-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2013 |OT2| Worth 77% of OT1
- Thread starter The Librarian
- Start date
- Status
rocketknight
Member
Godless liberals waging a war on Christianity and the religious right.
zero shift
Banned
That isn't what I mean. My reasoning is to as of why you don't just give old people money instead of Medicare.
Now let's see if he'll do it on a Monday, too!
Black Mamba
Member
medicare and food stamps are not alike in any way, shape, or form.
The idea behind food stamps is they can only be used on food. But the truth is, people will just trade them for cash. It's basically a rule of thumb in economics. Barring transition costs, the original allocation is irrelevant and the efficient allocation will be found. That is, if you give someone $20 in food stamps and they want $15 of food and $5 of cigs, they will trade their neighbor $5 of food stamps for cigs, so you might as well give them $20 cash, instead.
Food stamps are just a restricted form of money. But it costs more money than just giving out money.
Medicare is something entirely different. This should be self-evident.
The Librarian
Banned
Maybe this is one Cruz Missile that really ought be pitched at Syria.
Taking smoke breaks and puckering for the press.
zero shift
Banned
I just want to figure out a way so that everybody can always get the food they need whenever they want.
Maybe free food pantrys across the nation? Government stores that give out free food with proof of membership card?
Black Mamba
Member
He's the Speaker, which is an anagram for:
Silly
Posturing
Ends
At
Kenyan's
Exemplary
Reign
What's wrong with free money?
So, uh, what's wrong with the solution of giving everybody money, with which they can, you know, BUY food? We already HAVE a huge food distribution system that was built FOR us by corporations, which requires money to use. Wouldn't it make more sense to leverage that?
The Librarian
Banned
I love free money. Because my parents are getting divorced, my dad told me I'm getting a check in the mail for $1000 because of a refund from an education tax credit or something.
Can't wait to go shopping 8)
zero shift
Banned
Because its been shown that people are MUCH more likely to have things like welfare cut than social programs that are geared toward everybody or a majority of the population. Its very hard to leverage something that not everybody is able to get. This is why welfare and unemployment is so hunted in this nation. Food is a right not a product that people buy, everybody should be guaranteed this. So even if the safety net fails people because they took out bad loans or stuck between a rock and hard place, they are always guaranteed food. I am for both for giving free money and food stamps (or something similar) for all.
First off, shown where?
Secondly, where did you get the idea that we were talking about welfare, but that you were talking about food stamps for everybody? Obviously we should be giving everybody in America money to buy food, not just "welfare" recipients.
You'd get more responses to your posts in PoliGAF if you read the responses you got and engaged with them as they were, rather than theorizing what they might say and reacting to that.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Not a fan...but eliminating it harms the law.
zero shift
Banned
Any program that is given to the population as a whole is rarely is touched by the government in a negative manner. If you look at things that are targeted at the right as being "wasteful" its overwhelmingly things that most people don't receive as assistance. I could link some info but its mostly from books such as "Why Americans Hate Welfare".
EDIT - Here is a summary of an excerpt from the book that supports my point. When Americans are asked if they want to increase the government providing financial security for them, they are very supportive, but when they are asked if such a thing should be done for people already on welfare programs, the tune tends to change.
I changed welfare to free money if you look up at my edited post. It was a typo. I reread my post after I submitted it. There is no reason to act so snarky.
.Black Mamba
Member
Oh whoops, you're right!
Aaron Strife
Banned
Not to downplay gun violence as an issue, but healthcare reform should probably be considered a higher priority. I'd say climate change.
Also 2008-2010. Bush was still president and vetoed a ton of shit.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
It helps pay for the law.
Speaking of it through,someone for got to scub the lobbeists firegerprints from a lettet arguing for its repeal. http://www.thenation.com/blog/17639...er-med-device-tax-repeal-authored-lobby-group
The Librarian
Banned
http://www.thenation.com/blog/17639...r-med-device-tax-repeal-authored-lobby-group#
House vote to take place between 9 and 11: https://twitter.com/robertcostaNRO/status/384068696756338688
They couldn't even be bothered to copy and paste it into a new document ffs!
