3 or 4 times to make sure that it did no, in fact, involve bees.

/disappointed no bees were involved.

[i.imgur.com image 350x230]


www.ryanestrada.com
 
2013-10-16 04:51:18 AM  
As if the logic of the GOP didn't confuse me enough. Why on earth are they pushing for the staff to get a pay cut? Thier OWN freaking staff at that?

Is it a teaparty fark the government thing?

Do they have the staffers make coffee to permanently taste like pee? And the food they have staffers get for them taste like lung butter?

I just dont get it.
 
2013-10-16 04:55:48 AM  
www.deadredart.com
 
2013-10-16 05:04:33 AM  
TFA doesn't make it clear how these people currently pay for their healthcare. From the description, this Vitter guy wants to make it so taxpayers aren't footing the healthcare bill for congress and their unnecessary horde of lackeys and stooges. I take it that the current setup is that we are giving them free healthcare on top of their normal compensation? What kind of partisan hack would want to cut unfair economic advantages given to both Democrats and Republicans?
 
2013-10-16 05:12:23 AM  

ItchyMcDoogle: As if the logic of the GOP didn't confuse me enough. Why on earth are they pushing for the staff to get a pay cut? Thier OWN freaking staff at that?

Is it a teaparty fark the government thing?

Do they have the staffers make coffee to permanently taste like pee? And the food they have staffers get for them taste like lung butter?

I just dont get it.


AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!

Oh you!
 
2013-10-16 05:17:45 AM  
The Vitter proposal would also fund "adult absorption products", right?
 
2013-10-16 05:26:42 AM  

HotWingAgenda: TFA doesn't make it clear how these people currently pay for their healthcare.


You could look it up with about 20 seconds of Googling.

Or you could spout an opinion based on your prejudice.

Which did you choose?
 
2013-10-16 05:28:03 AM  
I'd like to see the actual source (not just a random PDF on the internet) for the '530 million' number  (it actually looks like it's closer to a billion when you combine the increased costs and the decreased revenue?).  I don't see exactly how this happens..

My understanding, which is very likely wrong, so maybe someone can correct it:
Just like private industry, congress and their staff have an employer health plan that's pretty sweet, and the employer subsidizes it (just like private industry).
The ACA negotiations basically forced them off of that plan and on to the exchanges, as a kind of "eat your own dogfood" gesture
Then someone realized "hey, that's basically giving them a pay cut, we shouldn't do that", and added in subsidies so that they could afford ~comparable healthcare to what they already had.

Now the congress critters are all pissy that they're subsidizing health care for their own staff, so they want to take it away ('stealth' pay cuts, woo!), and force the staff to pay full price for a plan on the exchange (note that a lot of people on the exchange are going to be getting subsidies that these people won't get!).  So they'll pay more than they are now and get less out of it, and don't get any of the subsidies that the ACA uses to actually make this all work.  Sounds brilliant. /s

I just don't understand why it would end up actually costing the government more?
 
2013-10-16 05:41:12 AM  
The Vitter thing seems pointless.

Well, it seems like a total dick move to the underpaid staffers.  But otherwise pointless, since congressmen can afford decent health care without blinking, subsidies or no (and really, they shouldn't be eligible for them making as much as they do in most cases, right?).

Basically it all boils down to Republicans have raised pointless grandstanding to an art form.

"As a ransom note this doesn't amount to much. It was, I suppose, something they thought they might be able to sell to activists back home. Rather like a man who has been almost stripped naked refusing to remove one last sock, claiming his dignity depends on it."

At this point, as long as it only screws over congresspeople themselves, but otherwise opens the government and raises the debt ceiling, I don't give a crap, do it.  Well, except that they couldn't get the votes to pass it, so they gave up even on that.

We're really going to go past the deadline, aren't we?  Whatever finally gets passed is going to be too late and some moron will object and force debate and it'll be Friday or Saturday before anything passes.
 
2013-10-16 05:44:14 AM  

Jaichim Carridin: I'd like to see the actual source (not just a random PDF on the internet) for the '530 million' number  (it actually looks like it's closer to a billion when you combine the increased costs and the decreased revenue?).  I don't see exactly how this happens..

My understanding, which is very likely wrong, so maybe someone can correct it:
Just like private industry, congress and their staff have an employer health plan that's pretty sweet, and the employer subsidizes it (just like private industry).
The ACA negotiations basically forced them off of that plan and on to the exchanges, as a kind of "eat your own dogfood" gesture
Then someone realized "hey, that's basically giving them a pay cut, we shouldn't do that", and added in subsidies so that they could afford ~comparable healthcare to what they already had.


Um, no. The 75% large employer contribution always existed. It existed before and continued on through when all Congresspersons and their staff were switched over to ACA plans. Now the GOP wants to kill the 75% contribution, forcing their staffs to pay for the entire cost of their health insurance plan.

It will cost the government more because those staffers, no longer getting their health insurance through their employer will now be eligible for actual subsidies, and many of them being very low income earners those subsidies will cost more than the 75% contribution the GOP wants to kill.
 
