-
Sentiment to defund Obamacare grows
-
On the contrary, full time peaks in 2000 and 2007 and part time bottoms out the same times. But starting 2008 part time abruptly starts climbing at a steep rate and peaks around mid-2009, then declines.
Your post reminds me of Dalai’s post in Feb 2009 asking, “regret voting for Obama yet?” The open windows in the White House didn’t even have a chance to blow in fresh air yet.-
Quote from Frumious
On the contrary, full time peaks in 2000 and 2007 and part time bottoms out the same times. But starting 2008 part time abruptly starts climbing at a steep rate and peaks around mid-2009, then declines.
Your post reminds me of Dalai’s post in Feb 2009 asking, “regret voting for Obama yet?” The open windows in the White House didn’t even have a chance to blow in fresh air yet.
Jeez, Frumious…you keep track of some doofus’s post from over FOUR YEARS ago? Must have made a big impression on you. No point in keeping track of Leftie posts…they’re all the same anyway.
-
All the same and all correct…thanks for playing
-
If the GOP takes the principled position of defunding Obamacare, and if they go to the mat and actually defund the thing, they will win in the long run.
Like “long run” as in retaking the white house in 2020? Yeah, maybe you’re right there.
But, if comes to a government shutdown then for 2014 midterms it is certainly a net detriment to the GOP and likely for 2016 as well.
-
-
Quote from CardiacEvent
Quote from Frumious
On the contrary, full time peaks in 2000 and 2007 and part time bottoms out the same times. But starting 2008 part time abruptly starts climbing at a steep rate and peaks around mid-2009, then declines.
Your post reminds me of Dalai’s post in Feb 2009 asking, “regret voting for Obama yet?” The open windows in the White House didn’t even have a chance to blow in fresh air yet.
Jeez, Frumious…you keep track of some doofus’s post from over FOUR YEARS ago? Must have made a big impression on you. No point in keeping track of Leftie posts…they’re all the same anyway.
It did make an impression. The guy’s in office less than 1 month & the Right was already blaming him for the Recession & not making it better already.
Show’s you the level of animosity that’s only got worse since.-
Not to mention how childish they look…
[link=http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/08/gops-insane-obamacare-boycott.html]http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/08/gops-insane-obamacare-boycott.html[/link]
-
-
-
-
Blame RVU? That’s your department. I only pointed out your mistaken belief that the recession, the economy & jobs downturn only happened during Obama’s Administration. I only pointed out that it happened in 2007-2008 and from mid-2009 to the present started to improve.
In fact if you actually read my post, Bush is never mentioned.
-
I support Arizona governor Jan Brewer’s healthcare plan.
Is that the “barter for healthcare services with a chicken” plan?-
Quote from dergon
I support Arizona governor Jan Brewer’s healthcare plan.
Is that the “barter for healthcare services with a chicken” plan?
Not at all Dergon, it really is innovative and a breath of fresh air, called “the medicaid restoration plan”. Other republican governors are looking at implementing a version of her plan as well. I think it’s about time republicans had a plan of their own!
[link=http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/08/republican-governors-shhh-obamacare-medicaid.php]http://tpmdc.talkingpoint…obamacare-medicaid.php[/link]-
Quote from Adeelmd
Quote from dergon
I support Arizona governor Jan Brewer’s healthcare plan.
Is that the “barter for healthcare services with a chicken” plan?
Not at all Dergon, it really is innovative and a breath of fresh air, called “the medicaid restoration plan”. Other republican governors are looking at implementing a version of her plan as well. I think it’s about time republicans had a plan of their own!
[link=http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/08/republican-governors-shhh-obamacare-medicaid.php]http://tpmdc.talkingpoint…obamacare-medicaid.php[/link]
Oh yeah… That wasn’t Brewer, that was Sue Lowden in the Nevada senate race.
-
Sorry…75% of the jobs created this year are part time and under 29 hrs. And , YES ,there’s a ABOSLUTE DIRECT link to the 30 hr requirement from Obamacare.
Really???More complete BS
[link=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-08/is-obamacare-forcing-you-to-work-part-time-.html]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-08/is-obamacare-forcing-you-to-work-part-time-.html[/link]
[image]http://www.bloomberg.com/image/ikkt5KCkh4nI.jpg[/image]
[image]http://www.bloomberg.com/image/itlIOtCZ3u0g.jpg[/image]-
Sad truth is this Sparky:
[attachment=0]
Sorry, you and your liberal colleagues are in florid denial of this disaster Obama has unleashed on the working class. Guys like us dont have to think twice about having healthcare attached as a benefit package (unless IC). But now even lawyers in big groups are getting screwed. Nobody is safe from this lop-sided turd legislation loosened on the American public.
Wonder how Mrs. Clinton is going to defend Hillarycare II?-
You obviously didn’t read the article where that table is debunked
“Another way to see why his method is misleading: Consider how his ratio has popped and dropped over the last decade. Its so volatile that there have been 20 six-month periods since 1968 with a similar part-time surge.”
Here’s another one…
[link=http://angrybearblog.com/2013/08/obamacarethe-sequester-and-part-time-employment.html#more-16582]http://angrybearblog.com/2013/08/obamacarethe-sequester-and-part-time-employment.html#more-16582[/link]
Private part time growth is flat; most of the part time hiring is by govt-
Adeelmd, you re correct as RVU demonstrates. The future-past tense. The coming disaster has already happened.
-
Quote from Thor
You obviously didn’t read the article where that table is debunked
“Another way to see why his method is misleading: Consider how his ratio has popped and dropped over the last decade. Its so volatile that there have been 20 six-month periods since 1968 with a similar part-time surge.”
Here’s another one…
[link=http://angrybearblog.com/2013/08/obamacarethe-sequester-and-part-time-employment.html#more-16582]http://angrybearblog.com/2013/08/obamacarethe-sequester-and-part-time-employment.html#more-16582[/link]Private part time growth is flat; most of the part time hiring is by govt
Yup. Florid denial.
Look its tiresome man. How many more times do you need it proved-It’s Obama’s PART-TIME AMERICA. That’s going to be his legacy.
[attachment=0]-
The BLS data is crystal clear. Part time work is DECREASING in the private sector. The entire spike in part time work in recent months is due to government jobs that were cut back to part time as a direct result of the sequestration brought on by the GOP’s disastrous economic policies! It has nothing to do with Obama’s policies. At least according tp the BLS.
You are simply taking yet another hit to the economy that was caused by the Republican terrorists in Congress and attempting to spin that into being Obama’s fault but it won’t stick.
Sorry RVU, but YOU are the one in denial.
-
[blockquote] [link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/08/23/i-hate-obamacare-can-i-please-have-some-obamacare/?hpid=z2]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/08/23/i-hate-obamacare-can-i-please-have-some-obamacare/?hpid=z2[/link]
[blockquote] A middle-aged man in a red golf shirt shuffles up to a small folding table with gold trim, in a booth adorned with a flotilla of helium balloons, where government workers at the Kentucky State Fair are hawking the virtues of [link=http://kynect.ky.gov/]Kynect[/link], the states health benefit exchange established by Obamacare.
The man is impressed. This beats Obamacare I hope, he mutters to one of the workers.
Do I burst his bubble? wonders Reina Diaz-Dempsey, overseeing the operation. She doesnt. If he signs up, its a win-win, whether he knows hes been ensnared by Obamacare or not.
[/blockquote]
Just like the keep the govt out of my medicare crowd I guess
[/blockquote] -
Here’s a nice discussion of Obamacare’s issues, with some proposed soluions from a conservative viewpoint. It addresses some of the same issues that I pointed out such as the perverse incentives and disincentives of the plan:
[link=http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/going-going-gone_750042.html?page=3]http://www.weeklystandard…one_750042.html?page=3[/link] -
Thanks for the link. I just read (quickly) the WS piece.
Quote from The weekly standard
A functional health reform might therefore begin with universal catastrophic coverage and build from there…
paraphrase: With a tax credit for the premium taken from the employer tax benefit for coverage and with Medicaid eligibility added on for the poor in addition to the credit.
That is actually a conservative and reasonable counter proposal. I would love to hear a GOP congressman or senator propose it. My guess is that the recall petition would have 100,000signatures before the word “universal” left his mouth.
The same article you linked sums it up..only a forthright public case for a serious alternative that would replace Obamacare by addressig the problems that preceeded it can enable republicans to win that debate
And we know right now that there is no republican serious alternative. The conservative academic class and policy folks are labelled as RINOs and are sidelined by the tea party hucksters and the faux think tank DeMint types over at Heritage PAC.
-
SO I heard Ted Cruz’ health care alternative today.
After doubling down on the defunding appeal —
He made 3 points:
1) Be able to buy insurance across state lines
2) Increase the tax favorability and size of HSAs (This was his only answer to affordability)
3) Divorce health insurance from employment.
This is essentially just saying “OK, you’re allowed to save more pretax money now. Go get health care on the prvate market.”
For large numbers of working americans that “right to save more money for health care expenses” is just not workable. Health care is and will be unaffordable for tens of millions of americans under this plan.
HSAs do little to help the uninsured gain affordable health insurance. Their expanded role (or god forbid a primary role) will exacerbate racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in access to and the quality of healthcare. The reasons:
– HSA tax breaks disproportionately benefit wealthy Americans. A significant proportion of uninsured Americans-disproportionately people of color, immigrants, and the working poor-don’t make enough money to pay taxes, so they would receive no benefit from the tax benefit of HSAs.
-Uninsured people typically aren’t able to save enough-after taking into account housing, transportation, food, and other costs-to cover deductible costs.
– High deductibles may prevent many poorer people from getting care that they need if they cannot afford out-of-pocket costs, thereby increasing the risk that health problems that can be treated more cost-effectively at earlier stages will remain untreated until they are debilitating and costly.
As Families America wrote in their assessment:
[font=”amerigobt”][size=”3″][font=”amerigobt”][size=”3″] [left]HSAs threaten our nations existing health insurance system. The basic concept of insurance is to pool[/left] [left]together the risks of many individuals to ensure that none are left unprotected from the costs of treating[/left] [left]a catastrophic illness. Our current system pools people through their workplace. While not a[/left] [left]perfect pooling mechanism, our employer-based system helps protect older and sicker individuals from[/left] [left]higher health care costs by pooling them with younger, healthier coworkers.[/left] [left]By design, HSAs are attractive to the young, the healthy, and the wealthy. HSAs therefore increase the[/left] [left]likelihood that these same individuals, whose lower health care costs balance out overall health care[/left] [left]costs in traditional insurance plans, will enroll in high-deductible plans with HSAs so they can take advantage[/left] [left]of the tax benefits. Consequently, older, poorer, and sicker individualswho either do not[/left] [left]make enough to benefit from the tax incentives of HSAs, cannot afford the high out-of-pocket costs[/left] [/size][/font][/size][/font]
This is a rehash of Bush policy on healthcare. I thought it was bad policy then…haven’t changed my mind. But on the up side, Cruz might be subtley looking to have a ready “replace” to go with when he his “repeal” fails. Maybe, just maybe, an actual debate beyond binary repeal or not will be coming after we get through this next budget fight.
necessary to enroll in HSAs, or bothwill remain in traditional, low-deductible insurance plans. There[font=”amerigobt”][size=”3″][font=”amerigobt”][size=”3″]fore, isolating the sickest and poorest in one poolwithout the youngest, healthiest, and wealthiest to[/size][/font][/size][/font]
[left]help balance costswill result in substantial increases in premiums for the population most at risk and[/left] least able to pay. -
Quote from dergon
SO I heard Ted Cruz’ health care alternative today.
