U.S. Politics, 12

[The Progressive]

So then you'd say the health care bill doesn't care about people dying in the streets then?

What a stupid question to ask, given that the Affordable Care Act will expand Medicaid to cover more low-income people by 2014.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

What a stupid question to ask, given that the Affordable Care Act will expand Medicaid to cover more low-income people by 2014.

Did the homeless not qualify before then?

[The Progressive]

Did the homeless not qualify before then?

Not if they applied after existing Medicaid funding were already exhausted.

I note that you still haven't been able to cite any portion of the ACA that would require homeless people to buy health insurance. Seriously, if you gonna mock Odie for making hyperbole, it's best if you don't engage in the same sort of bullshit stunt.

[awesome possum]

It's the price the Democrats must pay for being a big tent and allowing for dissent. I rather have that than the "purity test" that teabaggers love so much.

It's true. As aggravating as it can be, I'd much rather have a party where the members can express and stand behind their own views than one where you absolutely must tow the party line on all issues and back up all members of your party- even the piece of shits.

Zap's strain of racism has already reared its head since the 2008 election; it's typical of the racially-motivated rage commonly exhibited and clumsily hidden by teabaggers.

I dunno. From reading his posts I kind of get the feeling that he's simply insane. His political posts read like the delusional rantings of someone certifiably crazy.

This vote was clearly an endorsement of Republican resistance to the Democratic agenda, otherwise, they'd have thrown out all incumbents.

I don't think anyone can say what this vote was clearly about. There are a dozen reasons, none of which are Republican resistance to the Democratic agenda.... unless by "Democratic agenda" you mean the blatant falsehoods spread about government takeovers, removal of gun rights, death panels, and a handful of other crap.

The polls showed again and again that Americans believe Republicans are even bigger pieces of shits than Democrats. Republicans simply had the better propaganda machine.

"Hey voters, do these giant douches leave a bad taste in your mouth? Well why don't you try eating this turd sandwich. It might help."

And they have a way of say that line over and over and over again in so many different ways that people start to believe it.

[Guest Raidne]

Your outrage is duly noted. As is your assumption about what I can and cannot face.

If it was an incorrect assumption you would address what I said about my friend instead of dodging it under the proverbial umbrella melodrama and hyperbole.

So I'm gonna go ahead and continue to think it's a bullshit tactic, and if that makes you think I'm an evil ironical hipster, then that's just something I'll have to live with i guess.

It's pretending that people don't die because of a lack of health care that is a bullshit tactic, along with acting like people who do acknowledge this just lack sophistication.

It's as if Hitler truly, you know, was brought back to life, and you called a godwin. Because there are, literally, people who will die. It's not a hysterical metaphor.

[Guest Raidne]

Also, you know what else? I'm totally sick of the "Democrats lose because we are better people" narrative.

Screw that.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Also, you know what else? I'm totally sick of the "Democrats lose because we are better people" narrative.

Screw that.

Because clearly you are part of the unwashed duopoly masses, bound in servitude to the glorious libertarian master race.

You ----> :bowdown: :hat: <---Us

:D

[Old Nan]

I'd much rather have a party where the members can express and stand behind their own views than one where you absolutely must tow the party line on all issues and back up all members of your party- even the piece of shits.

It seems you'd rather not belong to a party at all, nor have your politicians belong to them. Which is fine and all, but the institution is there, so why be all obstructionist about it out of pique?

If it was an incorrect assumption you would address what I said about my friend instead of dodging it under the proverbial umbrella melodrama and hyperbole.

Because to anyone but you your friend is about as interesting as a pile of junk mail. All specific examples are melodramatic, whether it be your friend or Winifred Skinner.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Also Democrats need to push immigration reform, hard. It won't ever pass the House, but it will score major political points that the Democrats need next election.

The problem is that it's going to be much harder for the Democrats to "push" controversial things for political gain because they no longer have that huge margin in the House to bring up such bills. The Senate is a pretty poor instrument for symbolic legislation, and it'll be even tougher now that the majority is that much slimmer.