2013-10-16 05:47:10 AM  

ItchyMcDoogle: As if the logic of the GOP didn't confuse me enough. Why on earth are they pushing for the staff to get a pay cut? Thier OWN freaking staff at that?

Is it a teaparty fark the government thing?

Do they have the staffers make coffee to permanently taste like pee? And the food they have staffers get for them taste like lung butter?

I just dont get it.


IMO they want to be able to turn to corporate America and say "if we, as an employer, don't have to contribute to healthcare coverage for our staff, why should you?", in order to gin up support for repealing/defunding the ACA, or at least getting rid of the employer mandate. This could backfire in spectacular fashion though if it prompts the business community to push for decoupling healthcare coverage from employment altogether (ie a move to single payer).

When I considered sequester, the shutdown, and the Vitter Amendment all together, it also occurred to me that they want to make a public service career as unattractive as possible. If they get it to the point that no sane and competent person would ever consider working for the federal government except as a last resort, they'd be able to point to increasing instances of government incompetence for years to come in order to justify shutting down departments and privatizing services. That may be giving them too much credit when it comes to long term planning ability though...

Or, it's entirely possible I'm overthinking it all and they're being assholes just because they can be, and damn the consequences.
 
2013-10-16 05:52:16 AM  
Finally found the text of the proposed amendment here:  http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r113:FLD001:S06387 (click printer friendly, search for 1866).  The official page on CBO's site: http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44584

Still not understanding how this makes the health exchanges suffer a 530 million dollar increase in costs over 10 years, or decrease revenue by 270 million..  and I don't know what the last lines mean, is that saying that with the amendment there would be a 2 billion dollar decrease in discretionary spending authority (which I believe means money for things like the military, roads, etc..)?
 
2013-10-16 05:52:54 AM  

Jaichim Carridin: I just don't understand why it would end up actually costing the government more?


Two reasons. One, even under group plans can still negotiate a lower rate than what the individual market makes available. The Vitter Amendment prevents Congress from negotiating a group plan, forces everybody  who works for them to purchase on the individual market. Two, the ACA provides subsidies for low income people who purchase on the more expensive individual market. Those subsidies can be greater than the 75% contribution the Vitter Amendment does away with.

In the end, like with so many Republican ideas, the government ends up paying more in order to provide less. The idea looks good at first blush, but only because the media does a horrible job of explaining the particulars. CBO knows how to do their farking jobs, which one would think should be obvious, but the average dumbshiat on the street always thinks they know better, it's the Dunning-Krueger effect.
 
2013-10-16 05:53:27 AM  

apoptotic: Or, it's entirely possible I'm overthinking it all and they're being assholes just because they can be, and damn the consequences.


I think that's going to be the official Republican party plank from their next convention.  It's much quicker and easier to get across than the piecemeal, dogwhistle-y one they used last time.
 
2013-10-16 05:56:22 AM  

DemonEater: apoptotic: Or, it's entirely possible I'm overthinking it all and they're being assholes just because they can be, and damn the consequences.

I think that's going to be the official Republican party plank from their next convention.  It's much quicker and easier to get across than the piecemeal, dogwhistle-y one they used last time.


Well, "Got Mine, Fark You" does fit easily onto buttons and bumper stickers.
 
2013-10-16 05:59:48 AM  
The staffers these Republicans are trying to fark over don't just bring them coffee, they put out their press releases, they have access to their Twitter accounts. They rely on these people to craft legislation for them, to answer their phones, to interface with the public directly on their behalf. I wish Republicans luck attracting the best and brightest in the future with a reputation for trying to fark their own people over just to get out of a debacle they voluntarily created.
 
2013-10-16 06:01:37 AM  

Boo Radley: Jaichim Carridin: I just don't understand why it would end up actually costing the government more?

Two reasons. One, even under group plans can still negotiate a lower rate than what the individual market makes available. The Vitter Amendment prevents Congress from negotiating a group plan, forces everybody  who works for them to purchase on the individual market. Two, the ACA provides subsidies for low income people who purchase on the more expensive individual market. Those subsidies can be greater than the 75% contribution the Vitter Amendment does away with.

In the end, like with so many Republican ideas, the government ends up paying more in order to provide less. The idea looks good at first blush, but only because the media does a horrible job of explaining the particulars. CBO knows how to do their farking jobs, which one would think should be obvious, but the average dumbshiat on the street always thinks they know better, it's the Dunning-Krueger effect.


Thanks for both of your replies!  I hadn't yet managed to fully dig in to what these were referencing.  I'd heard from coworkers that it was the ACA subsidies, but your explanation makes a lot more sense:

   ``(iii)  GOVERNMENT CONTRIBUTION.--No Government contribution under section 8906 of title 5, United States Code, shall be provided on behalf of an individual who is a Member of Congress, a congressional staff member, the President, the Vice President, or a political appointees for coverage under this paragraph.
    ``(iv)  LIMITATION ON AMOUNT OF TAX CREDIT OR COST-SHARING.--An individual enrolling in health insurance coverage pursuant to this paragraph shall not be eligible to receive a tax credit under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or reduced cost sharing under section 1402 of this Act in an amount that exceeds the total amount for which a similarly situated individual (who is not so enrolled) would be entitled to receive under such sections.
 