After doubling down on the defunding appeal —
He made 3 points:
1) Be able to buy insurance across state lines
2) Increase the tax favorability and size of HSAs (This was his only answer to affordability)
3) Divorce health insurance from employment.This is essentially just saying “OK, you’re allowed to save more pretax money now. Go get health care on the prvate market.”
For large numbers of working americans that “right to save more money for health care expenses” is just not workable. Health care is and will be unaffordable for tens of millions of americans under this plan.
HSAs do little to help the uninsured gain affordable health insurance. Their expanded role (or god forbid a primary role) will exacerbate racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in access to and the quality of healthcare. The reasons:
– HSA tax breaks disproportionately benefit wealthy Americans. A significant proportion of uninsured Americans-disproportionately people of color, immigrants, and the working poor-don’t make enough money to pay taxes, so they would receive no benefit from the tax benefit of HSAs.
-Uninsured people typically aren’t able to save enough-after taking into account housing, transportation, food, and other costs-to cover deductible costs.
– High deductibles may prevent many poorer people from getting care that they need if they cannot afford out-of-pocket costs, thereby increasing the risk that health problems that can be treated more cost-effectively at earlier stages will remain untreated until they are debilitating and costly.As Families America wrote in their assessment:
[font=”amerigobt”][size=”3″][font=”amerigobt”][size=”3″] [align=left]HSAs threaten our nations existing health insurance system. The basic concept of insurance is to pool[/align] [align=left]together the risks of many individuals to ensure that none are left unprotected from the costs of treating[/align] [align=left]a catastrophic illness. Our current system pools people through their workplace. While not a[/align] [align=left]perfect pooling mechanism, our employer-based system helps protect older and sicker individuals from[/align] [align=left]higher health care costs by pooling them with younger, healthier coworkers.[/align] [align=left]By design, HSAs are attractive to the young, the healthy, and the wealthy. HSAs therefore increase the[/align] [align=left]likelihood that these same individuals, whose lower health care costs balance out overall health care[/align] [align=left]costs in traditional insurance plans, will enroll in high-deductible plans with HSAs so they can take advantage[/align] [align=left]of the tax benefits. Consequently, older, poorer, and sicker individualswho either do not[/align] [align=left]make enough to benefit from the tax incentives of HSAs, cannot afford the high out-of-pocket costs[/align] [/size][/font][/size][/font]
This is a rehash of Bush policy on healthcare. I thought it was bad policy then…haven’t changed my mind. But on the up side, Cruz might be subtley looking to have a ready “replace” to go with when he his “repeal” fails. Maybe, just maybe, an actual debate beyond binary repeal or not will be coming after we get through this next budget fight.necessary to enroll in HSAs, or bothwill remain in traditional, low-deductible insurance plans. There[font=”amerigobt”][size=”3″][font=”amerigobt”][size=”3″]fore, isolating the sickest and poorest in one poolwithout the youngest, healthiest, and wealthiest to[/size][/font][/size][/font]
[align=left]help balance costswill result in substantial increases in premiums for the population most at risk and[/align] least able to pay.I was listening to Lanny Davis and Michael Steele on the radio this morning. I forget which one of them but they were talking about how Ted Cruz is intelligent but dillusional as he thinks there’s still a chance to repeal Obamacare and that Maybe even Obama might decide to defund his signature piece of legislation.
-
[link=http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/08/27/defund-obamacare-supporters-target-top-republicans/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_politicalticker+(Blog%3A+Political+Ticker]http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/08/27/defund-obamacare-supporters-target-top-republicans/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_politicalticker+(Blog%3A+Political+Ticker[/link])
[link=http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/08/27/defund-obamacare-supporters-target-top-republicans/]Defund Obamacare supporters target top Republicans[/link]The first target of the push by Tea Party Patriots and ForAmerica is Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. The groups are planning a news conference in Lexington, Kentucky, Tuesday, near McConnell’s offices. The Republican is running for a sixth term in the Senate next year.
The next day the Tea Party Patriots and ForAmerica will hold an event in Austin, Texas, near Sen. John Cornyn’s office. The number two ranking Senate Republican is also up for re-election in 2014. Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia will also be in the groups’ sights during the tour, which is scheduled to conclude September 4.
The new push by the two groups comes after an online ad campaign against McConnell and other GOP lawmakers, comparing them to “chickens” for opposing the Affordable Care Act but refusing to commit to defunding the law.
“Sadly, there are scores of hypocritical Republicans who have just been giving lip service to voters at home with no intention of living up to their promises in Washington. How can they tell their constituents that they are opposed to ObamaCare and then vote to have those same constituents pay for it?” wrote Tea Party Patriots co-founder Jenny Beth Martin and ForAmerica Chairman Brent Bozell in an op-ed in USA Today.
When the focus of the story is GOP inside baseball and squabbling a couple of weeks ahead of the negotiations that does not bode well for the liklihood of getting either the political or policy result the republicans are aiming for.
It’s more about potential presidential conservative street cred than about results. -
[link=http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/26/dont-cry-for-me-john-boehner/?print=1]http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/26/dont-cry-for-me-john-boehner/?print=1[/link]
This ain’t the Times, it’s the Daily Caller.
{T}heres just one problem: unless you can get veto-proof majorities for this in both houses of Congress, you cant defund Obamacare without President Barack Obama himself.
The only leverage Republicans have to make Obama sign a continuing resolution that strips funding from his biggest policy achievement is a government shutdown polls indicate most Americans and perhaps most Republicans dont want and would blame Republicans for instigating.
This may not be fair, since Obama would technically be the one shutting down the government. But it is what the polls suggest will happen. It is what has happened every time this approach has been tried in the recent past. Conservatives, unlike liberals, are supposed to learn from the past. And Obama is likely to hold out for a while.
The guy already lost the House so that he could get Obamacare do you really think hes going to cry uncle one week into a few embassy closures? [link=http://www.conservativeintel.com/2013/08/22/yes-my-friends-you-are-threatening-to-shut-down-the-government/]asks[/link] the conservative journalist David Freddoso. Obama cries uncle only when tens of thousands of government employees start having their homes foreclosed because theyre not being paid.
Moreover, this is all supposed to come courtesy of the same Republicans who wont defund the National Endowment for the Arts because they dont want to get an angry letter from some frustrated symphony-goer in Des Moines.
If Republicans had any credibility, they could explain to their conservative base that this strategy is unlikely to work and may prevent them from being able to roll back Obamacare in the future.
But they dont have any credibility, because many conservatives believe for good reason that Washington Republicans dont really care about getting rid of Obamacare. Or doing anything else besides getting re-elected, for that matter.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from dergon
Quote from Adeelmd
Quote from dergon
I support Arizona governor Jan Brewer’s healthcare plan.
Is that the “barter for healthcare services with a chicken” plan?
Not at all Dergon, it really is innovative and a breath of fresh air, called “the medicaid restoration plan”. Other republican governors are looking at implementing a version of her plan as well. I think it’s about time republicans had a plan of their own!
[link=http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/08/republican-governors-shhh-obamacare-medicaid.php]http://tpmdc.talkingpoint…obamacare-medicaid.php[/link]
Oh yeah… That wasn’t Brewer, that was Sue Lowden in the Nevada senate race.
I’m not sure I find much in this link about the “medicaid restoration” It does seem to indicate they are OK with taking additional medicaid funds.
-
-
-
-
Quote from Frumious
Blame RVU? That’s your department. I only pointed out your mistaken belief that the recession, the economy & jobs downturn only happened during Obama’s Administration. I only pointed out that it happened in 2007-2008 and from mid-2009 to the present started to improve.
In fact if you actually read my post, Bush is never mentioned.
The problem with democrats is that they continuously blame bush for what has happened. Republicans are much more progressive in this respect, they blame Obama for what [i]WILL[/i] happen.
-
-
So if you can’t win the argument change the x-axis? Are you really that stupid?
-
Agreed, the Democrats have the upper hand on this one, because they own the narrative. They control the political game. Republicans need to buck up and stand on principle. Even if they lose. This is what Cruz is pushing for. It won’t happen, because too many are establishment Republicans are caught up on the political calculus.
Either the country wakes up and makes the Democrats own the consequences of their political games or the Republicans find a way to get their message across.-
[b]Republicans need to buck up and stand on principle. Even if they lose. This is what Cruz is pushing for.[/b]
Problem is Republican principle means
less Insured
No pre-existing conditions
No cost controls
No rules for insurance
Alda you seem to feel strongly that the public doesn’t want Obamacare but guess what???? The people don’t want the Republican principles-
News the conservative echo chamber doesn’t want you to know:
[link=http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/early-look-at-premiums-and-participation-in-marketplaces.pdf]http://kaiserfamilyfounda…on-in-marketplaces.pdf[/link]-
You gotta wonder if Obama’s war drums for Syria are a detraction from the soon to come Obamacare disaster. Just saying!
-
Quote from aldadoc
You gotta wonder if Obama’s war drums for Syria are a detraction from the soon to come Obamacare disaster. Just saying!
Quote from aldadoc (in the Syria thread)
I bet Obama is wishing that he had kept his mouth shut about a lot of things just about now. Hope has just had an encounter with reality and is getting its butt kicked. The “red line” in Syria probably wasn’t the smartest proclamation to make for a guy who has a reputation for not backing his word. He just cornered himself.
So he’s both cornered by his own words with no other options [i]and[/i] he’s just wagging the dog to distract from domestic policy. Sheesh, man. At least hate at him from a consistent direction.This is the classic schizophrenia of the Right in its opinion of Obama. At the same time he is[i] both[/i] the least qualifed, least effective and most overwhelmed president to ever hold the office [i]and[/i] a clever political mastermind, cynically able to manipulate the masses while covering his tracks so masterfully that despite being a criminal he can never be fingered with his crimes.
-
Just like Alda’s hero Jennifer Rubin….
-
Now (after Obama’s Syria debacle) that it is clear to all that the emperor has no clothes, maybe we can re-examine the ACA and seriously consider de-funding it. Cruz and Lee now have some unlikely allies in the unions. Boehner and Cantor are in trouble with conservative Republicans.