This is really a big thing for the House Republicans, though. They won't have to shut the government down because they'll have big enough margins to pass piecemeal appropriations bills that either the Senate or Obama will have to kill. And unlike Gingrich, they won't need to attach separate riders. They'll just approve bills with less money than the President requested.

[Guest Raidne]

Because to anyone but you your friend is about as interesting as a pile of junk mail. All specific examples are melodramatic, whether it be your friend or Winifred Skinner.

I don't want to give you a headache, but statistically my friend is not the only self-employed person who cannot afford health care with a pre-existing medical condition.

He is what we would call an exemplar. For instance, if I want to show someone what a triangle is, I will probably show them an equilateral triangle. But, instead of getting all bent out of shape about how freaking dramatic it is to hold up this one special triangle for individual attention because I personally, care so much about this one particular triangle that nobody else knows from Winifred Skinner, the person will probably go, "Oh it has three sides. Cool."

[Old Nan]

Do triangles suffer?

[Ser Greguh]

I love it that people argue that people don't die because of lack of health insurance, and have the balls to suggest that people who say that's not true are being hyperbolic. In a brave new world, everything is again up for debate: evolution, separation of church and state, and the notion that being able to afford going to a doctor will, y'know, save lives.

[Guest Raidne]

Do triangles suffer?

Do dead people?

[Old Nan]

Presumably melodrama-free ones do not.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I love it that people argue that people don't die because of lack of health insurance, and have the balls to suggest that that's not true are being hyperbolic. In a brave new world, everything is again up for debate: evolution, separation of church and state, and the notion that being able to afford going to a doctor will, y'know, save lives.

Are you saying that nobody will die because they didn't receive a treatment that might have saved their life? Even the supporters of this bill acknowledge that it will contain some cost-control measures that statistically will increase death or suffering over what it would be if we chose to spend unlimited money. $500B in medicare cuts can't come without some adverse affect on life expectancy or suffering.

For that matter, there are a great many environmental factors that adversely affect life expectancy and/or cause deaths directly that have nothing to do with health insurance. Housing, clothing, diet, etc. Unless you're willing to provide all of those at such a level that no additional deaths would be attributable to a lack, then the "dying in the streets" card can be played on you as well.

[TerraPrime]

Oh good God, TP, read your own link:

When deductions are allowed a 'flat tax' is a progressive tax with the special characteristic that above the maximum deduction, the rate on all further income is constant. Thus it is said to be marginally flat above that point.

Cripe, why not just admit that the claim that Republicans want to eliminate all progressivity in the tax codes is wrong? Is that so hard? The only link you offered to prove that point has actually proven the opposite. There's plenty of positions Republicans actually hold that people here hate already.

Did you see that almost all websites talking about flat tax that are saddled with exemption put the words "flat tax" in quotations?

I am not sure why that is. But my wild and totally speculative guess is that when you add the exemption, things are not really flat tax structure any more. Hence, the qualifying quotation marks.

Why do you have to make up bogus ones?

I'm not making up bogus positions for the GOP. I'm demanding accuracy in language. You, as a lawyer, should appreciate that.

But I guess not.

ETA

Re: Election results

I'm also growing tired of this "this election result sucks because people are stupid!" narrative.

Really? You think they were any smarter than they are now 2 years ago? Puh-lease. Voting one party or another does not indicate intelligence. At all.

We lost seats because the Democrats sucked really badly this time in crafting a believable message. It's that simple. Voters are stupid, in general. They always have been. The key is can you convince them to buy this shamwow or are they going to spend that voting power to get the camouflage-colored snuggie.

[Faelar006]

I love it that people argue that people don't die because of lack of health insurance, and have the balls to suggest that people who say that's not true are being hyperbolic. In a brave new world, everything is again up for debate: evolution, separation of church and state, and the notion that being able to afford going to a doctor will, y'know, save lives.

What truly amazes me is that Republicans have taken the phrase "let them eat cake" and, instead of earning themselves a trip to the guillotine, have turned it into a fucking campaign slogan. What amazes me even more is that they have a substantial portion of the American public lapping up their condescending bullshit like its manna from heaven.