2013-10-16 06:30:10 AM  
Message brought to you by the people that really run Washington.
 
2013-10-16 06:35:20 AM  

DamnYankees: Once again, this just backs up my Occam's Razor theory for understanding Republicans - they are dumb, and they are assholes. That's really all you need. There's very little other strategic explanation that's required to understand their actions.


I have to agree with you, at this point... The GOP seems to be comprised entirely of mean-spirited, self-absorbed, proudly ignorant assholes and ideologues.
 
2013-10-16 06:39:35 AM  
l2.yimg.com

Also, this is exactly how I imagine someone who pays hookers to dress him up in diapers would look...
 
2013-10-16 06:40:02 AM  

keylock71: DamnYankees: Once again, this just backs up my Occam's Razor theory for understanding Republicans - they are dumb, and they are assholes. That's really all you need. There's very little other strategic explanation that's required to understand their actions.

I have to agree with you, at this point... The GOP seems to be comprised entirely of mean-spirited, self-absorbed, proudly ignorant assholes and ideologues.


They want the people in Washington to understand what it's like for the rest of us. Unfortunately, the Washington elite would rather default than live like the common people.
 
2013-10-16 06:41:18 AM  
Sure, they do... You keep telling yourself that.
 
2013-10-16 06:42:48 AM  
lol
 
2013-10-16 06:45:09 AM  

Jaichim Carridin: Boo Radley: Jaichim Carridin: I just don't understand why it would end up actually costing the government more?

Two reasons. One, even under group plans can still negotiate a lower rate than what the individual market makes available. The Vitter Amendment prevents Congress from negotiating a group plan, forces everybody  who works for them to purchase on the individual market. Two, the ACA provides subsidies for low income people who purchase on the more expensive individual market. Those subsidies can be greater than the 75% contribution the Vitter Amendment does away with.

In the end, like with so many Republican ideas, the government ends up paying more in order to provide less. The idea looks good at first blush, but only because the media does a horrible job of explaining the particulars. CBO knows how to do their farking jobs, which one would think should be obvious, but the average dumbshiat on the street always thinks they know better, it's the Dunning-Krueger effect.

Thanks for both of your replies!  I hadn't yet managed to fully dig in to what these were referencing.  I'd heard from coworkers that it was the ACA subsidies, but your explanation makes a lot more sense:

   ``(iii)  GOVERNMENT CONTRIBUTION.--No Government contribution under section 8906 of title 5, United States Code, shall be provided on behalf of an individual who is a Member of Congress, a congressional staff member, the President, the Vice President, or a political appointees for coverage under this paragraph.
    ``(iv)  LIMITATION ON AMOUNT OF TAX CREDIT OR COST-SHARING.--An individual enrolling in health insurance coverage pursuant to this paragraph shall not be eligible to receive a tax credit under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or reduced cost sharing under section 1402 of this Act in an amount that exceeds the total amount for which a similarly situated individual (who is not so enrolled) would be entitled to receive under such sections.


When your company dumps it's insurance plan and you have to get Obamacare it will cost you more.
 
2013-10-16 06:45:55 AM  

Rincewind53: The entire concept is insultingly petty.


If it's petty, look for Eric Cantor because he's lurking nearby.
 
2013-10-16 06:48:44 AM  

badhatharry: They want the people in Washington to understand what it's like for the rest of us. Unfortunately, the Washington elite would rather default than live like the common people.


In addition to Smart and Funny, the Politics tab should really have a Facepalm button.
 
2013-10-16 06:49:30 AM  
So this is a bad idea because it would visit undue economic hardship on a bunch of political lackeys.
...But the same deal for fast food employees is legit.

Meh, I don't feel the outrage.
All in or all out. There's no point to half stepping this.
 
2013-10-16 06:52:43 AM  
I honestly don't know how I'm going to get any work done today. I might as well stay home and get drunk while I follow this soap opera.
 
2013-10-16 07:01:32 AM  

way south: So this is a bad idea because it would visit undue economic hardship on a bunch of political lackeys.
...But the same deal for fast food employees is legit.

Meh, I don't feel the outrage.
All in or all out. There's no point to half stepping this.


Yeah, this is exactly the "same deal" as when Congress banned fast food companies from offering contributions toward healthcare coverage as part of employee compensation.

Oh wait, that never happened.
 
2013-10-16 07:13:55 AM  

apoptotic: badhatharry: They want the people in Washington to understand what it's like for the rest of us. Unfortunately, the Washington elite would rather default than live like the common people.

In addition to Smart and Funny, the Politics tab should really have a Facepalm button.


I think that much activity would melt the servers.
 
Displayed 50 of 99 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | 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


Report