[link=http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/poll-obamacare-opposition-climbs-96659.html?hp=l5]http://www.politico.com/s…limbs-96659.html?hp=l5[/link]
[link=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-11/call-to-change-obama-s-health-law-opens-rift-with-labor.html]http://www.bloomberg.com/…s-rift-with-labor.html[/link]-
That’s a couple of posts where you’re trying to link Syria policy to the ACA funding debate. I just don’t see it….. and the public certainly doesn’t see any connection.
_____
As for the links …nothing particularly new in either of those stories. Opposition remains above 50% … but that should not be taken as a sign that the population supports repeal, particularly if it requires a government shutdown to do it …. which it will.
And, as I’ve said before, if it does come to a shutdown over the ACA, the GOP will take the disproportionate share of the blame.
-
Quote from dergon
I just don’t see it….. and the public certainly doesn’t see any connection.
Especially if Cruz is unleashed as the “Let’s Nuke ACA” spokesperson.
How neutered will that make Boehner? (a “[i]neutered Boehner”?![/i])
-
some articles going around today about the budget and not passing a budget that doesn’t have total cut of funding for ACA. Seems like it’s mostly a tea part sentiment. I’ve seen a couple of quotes from Boehner that don’t look promising.
[link=http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-congress-shutdown-20130912,0,3058414.story]http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-congress-shutdown-20130912,0,3058414.story[/link]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
[link=http://www.people-press.org/2013/09/16/as-health-care-law-proceeds-opposition-and-uncertainty-persist/]http://www.people-press.org/2013/09/16/as-health-care-law-proceeds-opposition-and-uncertainty-persist/[/link]
A new poll from Pew Research shows persistent opposition to Obamacare, continuing to grow slightly. The move to “make it fail”, however, shows a big partisan divide, particularly strong in the Tea Party.
[image]http://www.people-press.org/files/2013/09/2.png[/image]
I still think that the defund strategy is an overall loser for the GOP. If they could get on board with some real fixes and gain ground in the middle they’d have more overall electoral success than the the strategy that plays to their base. Again though, in the GOP the biggest risk to not getting reelected isn’t the general election, it’s the primary. So I figure “play to the Tea Party” continues to be strategy most choose.
-
Is interesting that only 23% of all those surveyed want it to fail.
It’s also interesting that only 64% of the Tea Party respondents want it to fail. I would have expected closer to 84%. 64% is not really a very loud rally call, especially when you consider that they’re supposed to be the most staunch zealots. Just shows you how loudly a mouse can roar.
-
The fact that there is a clear contingent of “make fail” Repubs shows their abject fear of the program being a success.
-
Obamacare is so bad that once the people get a taste they will be hooked & love it. Just like Social Security & Medicare! Better to destroy the economy now before Obamacare is loved.
The logic of Ted Cruz & the Tea Baggers.-
Now Obamacare equals rape!
[link=http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/right-wing-ad-equates-obamacare-and-rape-20130919]http://www.nationaljourna…care-and-rape-20130919[/link]
Generation Opportunity, a coalition of right-leaning groups with ties to the Koch brothers, has released a campaign video essentially telling college students that if they sign up for Obamacare, a man in a creepy Uncle Sam costume will jam a speculum up their vagina!
There’s also a video aimed at college men in which the creepy Uncle Sam clown materializes out from under some near-child’s exam chair to presumably fondle his prostate. Because that is what doctors do, right?
Because nothing says cool like not having health care coverage, and maybe, if these ads succeed in scaring women out of the annual Pap exams they need, a diagnosis of cervical cancer.-
That is not what the add is saying. You know it. I know it.
Classic troll drivel from your side.-
What is the ad trying to say then?
-
I suppose it is trying to make an equivalency between government involvement in the provision of insurance and direct intrusion by governmental officials directly into your actual care …… if it does not overtly use a “rape” theme, it certainly does play a card of sexual inappropriateness.
I guess I understand what the ad is trying to do, but I don’t think it does it well. *shrugs*-
They miss the broad side of the barn by a country mile on all points. They are actually funny but more about the creepiness of the producers of the commercials than the message.
-
-
-
Quote from radmike
That is not what the add is saying. You know it. I know it.
Classic troll drivel from your side.You are out of your mind.
That’s [u]EXACTLY[/u] what the ad is saying.
Why else would she scream?!
Do you think that’s a stethoscope he’s holding?
Idiot. Pure and simple.
-
Quote from Lux
Quote from radmike
That is not what the add is saying. You know it. I know it.
Classic troll drivel from your side.You are out of your mind.
That’s [u]EXACTLY[/u] what the ad is saying.Why else would she scream?!
Do you think that’s a stethoscope he’s holding?Idiot. Pure and simple.
You are a fool and a useful idiot for Obama. That is what is plain and simple. Any credibility you thought you had is now gone.
He’s holding a speculum. Are you in junior high? Certainly not a health care professional or any type of professional, except maybe agitator.-
Glass houses…………………stones
ahhhhhh you arent exactly the Queen of Credibility-
You libs blindly follow your demagogue, the obummer. Just look at what happened in Europe when that German paper hanger came into power. Blind obedience to a tyrant is not recommended.
-
Quote from Point Man
You libs blindly follow your demagogue, the obummer. Just look at what happened in Europe when that German paper hanger came into power. Blind obedience to a tyrant is not recommended.
Godwin’s Law ——— you lose , Point Man 😉
[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law[/link]
[b]Godwin’s law[/b] (also known as [b]Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies[/b] or [b]Godwin’s Law of Nazi Analogies) . [/b]
is an assertion made by [link=http://www.auntminnie.com/wiki/Mike_Godwin]Mike Godwin[/link] in 1990. It states: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving [link=http://www.auntminnie.com/wiki/Nazi_Party]Nazis[/link] or [link=http://www.auntminnie.com/wiki/Adolf_Hitler]Hitler[/link] [link=http://www.auntminnie.com/wiki/Limit_(mathematics)]approaches[/link] [link=http://www.auntminnie.com/wiki/Almost_surely]1[/link]. In other words, Godwin said that, given enough time, in [i]any[/i] online discussionregardless of topic or scopesomeone inevitably makes a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis.
Although in one of its early forms Godwin’s law referred specifically to [link=http://www.auntminnie.com/wiki/Usenet]Usenet[/link] [link=http://www.auntminnie.com/wiki/Newsgroup]newsgroup[/link] discussions, the law is now often applied to any [link=http://www.auntminnie.com/wiki/Conversation_threading]threaded online discussion[/link], such as [link=http://www.auntminnie.com/wiki/Internet_forum]forums[/link], [link=http://www.auntminnie.com/wiki/Chat_room]chat rooms[/link] and [link=http://www.auntminnie.com/wiki/Blog]blog[/link] comment threads, and has been invoked for the inappropriate use of Nazi analogies in articles or speeches.
The law is sometimes invoked, as a rule, to mark the end of a discussion when a Nazi analogy is made, with [b]the writer who made the analogy being considered to have lost the argument.[/b]
-
Quote from dergon
[b]Godwin’s law[/b]
I’m sure there are similar phenomena that invoke Orwell, a Clinton, Dubya, and McCarthy.
-
Lux Law – As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of [u][color=”#0000ff”]referring to someone as a racist or bigot approaches[/color][/u] [link=http://www.auntminnie.com/wiki/Almost_surely]1[/link].
The law is sometimes invoked, as a rule, to mark the end of a discussion when the writer resorts to calling someone a racist or bigot, with [b]the writer who made the remark being considered to have lost the argument.[/b] -
Quote from IR_CONSULT
Lux Law – As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of [u][color=”#0000ff”]referring to someone as a racist or bigot approaches[/color][/u] [link=http://www.auntminnie.com/wiki/Almost_surely]1[/link].
The law is sometimes invoked, as a rule, to mark the end of a discussion when the writer resorts to calling someone a racist or bigot, with [b]the writer who made the remark being considered to have lost the argument.[/b]
Correction…
Lux Law – As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of referring to a racist or bigot as a racist or bigot approaches 1 as the racism and bigotry persists.
-
-
Quote from radmike
Quote from Lux
Quote from radmike
That is not what the add is saying. You know it. I know it.
Classic troll drivel from your side.You are out of your mind.
That’s [u]EXACTLY[/u] what the ad is saying.Why else would she scream?!
Do you think that’s a stethoscope he’s holding?Idiot. Pure and simple.
You are a fool and a useful idiot for Obama. That is what is plain and simple. Any credibility you thought you had is now gone.
He’s holding a speculum. Are you in junior high? Certainly not a health care professional or any type of professional, except maybe agitator.Yes, of cause, everyone knows its a speculum, which totally makes it appropriate for her to scream and squirm, right?
Insensitive idiot.
Your denial is pathetically transparent to any rational thinker reading this discussion. Give it up before you dig yourself deeper.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Pull out all the creepiness stops.
[link=http://nypost.com/2013/09/15/obamacare-will-question-your-sex-life/]http://nypost.com/2013/09…uestion-your-sex-life/[/link]-
Quote from Frumious
Pull out all the creepiness stops.
[link=http://nypost.com/2013/09/15/obamacare-will-question-your-sex-life/]http://nypost.com/2013/09…uestion-your-sex-life/[/link]I do see the point, but it’s not like this is a paradigm shift. I mean, since the beginning of the insurance industry, physicians have been very cooperative in forwarding to insurance companies just about anything and everything about their patients private concerns protected by HIPAA if it’s related to their healthcare. Regardless of whether a patient has venereal disease, abortion, mastectomy, testectomy, lice, scabies, alopecia, etc., you can bet your butt all that goes to the insurance company. Who cares if they also know whether you’ve been in the saddle with 5 different partners this week?
These arguments have gone into the outer stratosphere of credibility.
-
-
Quote from Lux
Quote from radmike
Quote from Lux
Quote from radmike
That is not what the add is saying. You know it. I know it.
Classic troll drivel from your side.You are out of your mind.
That’s [u]EXACTLY[/u] what the ad is saying.Why else would she scream?!
Do you think that’s a stethoscope he’s holding?Idiot. Pure and simple.
You are a fool and a useful idiot for Obama. That is what is plain and simple. Any credibility you thought you had is now gone.
He’s holding a speculum. Are you in junior high? Certainly not a health care professional or any type of professional, except maybe agitator.Yes, of cause, everyone knows its a speculum, which totally makes it appropriate for her to scream and squirm, right?
Insensitive idiot.
Your denial is pathetically transparent to any rational thinker reading this discussion. Give it up before you dig yourself deeper.
Lux, you moron, she was screaming because of a cartoonish uncle Sam about to do her exam. The point being that the government is coming between you and your doctor. How can you not see this? Willful ignorance.
-
Sure, with a [u][i]speculum[/i][/u], and a [u][i]vaginal[/i][/u] exam, as if there were NO other subliminals deliberately intended?
Wake up. You are the only one with such an imbecilic interpretation of that ad.
-
By having someone get private insurance?
Would you same the same if an ad about the republican (non) plan took her out into a back alley and showed a creepy old man with a wire hanger?-
Quote from Thor
By having someone get private insurance?