[Shryke]

It's true. As aggravating as it can be, I'd much rather have a party where the members can express and stand behind their own views than one where you absolutely must tow the party line on all issues and back up all members of your party- even the piece of shits.

Raidne is right, this is kinda bullshit. The problem isn't the big tent, it's that Democrats lack a coherent well-delivered media message that makes corraling votes possible.

Again, Bill Clinton was talking about this only a few weeks ago and he was DEAD RIGHT. He said, basically, "What's the Democrats message this election? Do you know? I sure don't. They aren't saying anything!"

You need a coherent and consistent message and the Democrats haven't been able to put one

together. Obama did and that's why his campaign was so damn successful.

I don't think anyone can say what this vote was clearly about. There are a dozen reasons, none of which are Republican resistance to the Democratic agenda.... unless by "Democratic agenda" you mean the blatant falsehoods spread about government takeovers, removal of gun rights, death panels, and a handful of other crap.

The polls showed again and again that Americans believe Republicans are even bigger pieces of shits than Democrats. Republicans simply had the better propaganda machine.

"Hey voters, do these giant douches leave a bad taste in your mouth? Well why don't you try eating this turd sandwich. It might help."

And they have a way of say that line over and over and over again in so many different ways that people start to believe it.

Exactly. The Democrats lost because of the seats that were up for grabs and because they were the incumbent party when the unemployment rate was like ~9.5%. That's it.

When the economy is shit, the party in power loses. This is like the #1 law of elections in the US if you look at the historical data. Because when people's lives are shit, they vote people out of power in anger and don't really consider anything else.

But don't think this means they like the GOP. Because the same polls that showed the GOP winning also show people like them less then the Democrats. Shit, people act like this was a "referendum on Obama" or something when he's the most popular elected figure in the US. By a large margin.

I dunno. From reading his posts I kind of get the feeling that he's simply insane. His political posts read like the delusional rantings of someone certifiably crazy.

You must not have been around during the 2008 election and thus missed some of his more ... interesting posts.

He's flat out racist.

[Ser Greguh]

the "dying in the streets" card can be played on you as well.

Yes, and please feel free. I won't accuse you of hyperbole.

[Shryke]

Going forward, of course, the GOP has now put itself in an interesting spot. The Media Narrative has shaped it to be about them "Taking back the Legislature" or what have you so now the scrutiny is building on them to DO SOMETHING.

And this will be fun to watch.

Because budget stuff is one of the first big things on the chopping block.

Here's a repost of the stuff about the budget:

Speaking of the Budget, here's a really nice graph of the 2010 one and the proposed 2011 one: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html

The deficit, btw, was ~$1.171 trillion in 2010 and ~$1.267 trillion in 2011 I believe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_States_federal_budget

Just to give you an idea if you wanna try and balance that. Hide Mandatory Spending for maximum lolz. :)

They claim they want to slash spending and balance the budget or what have you. Of course, now they are running into trouble because people are starting to ask "Well WHAT are you going to cut?" and they have no answers.

See Chris Matthews

during one of his random bouts of competence (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/03/gop-no-cuts/)

Or this one: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/03/eveningnews/main7019796.shtml

"We're going to have to make cuts across the board," said Amy Kremer, the chair of the Tea Party Express. "No one ever said this was going to be easy. What programs do we cut - I don't know."

They either don't know or don't wanna say what they really want to cut: Medicare and Social Security. Because other then that of Defense spending, it's quickly obvious nothing else is enough.

And watching them if they try to slash that is going to be hi-lari-fucking-ous.

And that doesn't even cover their first major hurdle: The Raising of the Debt Ceiling

It's the kind of thing that sounds all scary and the Tea Partiers, like Rand Paul, are already saying they want to filibuster it.

Of course, if one knows anything about the debt ceiling you know it HAS to be raised or you trigger, essentially, an economic apocalypse.

So it's gonna get passed and the headlines should be interesting.