Would you same the same if an ad about the republican (non) plan took her out into a back alley and showed a creepy old man with a wire hanger?Maybe he wouldn’t have any problem if an ad showed the House of Congress with people in suits on the left of the aisle and people in black robes, beards, and face masks, holding AK47s on the right of the aisle, with the headline “Don’t let the Republicans hold our government hostage”!
Dumb dumb dumb. No implications there either, right, radmike?
A virtually naked woman screaming while a creepy looking non-physician comes at her with a speculum and he says it’s an innocent ad that has no subliminal. Give me a break.
-
You really need to get some help. In your eyes everything a conservative does is pure evil and Obama can do no wrong. Blind hatred and blind faith all in one. Not a good combination. It’s this kind of hubris that usually precedes the downfall.
-
Quote from radmike
You really need to get some help. In your eyes everything a conservative does is pure evil and Obama can do no wrong. Blind hatred and blind faith all in one. Not a good combination. It’s this kind of hubris that usually precedes the downfall.
Considering how you’ve been rambling on about Obama and Martin, you have big brass ones accusing [i][u]me[/u][/i] of blind hatred. I have no blind hatred or blind faith, but unlike you and yours I consider FACTS before I draw any conclusions, and for you to look at that ad and miss the elephant just screams volumes about your own blindness.
Right now, the “Let’s Defund ACA” group is encountering more fierce opposition form the Republican Party than from any Democrat. You might want to reconsider where you direct your angst. As a matter of FACT, according to the recent Pew survey, 69% of all Americans want lawmakers to make ACA work as well as possible while [b][i]only about 23% of Americans want ACA to fail. [/i][/b]In other words, the entire premise of this discussion is bogus.
-
I don’t have blind faith in Obama or the PPACA. I don’t think it goes far enough to control costs or completely fix access. It was and always will be a center right reform plan based on what Romney did in Mass. HOWEVER, I am willing to 1) give it a chance to function and 2) allow the govt to fix things as problems arise like we always have in this country as opposed to the active sabotage, try to make it fail plans on the right driven by pure partisanship and a lack of regard for the country as a whole
-
Quote from Thor
I don’t have blind faith in Obama or the PPACA. I don’t think it goes far enough to control costs or completely fix access. It was and always will be a center right reform plan based on what Romney did in Mass. HOWEVER, I am willing to 1) give it a chance to function and 2) allow the govt to fix things as problems arise like we always have in this country as opposed to the active sabotage, try to make it fail plans on the right driven by pure partisanship and a lack of regard for the country as a whole
Eh, the Tea Party gave it the ol’ college try and thought the bully pulpit would convert the flock.
We will soon see.
I’m just surprised that Boehner is being so spineless. And where are the traditionalists like Hatch? Is he afraid to weigh in because of how other traditionalists are getting their butts kicked, like Graham and McCain? Or might Hatch be a wise wallflower sitting this one out because he knows anyone in the ring is going to get their political throats cut for this?
-
Actually Thor, you mean you have no more blind faith in Obama than Mike or the other wingers had for Bush when he was President.
As for hating, that’s a right-wing thang.-
Wrong again, but nice try. You know nothing about my disagreements with Bush. You just keep making things up to try to salvage your already damaged reputation on this forum.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
🙂
-
Oh, let’s all be adults here and cut to the chase. Those who hate Obamacare don’t wanna pay out of their hard earned money for dirtbags who smoked cigs and dope and drank themselves near to death. The whole thing is a control issue, and wealth redistribution from rich to poor. Now Komrade Frumious said somewhere that “rich doctors” liek me all made their money from the government anyway, so we should all be happily lining up to give it all back.
Same cr@p we always get from Communists, and thats what you are whether you want to admit it or not. And don’t bother with some tight definition from Webster’s that just barely lets you off the hook. No, you want “the rich” to cough it up and pay everyone’s way, for healthcare and eventually for everything else. Why should you work when the rich have so much excess that they just stole from everyone else anyway? Dr. Frumious the Physicist PACSMAN doesn’t have to give away anything, but the naasty RICH Cardiac STOLE it from the PEOPLE and has to GIVE IT BACK!!!
Obamacare forces people to buy insurance, except for the poor by someone’s definition, which ultimately is nothing more than wealth redistribution. But the sheeple are programmed to think that they DESERVE it, they are entitled to it. Those are the folks that vote Democratic…those who want what I got, and those who want me to give them what I got. And the rare rich guy who thinks hes paying protection money to the Communist rabble by bleating along with you.
Be real. This is where you’re heads are. It just makes you feel all warm inside to bleat about how the RICH should be taking care of the POOR while you don’t do one dam thing except bleat about it. Just like globalconfusionclimatechangepseudoscience, which you run your mouths about and don’t actually DO anything. All talk and no action. Which is probably a good thing in the end.-
I think the problem is that when people are talking about the “rich” you think they are talking about you.
If you are a Doctor, you are upper-middle-class at best, not “rich” in the 2013 connotation. So unless you have a chauffeur, can afford to donate to [i]both[/i] political parties, “leverage” a few state senate races to go your way, and think of your paycheck as a secondary source of income; you are NOT RICH!
-
“Oh, let’s all be adults here and cut to the chase. Those who hate Obamacare don’t wanna pay out of their hard earned money for dirtbags who smoked cigs and dope and drank themselves near to death.”
Where do you think the money is coming from now?-
[b]”Those who hate Obamacare don’t wanna pay out of their hard earned money for dirtbags who smoked cigs and dope and drank themselves near to death.”[/b]
[b] [/b]
Not from those demo-crites you just cited in your above quote.-
And certainly not from the red state deadbeats
-
Democrats and Blue States pay more taxes while Republicans and Red States are generally are the receivers of those benefits.
Cardiac, you rant about those lazy and stupid bastards who ‘steal’ your hard-earned dollars but fail to see the irony that you are affluent because you are the recipient of tax benefits that creates a market and guarantees a revenue from those tax benefits that others are paying to you.
And the most delicious irony of all is your own comment that those who receive government benefits believe they are most deserving of those benefits. To the tune of making them affluent.
You are affluent because of taxes and their benefits, not in spite of them.
-
Quote from Frumious
And the most delicious irony of all is your own comment that those who receive government benefits believe they are most deserving of those benefits. To the tune of making them affluent.
You are affluent because of taxes and their benefits, not in spite of them.
And that fiction and your typical twisting of words justifies your belief that it’s OK to steal it back from me. See, this is the communist rant…damn borgeoise stole what they have from the proletariat so it is true JUSTICE to take it away again. Komrade Karl Marxius speaks!!!! Hey, how about those who didn’t get rich via Medicare which is what you are implying? Oh, they must have stolen it some other way, I guess.-
Quote from CardiacEvent
And that fiction and your typical twisting of words justifies your belief that it’s OK to steal it back from me.
Interesting choice of words, to “steal it back from.”
-
[link=http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2009/04/taxation-is-not-theft/]http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2009/04/taxation-is-not-theft/[/link]
Quote from CardiacEvent
Quote from Frumious
And the most delicious irony of all is your own comment that those who receive government benefits believe they are most deserving of those benefits. To the tune of making them affluent.
You are affluent because of taxes and their benefits, not in spite of them.
And that fiction and your typical twisting of words justifies your belief that it’s OK to steal it back from me. See, this is the communist rant…damn borgeoise stole what they have from the proletariat so it is true JUSTICE to take it away again. Komrade Karl Marxius speaks!!!! Hey, how about those who didn’t get rich via Medicare which is what you are implying? Oh, they must have stolen it some other way, I guess.
Taxation is not theft. Neither is a society with some degree of “high” taxation necessarily Marxist or even socialist.
The centerpiece of the libertarian rhetorical strategy is to refer to taxation as theft (or robbery or slavery). Ive heard these epithets and others like them many times. Its easy to see what purpose this serves: to make your concerns seem more important, it helps to refer to them not as bloodless policy differences, but as raw issues of justice. The government is stealing from innocent people! is a lot punchier and packs more emotional heft than any proposal, no matter how passionately worded, to simplify unnecessary regulations and cut down on bureaucratic red tape.
But this overheated claim is being asked to bear far more weight than it can possibly support. Of all the libertarian policy proposals out there (many others of which I agree with), the equation of taxation with theft is the [i]least[/i] defensible. The fallacies in this should be obvious to a moments thought, but some people seem unwilling to take that moment….
Going hand-in-hand with the fallacious equation of taxation to theft is another libertarian fallacy: the belief that a free market is the natural state of affairs and will spontaneously arise if only the economy is left to itself. This is wrong. A free market is a kind of [i]infrastructure[/i], and like all other infrastructure, it requires investment to create and effort to maintain.
As centuries of history show, the [i]natural[/i] state of an unregulated economy is not free competition, but stifled and constrained competition. Large, established powers, if given the chance, will do everything they can to suppress competition whether through means fair or foul. From medieval guilds to industrial robber barons, the tactics are always the same: seizing the distribution channels, the infrastructure, the intellectual property, or the sources of raw material. Governments want to control vital resources in the name of national security; industry groups may take a hand in designing regulations that make it all but impossible for new players to enter the field. Outright intimidation, fraud and violence are often used against those who refuse to play along.
-
-
[b]”Democrats and Blue States pay more taxes while Republicans and Red States are generally are the receivers of those benefits.” [/b]
[b] [/b]
As usual bandersnatch, you demo-crites make these outlandish statements without providing the data to support your fabrications. Now you, soapy and hammerboy get your heads together to spin out some crazy data for our entertainment.-
Oh, and by the way, Comrades…your little ditty about the “rich” getting affluent from the government shouldn’t go without challenge.
First, if you look it up you’ll find that the fastest growing class of wealthy is those who work for….the government! A little profitteering, maybe?
AND…..there is one big thing you chose to ignore about nasty rich doctors like me who you say got rich off the government….WE WORKED FOR IT! Unlike the entitled folk who look at me and only see that I’m RICH but not that I WORKED for it and want me to give them what I WORKED for! For some reason you just don’t understand that. Being a PhD in Physics, you probably think you’re smarter than most doctors, and you would probably be right about that. But I’m sure you just cant stomach that the decent wage you make as a PACSMAN is doubled or tripled or whatever by those stooooopid greedy rich doctors. Something should be DONE about that, expecially since they STOLE what they got from the government, i.e. the PEOPLE, like you. Do I have it about right?
Comrade’s definition of Rich…someone who has more than he does. -
Quote from Point Man
[b]”Democrats and Blue States pay more taxes while Republicans and Red States are generally are the receivers of those benefits.” [/b]
[b] [/b]
As usual bandersnatch, you demo-crites make these outlandish statements without providing the data to support your fabrications. Now you, soapy and hammerboy get your heads together to spin out some crazy data for our entertainment.Here you are:
[link=http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/04/the_red_state_ripoff.html]http://voices.washingtonp…_red_state_ripoff.html[/link] -
Moocher States. Those who vote for Republicans to lower taxes while creating more of a tax burden by being beneficiaries of tax benefits & welfare programs.
[link=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-19/blame-fdr-and-lbj-for-moocher-paradox-in-red-states.html]http://www.bloomberg.com/…dox-in-red-states.html[/link]
The Moocher Myth is this: People who vote Republican are successful, responsible strivers who pay taxes and keep the U.S. government afloat, while people who vote for Democrats are irresponsible moochers living off government programs. In Romneys phrase, they are the 47 percent who are dependent on government, who believe they are victims.
But research then and now has pointed out that the states that got the most per capita in federal dollars were more likely to vote for Republicans.
Every year, about 30 states receive more in federal spending than they pay in taxes, while the other 20 states bankroll the federal government. [link=http://topics.bloomberg.com/new-mexico/]New Mexico[/link] and [link=http://topics.bloomberg.com/mississippi/]Mississippi[/link] are usually the greatest net beneficiaries of spending, receiving roughly $2 in spending for every dollar paid in taxes. [link=http://topics.bloomberg.com/new-jersey/]New Jersey[/link] and Illinois are the greatest net contributors to the federal government, receiving about 60 cents in spending for every dollar paid in taxes. States in the Northeast, Great Lakes and Pacific Coast generally lose money to the federal government, while Southern and Great Plains states benefit.
[b]It remains a mystery why places that receive the most per person in federal spending, particularly on welfare programs, vote in presidential elections for the party that wants to cut those programs. [/b]
[b] Voters in net beneficiary states have the luxury of voting for presidential candidates who pledge to cut taxes and halt the expansion of government while knowing that their congressional delegations will continue to protect federal spending. [/b]
Or as Sonny Callahan, Republican of Alabama says,The thing that makes a congressman effective in the South is constituent services, said Sonny Callahan, who represented the district in Congress from 1985 to 2003.
Now what exactly can “constituent services” mean? Maybe get government benefits? For free?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from CardiacEvent
…dirtbags who smoked cigs and dope and drank themselves near to death.
So basically, people who you can thank for your paycheck.
-
Quote from Lux
Quote from CardiacEvent
…dirtbags who smoked cigs and dope and drank themselves near to death.
So basically, people who you can thank for your paycheck.
No, those are the folks who DON’T pay by and large. Guess you aren’t a physician after all. And so we’re back to I’m stealing from the poor.
Vets in some areas are makin upwards of $200K, not shabby for a cash on the barrelhead business.-
Quote from CardiacEvent
Quote from Lux
Quote from CardiacEvent
…dirtbags who smoked cigs and dope and drank themselves near to death.
So basically, people who you can thank for your paycheck.
No, those are the folks who DON’T pay by and large. Guess you aren’t a physician after all. And so we’re back to I’m stealing from the poor.
Vets in some areas are makin upwards of $200K, not shabby for a cash on the barrelhead business.How silly. If you REALLY were talking ONLY about actual [i]”dirtbags who smoked cigs and dope and drank themselves near to death”[/i], you’d only really be talking about a very small population segment who have no significant impact on your income and in no way form a rational basis for scuttling the entire ACA for everyone else, so I assumed that moniker was your condescending way of referring to all people who generally throw their health to the wind and pay no real attention to nutrition, exercise, and bad habits, which of course describes the general population of the USA, ergo the people who put a roof over your head and food on your table.
And I wasn’t talking about how much vets make, I was talking about whether you would be able to make it as a vet because I am doubting you have the ability to connect with humans enough to convince them to give you their own money.
You have trouble with logic, do you realize that? It’s why I continue to fear for any patient to whom you attempt to apply a differential diagnostic protocol.
-
-
-
-
-
Now come on CE. You know you are required by socialistic economic principles to help the obummer re-distribute that wealth to the demo-critic base. The welfare coffers are becoming bare under this dismal economy that this failed administration has bestowed upon us. Get a grip, and give it up!!
-
Quote from Point Man
Now come on CE. You know you are required by socialistic economic principles to help the obummer re-distribute that wealth to the demo-critic base. The welfare coffers are becoming bare under this dismal economy that this failed administration has bestowed upon us. Get a grip, and give it up!!
Now you’ve got me on a roll.
[link=http://taxfoundation.org/blog/why-do-some-states-feast-federal-spending-not-others]http://taxfoundation.org/…al-spending-not-others[/link]So what explains the distribution of federal taxing and spending? As you can see from the map, states that get the “worst deal”that is, have the lowest ratio of federal spending to taxes paidare generally high-income states either on the coasts or with robust urban areas (such as Illinois and Minnesota). Perhaps not coincidentally, these “donor” states also tend to vote for Democrat candidates in national elections. Similarly, many states that get the “best deal” are lower-income states in the mid-west and south with expansive rural areas that tend to vote Republican.
[attachment=0]
Interesting to note which States have the lowest taxes while receiving the highest government benefits.
It is the Republican Red States getting the largest bailouts & it is the Democrat Blue States providing the bailouts.
-
Quote from Frumious
Quote from Point Man
Now come on CE. You know you are required by socialistic economic principles to help the obummer re-distribute that wealth to the demo-critic base. The welfare coffers are becoming bare under this dismal economy that this failed administration has bestowed upon us. Get a grip, and give it up!!
Now you’ve got me on a roll.
[link=http://taxfoundation.org/blog/why-do-some-states-feast-federal-spending-not-others]http://taxfoundation.org/…al-spending-not-others[/link]
So what explains the distribution of federal taxing and spending? As you can see from the map, states that get the “worst deal”that is, have the lowest ratio of federal spending to taxes paidare generally high-income states either on the coasts or with robust urban areas (such as Illinois and Minnesota). Perhaps not coincidentally, these “donor” states also tend to vote for Democrat candidates in national elections. Similarly, many states that get the “best deal” are lower-income states in the mid-west and south with expansive rural areas that tend to vote Republican.
[attachment=0]
Interesting to note which States have the lowest taxes while receiving the highest government benefits.
It is the Republican Red States getting the largest bailouts & it is the Democrat Blue States providing the bailouts.
Bandersnatch, you didn’t roll very far. That little lib graphic proves absolutely nothing!!! Give me the total for all states. Don’t search the net to find some liberally slanted horse droppings.
-
Bandersnatch, you didn’t roll very far. That little lib graphic proves absolutely nothing!!! Give me the total for all states. Don’t search the net to find some liberally slanted horse droppings.
The Tax Foundation as [i]liberally slanted[/i]? Huh?
They’re darlings of the right, allies of the Chamber of Congress, and often quoted by tax opponents…… “Tax Freedom Day” is their idea (and math). And the most damning proof that they’re righties, Krugman hates them:
[link=http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/the-tax-foundation-is-not-a-reliable-source/?_r=0]http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/the-tax-foundation-is-not-a-reliable-source/?_r=0[/link]
-
Quote from dergon
Bandersnatch, you didn’t roll very far. That little lib graphic proves absolutely nothing!!! Give me the total for all states. Don’t search the net to find some liberally slanted horse droppings.
The Tax Foundation as [i]liberally slanted[/i]? Huh?
They’re darlings of the right, allies of the Chamber of Congress, and often quoted by tax opponents…… “Tax Freedom Day” is their idea (and math). And the most damning proof that they’re righties, Krugman hates them:
[link=http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/the-tax-foundation-is-not-a-reliable-source/?_r=0]http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/the-tax-foundation-is-not-a-reliable-source/?_r=0[/link]
Krugman?? You are quoting that idiot Krugman?? That ol’ boy doesn’t know enough to come in out of the rain. Show me a real economist.
-
-
Yeah I forgot…facts are toxic to you Pointy
-
Hammerboy, you stickin’ up for ol’ bandersnatch? He’s a big boy/girl. Let him/her speak for himself/herself. Good data is useful data – bull droppings lib graphics are still bull droppings. Show me the data to back up his outlandish claim. As usual you can’t! Talk is cheap hammer. Now go back to sleep there on your sofa since as usual you are alone and lonely tonight.
-
-
Quote from Point Man
Bandersnatch, you didn’t roll very far. That little lib graphic proves absolutely nothing!!! Give me the total for all states. Don’t search the net to find some liberally slanted horse droppings.
I thought the map did show all of the states. Which one(s) did the map miss?
What is your point? You have a link showing the opposite?-
The map shows that the states with the highest populations are getting the worst deal. Think that might have somethin to do with it?
But back to the Great and Wonderful and Impotent Lu-app. Love the Alinsky tactics, bro. “I never said that, I never said that, I never said that, Ineversaidthat…” You sho did. Go back and read carefully. You said you weren’t slandering me by calling me a bad doctor because I might be a “SOFTWARE ALGORITHM.”
As for stick it up your anode, that was a joke, based on my assumption that you are really a computer program running on an old East German Vacuum tube computer. Liberals are quite concrete minded and can’t take jokes about themselves. You have spewed nasty phrases like that about every third post of your 3800 droppings here.
On the rest of your little whine you didn’t read what I wrote OR what you wrote.
I’m calling the ex-Stasi guys to see if they could maybe get around to changing out some of your broken vaccum tubes. -
Quote from Frumious
Quote from Point Man
Bandersnatch, you didn’t roll very far. That little lib graphic proves absolutely nothing!!! Give me the total for all states. Don’t search the net to find some liberally slanted horse droppings.
I thought the map did show all of the states. Which one(s) did the map miss?
What is your point? You have a link showing the opposite?
[b]”Democrats and Blue States pay more taxes while Republicans and Red States are generally are the receivers of those benefits.” [/b]
[b] [/b]
The graphic only shows the top 10 and the lowest 10. Your quote was inclusive of all states. Give me that data.
-
Quote from Point Man
[b]”Democrats and Blue States pay more taxes while Republicans and Red States are generally are the receivers of those benefits.” [/b]
[b] [/b]
The graphic only shows the top 10 and the lowest 10. Your quote was inclusive of all states. Give me that data.Well that explains it, you didn’t bother opening the link & reading the article.
Here is the graphic.
[attachment=0]-
Quote from Frumious
Quote from Point Man
[b]”Democrats and Blue States pay more taxes while Republicans and Red States are generally are the receivers of those benefits.” [/b]
[b] [/b]
The graphic only shows the top 10 and the lowest 10. Your quote was inclusive of all states. Give me that data.Well that explains it, you didn’t bother opening the link & reading the article.
Here is the graphic.
[attachment=0]
First of all bandersnatch, I read your weak link. Now I will do this very sloooooooowly…I need to see the totals of all states. You said Reds got more than blue. I hope this is not too difficult for you.-
I see a trend! I see a trend! The lower spending states are most of those with the highest populations. And/Or the most liberal.
-
Quote from CardiacEvent
I see a trend! I see a trend! The lower spending states are most of those with the highest populations. And/Or the most liberal.
So what does that say then, Cardiac? The most liberal are the most productive. The Blue States are the more productive and the Red States are the least taking support from the Blue States.
Red State Welfare
If we think of states as voters — and they are in presidential elections due to the Electoral College — then the Moocher Myth is [link=http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us/even-critics-of-safety-net-increasingly-depend-on-it.html?pagewanted=all]backward[/link]. Starting with the 2000 election, the states that have benefited the most from federal spending have voted Republican. Those that pay the most in taxes per dollar received in spending vote Democrat. This paradox occurs even controlling for a states per-capita income, total population, racial composition, education level and defense spending.
-
-
Quote from Point Man
First of all bandersnatch, I read your weak link. Now I will do this very sloooooooowly…I need to see the totals of all states. You said Reds got more than blue. I hope this is not too difficult for you.
Speaking slowly for your own benefit. This is really hard.
[link=http://taxfoundation.org/article/federal-taxes-paid-vs-federal-spending-received-state-1981-2005]http://taxfoundation.org/article/federal-taxes-paid-vs-federal-spending-received-state-1981-2005[/link]
This is very simple, just for you.
[link=http://taxfoundation.org/article/federal-spending-received-dollar-taxes-paid-state-2005]http://taxfoundation.org/article/federal-spending-received-dollar-taxes-paid-state-2005[/link]
Each State is listed.-
Now c’mon Frumi…Hannity and Rush tell them Blue states are the problem; why would Pointy need facts when he is listening to such reputable sources
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I believe Christie pointed this out when someone criticized him about asking for his FEMA dollars for Sandy..but
get ready y’all cause October 1st it is ObamaCARE time…the insurance commercial in Cali are in over drive
and
this is a shout out to SAD, I recommend a show Anthony Bourdain on CNN..he does this food around the world and he did a recent mid east visit ..very intrusting..Quote from Frumious
Quote from Point Man
Now come on CE. You know you are required by socialistic economic principles to help the obummer re-distribute that wealth to the demo-critic base. The welfare coffers are becoming bare under this dismal economy that this failed administration has bestowed upon us. Get a grip, and give it up!!
Now you’ve got me on a roll.
[link=http://taxfoundation.org/blog/why-do-some-states-feast-federal-spending-not-others]http://taxfoundation.org/…al-spending-not-others[/link]
So what explains the distribution of federal taxing and spending? As you can see from the map, states that get the “worst deal”that is, have the lowest ratio of federal spending to taxes paidare generally high-income states either on the coasts or with robust urban areas (such as Illinois and Minnesota). Perhaps not coincidentally, these “donor” states also tend to vote for Democrat candidates in national elections. Similarly, many states that get the “best deal” are lower-income states in the mid-west and south with expansive rural areas that tend to vote Republican.
[attachment=0]
Interesting to note which States have the lowest taxes while receiving the highest government benefits.
It is the Republican Red States getting the largest bailouts & it is the Democrat Blue States providing the bailouts.
-
-
Point Man, CardiacEvent, RVU, and aldadoc:
Is there ANY line of work you think you could make a living wage in where the customer actually paid you with their own hard earned dollar rather than you raking it in with the socialist insurance revenue stream?
I highly doubt any of you would be able to put food on the table as a veterinarian.
You have no idea what it takes to earn a living by getting people to pay out of their own pocket for what they think you are worth.
-
-
And you, Sir/Ma’am, live in some sort of communist fantasy, wherein you are the star of the show, bleeding generosity and gracing your lucky patients with the fruits of your vast knowledge. Or not. I deal in realities, which you clearly don’t. FWIW, my patients love me, and I have quite a good reputation round these parts. The fact that [b]you[/b] have on multiple occasions declared me a bad doctor (which is slander, by the way) based on the fact that I don’t agree with YOUR tortured logic as usual says a great deal more about your insecurities and insufficiencies than mine. Hope you enjoy life in your mommie’s basement.
And Dergon, I’m so glad you love paying taxes to support dirtballs. I don’t. When the RICH are demonized, and taxes are used for wealth redistribution, that’s theft, bucko. I don’t really care if you can find that defiiniton in Marx’s Manifesto or not.-
Quote from CardiacEvent
And you, Sir/Ma’am, live in some sort of communist fantasy, wherein you are the star of the show, bleeding generosity and gracing your lucky patients with the fruits of your vast knowledge. Or not. I deal in realities, which you clearly don’t. FWIW, my patients love me, and I have quite a good reputation round these parts. The fact that [b]you[/b] have on multiple occasions declared me a bad doctor (which is slander, by the way) based on the fact that I don’t agree with YOUR tortured logic as usual says a great deal more about your insecurities and insufficiencies than mine. Hope you enjoy life in your mommie’s basement.
And Dergon, I’m so glad you love paying taxes to support dirtballs. I don’t. When the RICH are demonized, and taxes are used for wealth redistribution, that’s theft, bucko. I don’t really care if you can find that defiiniton in Marx’s Manifesto or not.
As if anyone would call any comment to an anonymous user on the internet “slander”. Who am I slandering? A ficticious handle (“CardiacEvent”) in an internet forum? As far as I know, I could be talking to a software algorithm. As far as you know, so could YOU. What a hoot!
In my humble opinion, as far as I’m concerned, you would not be able to make an honest living wage if it wasn’t for the insurance industry. And I’m SURE your patients love you. After all you give them services they don’t have to pay for. My point is, let’s see how many patients you would have if they had to pay for your services out of their own pocket.
And I wonder how many of our patients would love us if we told each of them we wanted ACA to fail only because of the miniscule segment of “dirtbags” that might abuse it and perhaps cost us 15 cents per day of lost revenue. Yeah, they’d love us to death. By your logic, your patients should want the entire field of medicine to fail justy because of the miniscule segment of “dirtbag” physicians who abuse THAT system.Yeah, you “deal” with reality alright.
-
Quote from The Great, Wonderful, and Impotent LU!!!!!!
As if anyone would call any comment to an anonymous user on the internet “slander”. Who am I slandering? A ficticious handle (“CardiacEvent”) in an internet forum? As far as I know, I could be talking to a software algorithm. As far as you know, so could YOU. What a hoot!
Lu, Lu, Lu….of all the incredibly weird and stoooooopid things you’ve said, this one might just be the most stooooooooooopid of all. It’s OK to denigrate (yes, I said denigrate, deal with it) someone one the other end of the net because they might be a bleedin’ SOFTWARE ALGORITHM? Geeez.. Now I HAVE heard it all. OK, Lu-app…I’m guessing you are running on some surplus East German vacume tube computer, and you are written in Fortran. So stick that up your anode.
Quote from The Great, Wonderful, and Impotent LU!!!!!!
In my humble opinion, as far as I’m concerned, you would not be able to make an honest living wage if it wasn’t for the insurance industry. And I’m SURE your patients love you. After all you give them services they don’t have to pay for. My point is, let’s see how many patients you would have if they had to pay for your services out of their own pocket.
Sorry, Great Lu…I’m lost, dazzled by your superior intellect and bright shiny pointed head. So YOU think it’s a BAD thing that patients get stuff they don’t pay for? How much would they like the Great and Wonderful and Impotent LU if they had to pay YOU? But since your just a roll of paper tape on a decrepit East German Vacume tube computer, I guess you don’t need much but a little electricity made by a polluting coal plant and maybe a dusting here and there. We’ll all ignore just how many of your tubes you’ve blown.
Quote from The Great, Wonderful, and Impotent LU!!!!!!
And I wonder how many of our patients would love us if we told each of them we wanted ACA to fail only because of the miniscule segment of “dirtbags” that might abuse it and perhaps cost us 15 cents per day of lost revenue. Yeah, they’d love us to death. By your logic, your patients should want the entire field of medicine to fail justy because of the miniscule segment of “dirtbag” physicians who abuse THAT system.
Really, Lu, you apparently have blown a good percentage of your vaccum tubes. Maybe your paper tape wore out. Guess what, electron breath? Most of my patients ARE pi$$ed off that their insurance is goin up because THEY too have to pay for the dirtballs. I just have to pay more because I’m richer than FrumiMarx. And my patients, unlike the ex-Stasi guys that keep forgetting to change your blown vaccum tubes, realize that their doctors are important to them, and don’t want medicine to fail “JUSTY” because there are some bad apples out there. I don’t want medicine to fail, I want ACA to fail. Not JUSTY because I don’t want to pay for dirtbags, but because I don’t want to pay for dirtbags TWICE. Yeah, I take care of all comers, something your vaccum tubes probably can’t comprehend, cus its the right thing to do. Docs like me take care of the uninsured, so I don’t want to pay out even MORE in taxes, of which I might get back some tiny fraction in “extra” payment from ACA after getting screwed in overall drops in reimbursement.
Quote from The Great, Wonderful, and Impotent LU!!!!!!
Yeah, you “deal” with reality alright.
Yes, I do. And I guess you do to within the llimitations of your broken vaccum tube virtual reality.
-
-
Quote from CardiacEvent
And Dergon, I’m so glad you love paying taxes to support dirtballs. I don’t. When the RICH are demonized, and taxes are used for wealth redistribution, that’s theft, bucko.
All taxation is redistributionist in some manner.
We have a legitimate political disagreement over the amount and types of taxes and the services that should be provided with them. That’s fine.
But that doesn’t make it theft. Nor does the fact that you don’t like paying taxes somehow make them illegal or tyrannical.
-
-
Quote from CardiacEvent
Quote from The Great, Wonderful, and Impotent LU!!!!!!
As if anyone would call any comment to an anonymous user on the internet “slander”. Who am I slandering? A ficticious handle (“CardiacEvent”) in an internet forum? As far as I know, I could be talking to a software algorithm. As far as you know, so could YOU. What a hoot!
Lu, Lu, Lu….of all the incredibly weird and stoooooopid things you’ve said, this one might just be the most stooooooooooopid of all. It’s OK to denigrate (yes, I said denigrate, deal with it) someone one the other end of the net because they might be a bleedin’ SOFTWARE ALGORITHM? Geeez.. Now I HAVE heard it all. OK, Lu-app…I’m guessing you are running on some surplus East German vacume tube computer, and you are written in Fortran. So stick that up your anode.
Quote from The Great, Wonderful, and Impotent LU!!!!!!
In my humble opinion, as far as I’m concerned, you would not be able to make an honest living wage if it wasn’t for the insurance industry. And I’m SURE your patients love you. After all you give them services they don’t have to pay for. My point is, let’s see how many patients you would have if they had to pay for your services out of their own pocket.Sorry, Great Lu…I’m lost, dazzled by your superior intellect and bright shiny pointed head. So YOU think it’s a BAD thing that patients get stuff they don’t pay for? How much would they like the Great and Wonderful and Impotent LU if they had to pay YOU? But since your just a roll of paper tape on a decrepit East German Vacume tube computer, I guess you don’t need much but a little electricity made by a polluting coal plant and maybe a dusting here and there. We’ll all ignore just how many of your tubes you’ve blown.
Quote from The Great, Wonderful, and Impotent LU!!!!!!
And I wonder how many of our patients would love us if we told each of them we wanted ACA to fail only because of the miniscule segment of “dirtbags” that might abuse it and perhaps cost us 15 cents per day of lost revenue. Yeah, they’d love us to death. By your logic, your patients should want the entire field of medicine to fail justy because of the miniscule segment of “dirtbag” physicians who abuse THAT system.Really, Lu, you apparently have blown a good percentage of your vaccum tubes. Maybe your paper tape wore out. Guess what, electron breath? Most of my patients ARE pi$$ed off that their insurance is goin up because THEY too have to pay for the dirtballs. I just have to pay more because I’m richer than FrumiMarx. And my patients, unlike the ex-Stasi guys that keep forgetting to change your blown vaccum tubes, realize that their doctors are important to them, and don’t want medicine to fail “JUSTY” because there are some bad apples out there. I don’t want medicine to fail, I want ACA to fail. Not JUSTY because I don’t want to pay for dirtbags, but because I don’t want to pay for dirtbags TWICE. Yeah, I take care of all comers, something your vaccum tubes probably can’t comprehend, cus its the right thing to do. Docs like me take care of the uninsured, so I don’t want to pay out even MORE in taxes, of which I might get back some tiny fraction in “extra” payment from ACA after getting screwed in overall drops in reimbursement.
Quote from The Great, Wonderful, and Impotent LU!!!!!!
Yeah, you “deal” with reality alright.
Yes, I do. And I guess you do to within the llimitations of your broken vaccum tube virtual reality.
Good Lord, what is your primary language, because it obviously isn’t English…
[b][i]”It’s OK to denigrate someone one the other end of the net because they might be a bleedin’ SOFTWARE ALGORITHM?”[/i][/b]
Never said that.
[b][i]”So stick that up your anode.”[/i][/b]
Way to win a debate.
[b][i]”So YOU think it’s a BAD thing that patients get stuff they don’t pay for?”[/i][/b]
Never said that.
[b][i]”Most of my patients ARE pi$$ed off that their insurance is goin up because THEY too have to pay for the dirtballs.”[/i][/b]
Well then your patients do not understand what’s going on. Their insurance rates are being adjusted to finally the ENTIRE population, and not just those screened out as “healthy”. Rather, it’s time for the socialistic architecture of the insurance industry to finally include EVERY American in their risk ratios, even those with pre-ex conditions, and that will only increase your revenue arena, not decrease it. And those “dirtbags” are going to be a drain no matter what — if they’re not scamming insurance, they’re making everyone else pay for their visits to the ER, so this is nothing new. Likewise there’s nothing new about physicians who scam their side of the system too, but we don’t hear the public roar about shutting down the entire physician practitioner industry the same way you are crying about shutting down ACA just because of a miniscule number of scammers (as if you could propose any other kind of plan that would guarantee a lower than insignificant scam rate).
At this point, I suggest you to stay away from sharp objects at least as well as you’re staying away from reality.
-
What it says is has more to do with population # than productivity. Find me a different graphic that says what you say it says.
-
It actually has more to do with demographics. Red states tend to be older, and the older age groups get disproportionately more federal spending per capita than do the young (mostly medicare and SS).
Blue state average income is also generally higher, leading to higher federal tax revenues from the coasts.
The combination leads to the data shown. -
What it says is that for every 1 dollar a state sends in taxes it gets back x dollars. So for example for New york and California they get back fewer aggregate dollars than they pay into the federal govt. Has nothing to do with population. Now if you were fortunate to live n a red paradise such as say Mississippi, for every dollar you sent to the federal govt you would get back $1.77. It is really a pretty simple concept for showing where the moochers really lie
-
So explain Texas.
-
Quote from CardiacEvent
So explain Texas.
Explain what? What exactly is your premise? Population alone determines whether a State is Red of Blue? If so then Texas would be blue as it has a high population, 2nd only to California I believe.
-
But Texas is one of those Red States (although I think Red and Blue should be reversed…Red States should be the liberal communists, but that ain’t the point.) Your red and blue map is not the regular old red and blue map, so Texas is an anomoly, and a very big one at that. MY point is that population DOES play a big part in this state by state calculation.
-
You are repeating something that is not exactly new. Rural states and counties tend to vote Republican. Urban areas tend to vote Democrat. That is not etched in stone. The blue states tend to be the Northeast, Great Lakes and Pacific States. Also not etched in stone.
But now that you have discovered this, the question to answer is why? You think you take a red farmer from a red state & place him in Boston or NYC or San Francisco & he will suddenly start voting Democrat? By the same token, take someone from San Francisco & place him in the Texas panhandle & he will suddenly start voting Republican?
Why?-
Keep an eye on the health insurance premiums and deductibles over the next few months. Phase III of the Obamacare backlash is about to begin, just in time for the fall elections. Bill O’Reilly just said an acquaintance couple of his had their deductibles raised to $9,500 each. Gotta love it!
-
Interesting anecdote.
The research so far is estimating 3-8% rise for premiums. If insurers want to hold the rates at a lower percentage increase in order to compete on the exchanges then deductible rise is viable alternative.
The question to be asking is not “Did premiums rise?” but “Did premiums rise more slowly than if the ACA had not been in place?”
Estimates are currently coming in that the average premium will be 15% lower for 2016 than estimates done in 2010.
That doesn’t stop ACA opponents from using [i]any[/i] increase in premiums as evidence of failure or from cherry-picking State data in high-cost, low competition regions and portraying it as if it was the national average. But all that only matters for the politics of the ACA. As long as the rate increases stay out of “death spiral” territory, which all estimates seem to be safely projecting, the program’s continuation is on firm ground.
-
-
-
Quote from CardiacEvent
But Texas is one of those Red States …Your red and blue map is not the regular old red and blue map, so Texas is an anomoly, and a very big one at that. MY point is that population DOES play a big part in this state by state calculation.
You are not reviewing the data correctly.
Because it is set up as a ratio of revenue paid/ revenue received it is already adjusted for population. [i]Regardless of the size of the population[/i] a State with a neutral amount of tax “paying” to tax “taking” would have a ratio of 1.00. Numbers smaller than that (like Texas’ 0.90) show that the state takes more federal dollars than it pays.
(( Example: State A has a population of 1 million. Each of those 1 million people pay an average of $1,000 in federal taxes. They therefore pay $1 billion to Federal Government. Let’s say that the average person also receives the equivalent of $1000 dollars in benefits (through medicare, medicaid, SS, disability, food stamps etc). State A has a ratio of 1.00 paid/received.
State B is larger… it has a population of 10 million. Each of those 10 million people pay an average of $1,000 in federal taxes. They therefore pay $10 billion to Federal Government. Let’s say that the average person also receives the equivalent of $1000 dollars in benefits (through medicare, medicaid, SS, disability, food stamps etc). State B also has a ratio of 1.00 paid/received.
It is independent on the absolute number of people in the state . ))
As I said above, this is more a function of demographics with rural red states having an older population that receives more federal benefits than they pay taxes and an average lower income leading to lower federal income revenues generated.
((Example #2: State A above is a small rural state with an average age of 57 years old. It’s median income is $36,000 per year. Because so many of its citizens are past working age and instead receiving federal benefits the average person receives $2000 in federal money. Because the state average income is low, the average person pays only $500 in taxes. That makes their paid/received ratio 0.25. – obviously this is exaggerrated for the sake of demonstration, but this is the phenomenon in play predominantly in Red States.
On the other hand State B is large east coast state. The average age is 42 years old and the median income is $72000. Here the fewere old people lead to less federal benefits and the higher income leads to higher federal taxes paid. Only $500 of benefits are received while $2000 are paid in taxes. The ratio is 4.00.
Again – it is a population-independent measure. You could flip flop the absolute population numbers and get no change in the ratios ))-
Looks like Christie is correct about the rant he got from Kentucky where Rand Paul accursed NJ of being a taker state. Paul is obviously wrong. I wonder why he would make such a bogus claim that could be smoked out so easily with publicly available data.
And why does it matter “why” a state’s federal tally is greater than vs. less 1.0. The point is that the vast majority of traditionally Republican states take more FROM the feds than they contribute TO the feds, while the opposite is true for the states that vote for the Democrat. We can argue whether it’s due to population, demographics, federal subsidies to various industry, etc., but the facts are VERY clear that the majority of states that vote Republican TAKE from the fed’s coffers while states that vote Democrat ADD to the fed’s coffers.
And I know that few Republicans want to hear this, but this does definitely mean that the BLUE states are at least partially alleviating the budget deficit of the RED states.
I don’t understand how anyone can spin that any other way.
But give it your best shot while I go make some popcorn…
-
-
Quote from CardiacEvent
But Texas is one of those Red States (although I think Red and Blue should be reversed…Red States should be the liberal communists, but that ain’t the point.) Your red and blue map is not the regular old red and blue map, so Texas is an anomoly, and a very big one at that. MY point is that population DOES play a big part in this state by state calculation.
Are you misreading the map colors, thinking the map is showing Texas as a BLUE & Liberal State?
-
No, but maybe you are. I get that the red and blue on your nice little map is about spending. This is why I’m sayin Texas don’t work with your theory, as it is a conservative (“red”) state
-
Quote from CardiacEvent
No, but maybe you are. I get that the red and blue on your nice little map is about spending. This is why I’m sayin Texas don’t work with your theory, as it is a conservative (“red”) state
Where do you get spending? The map is not about spending.
You are not reading the maps correctly.-
Oh, I’m sorry, Mr. Alinsky. I was misled by the labels on the two maps that both said SPENDING.
-
If you actually read the article you wouldn’t have been so confused.
-
Frumious, I highly doubt CardiacEvent thought he was confused. Rather, he was being sarcastic. He sees the legend use the word “spending” and so he truly thinks the graph is simply about “spending”. He doesn’t realize that the “ratio” is the crux of the graph which shows who the takers vs. givers are.
Here is a prime quote from the article:
[blockquote][i]”…the Moocher Myth is [u]backward[/u]. Starting with the 2000 election, the states that have benefited the most from federal spending have voted Republican. Those that pay the most in taxes per dollar received in spending vote Democrat. This paradox occurs even controlling for a states per-capita income, total population, racial composition, education level and defense spending.”[/i][/blockquote] [blockquote][i]”It remains a mystery why places that receive the most per person in federal spending, particularly on welfare programs, vote in presidential elections for the party that wants to cut those programs.”[/i]
[/blockquote] Obviously, CardiacEvent didn’t see that pesky little statement, and so he is not arguing the point but rather is just making up his own point to argue, as most extremists do when the facts don’t correspond to their imaginary ideology.
-
The “spending” part is about federal “spending” for each State, as in which States “cost” the Federal government more. which is what the graph is about.
Hence, the “spending” caption in the upper left of the graph. -
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/09/24/mitch-mcconnell-and-john-cornyn-just-busted-ted-cruzs-obamacare-bubble/]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/09/24/mitch-mcconnell-and-john-cornyn-just-busted-ted-cruzs-obamacare-bubble/[/link]
And back to “Sentiment to defund Obamacare grows” ….
[b]How Mitch McConnell and John Cornyn busted Ted Cruzs Obamacare bubble[/h1] [h1] [/b][/h1]
The lonely road Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) is walking down just got even lonelier.
The top two Republicans in the Senate made clear Monday they will not join [link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-education-of-ted-cruz/2013/09/23/8fd1ccca-247b-11e3-b75d-5b7f66349852_story.html]Cruzs call[/link] for a filibuster of a government funding bill that cleared the House last week. Their decisions signaled that the fiery freshmans plan isnt good politics even for Republicans facing conservative primary threats and reinforced a widely held view that it wont work in practice.
McConnell and Cornyn support defunding Obamacare, which they are demonstrating by not blocking the bill that cleared the House. But they are not supporting Cruzs push to prevent Reid from remaking the measure, which he will do if Cruz cant round up 40 additional votes to block him.
It was a virtual lock going into Monday that Cruzs plan wouldnt end up winning much support. What was unclear was whether he would coax any Republicans of note to join him.
The fact that McConnell will not speaks volumes. The Kentucky Republican has drawn a primary challenger who is running to his right in a conservative state. Moreover, McConnell has been very careful not to do anything to irk a conservative base already skeptical of him. His decision not to join Cruz suggests he (1) Doesnt think his idea will lead anywhere and (2) Doesnt think its good politics, either.
….
In the end, this entire episode may not hurt Cruzs standing among his enthusiastic base of unwavering conservatives across the country. It might even make him a bigger star in their eyes.
But inside Washington, its a different story. Hes already enraged House Republicans by seeking to shift the burden of responsibility to them in the effort to defund Obamacare. And now, hes failed to win over two senators badly in need of conservative cred wherever they can get it.
Has the Obamacare fight helped Cruz? Depends on where. Inside the halls of Congress, the answer looks like a pretty definitive no at this point. -
Quote from Frumious
The “spending” part is about federal “spending” for each State, as in which States “cost” the Federal government more. which is what the graph is about.
Hence, the “spending” caption in the upper left of the graph.
thanks for the clarification…but doesn’t it make even a little sence to you that states with higher populations might show this effect?
-
Quote from CardiacEvent
doesn’t it make even a little sence to you that states with higher populations might show this effect?
No. It does not. This comment suggests to me that you continue to misinterpret the data presented.
-
Quote from CardiacEvent
..but doesn’t it make even a little sence to you that states with higher populations might show this effect?
No. Please explain your reasoning.
-
here in Cali, all weekend I saw insurance commercials…some have obviously found a way to make lemonade with Obamacare and went to a conference where the speaker said hopefully next month medicare with start paying for the octreatide imaging study he was ordering
so it is not all gloom and doom
some people have received reimbursement checks
as an aside why is the spell check so small..it makes you forget to hit it -
[link=http://m.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/09/ted-cruz-has-started-talking/69817/]http://m.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/09/ted-cruz-has-started-talking/69817/[/link]
Ted Cruz’s last stand. He kinda-filibustering Obamacare. Cloture vote to proceed tomorrow anyway. -
pitiful and who was promoting him on this board as the next It man
Quote from dergon
[link=http://m.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/09/ted-cruz-has-started-talking/69817/]http://m.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/09/ted-cruz-has-started-talking/69817/[/link]
Ted Cruz’s last stand. He kinda-filibustering Obamacare. Cloture vote to proceed tomorrow anyway.
-
Quote from Noah’sArk
pitiful and who was promoting him on this board as the next It man
Quote from dergon
[link=http://m.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/09/ted-cruz-has-started-talking/69817/]http://m.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/09/ted-cruz-has-started-talking/69817/[/link]
Ted Cruz’s last stand. He kinda-filibustering Obamacare. Cloture vote to proceed tomorrow anyway.
Rand Paul is the next “it” man. -
Cruz put the hurt to Obamacare. It will never recover from the bruising it took from Cruz’s filibuster speech. This may be the beginning of the end for Obamacare.
I bet you that in four years time Obamacare will be only a bad memory.
-
Quote from aldadoc
Cruz put the hurt to Obamacare. It will never recover from the bruising it took from Cruz’s filibuster speech. This may be the beginning of the end for Obamacare.
I bet you that in four years time Obamacare will be only a bad memory.
I’m sure it must excite you that the Senate Republicans just joined the Democrates in voting unanimously to debate the gov’t spending plan. Yeah, Cruz is having a wonderful impact alright.
I bet you that in four years, the only bad memory about Obamacare will be the one between your ears.
-
Quote from Lux
Quote from aldadoc
Cruz put the hurt to Obamacare. It will never recover from the bruising it took from Cruz’s filibuster speech. This may be the beginning of the end for Obamacare.
I bet you that in four years time Obamacare will be only a bad memory.
I’m sure it must excite you that the Senate Republicans just joined the Democrates in voting unanimously to debate the gov’t spending plan. Yeah, Cruz is having a wonderful impact alright.
I bet you that in four years, the only bad memory about Obamacare will be the one between your ears.
Lux, you are one vile, evil, vindictive socialist. Bet your mama didn’t even like you. Bet they made you sleep in the back yard and fed you with a slingshot. Bet your mama was a Republican. Yeah, that’s why you are so ornery.
-
Quote from Point Man
Lux, you are one vile, evil, vindictive socialist. Bet your mama didn’t even like you. Bet they made you sleep in the back yard and fed you with a slingshot. Bet your mama was a Republican. Yeah, that’s why you are so ornery.
Ooooo, quick, someone call the burn unit! lol
If you are a radiologist in the USA, you have a lot of nerve calling someone else a socialist as you make a pretty good living milking the socialist insurance industry.
Your pre-pubescent attempts at intimidation go in one eye and out the other.
-
They should also thank St Ronnie the socialist who brought us EMTALA
-
Quote from Thor
They should also thank St Ronnie the socialist who brought us EMTALA
They’ve become SO dysfunctional that they’re even reluctant to acknowledge that Reagan is a model Republican because of how their new extreme standards have turned even HIM into a socialist liberal. That’s how out of whack they’ve become.
Things have become so bizarre, that Grover Norquist is now out and Cruz is [i][u]in[/u]! [/i]How can the GOP possibly think it can get away with another McCarthy (with the twist that we’re all socialists instead of communists now)? Which Senator will be the first to shout [i]”At long last, Senator Cruz, have you not a shred of decency?” [/i]After all, it really is getting to that point.
-
[b]Which Senator will be the first to shout [i]”At long last, Senator Cruz, have you not a shred of decency?” [/i]After all, it really is getting to that point. [/b]
John McCain came close to saying that today -
Quote from kpack123
[b]Which Senator will be the first to shout [i]”At long last, Senator Cruz, have you not a shred of decency?” [/i]After all, it really is getting to that point. [/b]
John McCain came close to saying that today
[link=http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/23/mccain-adviser-on-ted-cruz-mccain-fcking-hates-cruz/]http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/23/mccain-adviser-on-ted-cruz-mccain-fcking-hates-cruz/[/link]
[b]
[h1]McCain adviser on Ted Cruz: McCain f*cking hates Cruz[/h1] [/b]The extent of Arizona Republican Sen. McCains distaste for fellow Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is pretty apparent in a new [link=http://www.gq.com/news-politics/newsmakers/201310/ted-cruz-republican-senator-october-2013?currentPage=1]GQ profile[/link] of the Texan released Monday.
He ****ing hates Cruz, one McCain adviser told GQ. Hes just offended by his style.
And the feeling is not unreturned. -
Quote from dergon
[link=http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/23/mccain-adviser-on-ted-cruz-mccain-fcking-hates-cruz/]http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/23/mccain-adviser-on-ted-cruz-mccain-fcking-hates-cruz/[/link]
And I’m loving the comments at the end of that article.
-
ok where diid he hide the foley during that protes
-
The guy sitting in the right lower corner of the screen was holding it for him
-
[b]Cruz put the hurt to Obamacare. It will never recover from the bruising it took from Cruz’s filibuster speech. This may be the beginning of the end for Obamacare. [/b]
[b]I bet you that in four years time Obamacare will be only a bad memory.[/b]
If Obamacare fails the only thing left is a single payor system
Is that what you want?
Again the republicans attempt to cut off their nose to spite their face -
Quote from Lux
Obviously, CardiacEvent didn’t see that pesky little statement, and so he is not arguing the point but rather is just making up his own point to argue, as most extremists do when the facts don’t correspond to their imaginary ideology.If you revolutionarys really wanted to get your point across, you wouldn’t lower yourself to these stooooopid comments. Darn now you got ME doing it!
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
well to play devil’s advocate..when some of those red states start taxing cannabis and meth production then they may match the taxes that New Jerseyians pay
so who was up there saying to Christie stop with the”give me my FEMA dollars
was it someone who had the past history of the aquabogeyman and tying a classmate up while intoxicated with what
Quote from Thor
What it says is that for every 1 dollar a state sends in taxes it gets back x dollars. So for example for New york and California they get back fewer aggregate dollars than they pay into the federal govt. Has nothing to do with population. Now if you were fortunate to live n a red paradise such as say Mississippi, for every dollar you sent to the federal govt you would get back $1.77. It is really a pretty simple concept for showing where the moochers really lie
-
Quote from CardiacEvent
thanks for the clarification…but doesn’t it make even a little sence to you that states with higher populations might show this effect?
And the question I asked you is why would that make a difference & used examples. You haven’t answered that. Dergon has but you haven’t.
-
And Cruz’s 21 hours in the spotlight are done —
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/26/us/politics/senate-budget-battle.html?pagewanted=all]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/26/us/politics/senate-budget-battle.html?pagewanted=all[/link]
Republican Senator Ted Cruzs 21-hour, 19-minute verbal assault on President Obamas signature health care law ended Wednesday when the Senate voted 100-to-0 to break off debate and move to consider House legislation that Democrats plan to use to keep the government open next week.
His performance was not technically a filibuster. He merely held the floor until the clock ran out on the procedural vote, which he could not delay. But nine months into his first term in elective office, the Texan has become a lightning rod, a hero to conservative activists, a rogue to others in both parties.
But with his indefatigable loquaciousness, Mr. Cruz managed to raise his own profile, anger some colleagues, thrill others, and elevate further the war over the health care law. The program begins enrolling the uninsured on Tuesday, the same day much of the government would shut down if the budget showdown were not resolved.
Wednesdays vote is the first in a series that will culminate in a final vote on Sunday. Later this week, Mr. Reid will formally introduce a new version of the House stopgap-spending bill stripped of the health care language and shortened to keep the government operating from Oct. 1 to Nov. 15 rather than Dec. 15, as the House wanted. The biggest vote will most likely come this weekend, when Democrats must win over 60 senators to cut off debate on their leaders bill.
If they succeed, Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio would have a matter of hours to decide whether to have the House vote on the Senates spending bill over the strenuous opposition of conservative activists or to add new Republican policy provisions to the spending bill and send it back to the Senate, a move sure to shutter the government.
Even many Republicans have encouraged House leaders to relent.