RustyNails
Member
Well I hope I don't jinx it by saying that Obama hasn't caved yet is surprising.
So Mark Levin cited this from NBC news about how many goverment shutdowns we had in the past 40 years:
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/...th-government-shutdown-in-us-history#comments
Turns out there were 17. I thought they were supposed to be pretty rare?
These people...
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/...th-government-shutdown-in-us-history#comments
Turns out there were 17. I thought they were supposed to be pretty rare?
These people...
Aaron Strife
Banned
i think this is the one time where obama caving would severely impact his legacy
Read through the Post's history of shutdowns. Most were almost procedural in nature, and others were actively being negotiated with a resolution on the immediate horizon. This is definitely a unique event with one party attempting to hold the government hostage.
The 70's had a string of fairly lengthy ones, but until the 90's it wasn't really all that bad. Most of them were 1-3 days, that 21 day one is a joke though. You can just see where Gingrich took over in that chart without even knowing the date.
I watched his full press statement last night, and he was pretty forceful that he would not negotiate under these conditions (shutdown threat, or default threat) at all. I do think it would impact his legacy, but he was citing precedent, and how it totally upends the constitutional relationship between Congress and the President. That one half of one branch of the government can get anything they want by threatening to blow up the economy. The precedent for the rest of his term, and for future presidents.
Left unsaid was how he set the precedent in 2011 by trying to negotiate. It's pretty clear he learned from that blunder. If he blinks, it will establish that he didn't.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Costa again (NRO):
wow. So if they can't fuck the country, fuck their staff.
wow. So if they can't fuck the country, fuck their staff.
The Librarian
Banned
I don't know what the Vitter amendment is...https://twitter.com/robertcostanro/status/384084971352104961
Yeah, I know those other shutdowns weren't done under the same circumstances as Newt's and the current House GOP, but I still didn't think shutdowns occurred that many times.
It would make the public think Obama is looking out for the health care coverage of BIG GOVERNMENT PEOPLE. That is the plan anyway.
If only they could draft it to apply to gop staffers only.
Is the provision in PPACA about Congress being eligible fall under a seperate part of the bill? For example, if the law is repealed/delayed does the Congressional portion of it apply to that? Or is it seperate? Didn't Chuck Grassley do some halfassed job of adding it at the last second and Obama was foolish enough to include it in the bill?
How it works sheds some light on their tactics for that round.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
This one?
I can kind of see what you're talking about. Those were all actual disagreements related to funding within the laws provided, while now Republicans are basically trying to change the law.
Okay. Can someone explain to me why they're hell bent on screwing over their own staffers? I know the back story of how they ended up on the exchanges. We're talking about a goverment shutdown and it's very very important to the GOP to screw over their own employees.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
In reality, looking out for those low level hill staffers being paid 30 grand a year.
Hopefully the Democrats can message this right.
Wait, wait.
So if the Vitter amendement is adopted, that implies they are or are not delaying the implementation of the law?
Furthermore, even IF they adopted the amendment... don't all government staffers get on a federal health plan right now anyway? From what I understand that is very good health insurance... so why the fuck are they even bothering? The American people are not going to care that Congress, which has an approval rating in the toilet, will be without Obamacare. They will only care if their coverage gets fucked over.
Makes you wonder if there is some backdoor exploit (not to sound like a hacker) that, should this Vitter Amendment be adopted, 'unintentionally' (thanks to clever design) allows the GOP to screw up the rest of the law somehow too.
So if the Vitter amendement is adopted, that implies they are or are not delaying the implementation of the law?
Furthermore, even IF they adopted the amendment... don't all government staffers get on a federal health plan right now anyway? From what I understand that is very good health insurance... so why the fuck are they even bothering? The American people are not going to care that Congress, which has an approval rating in the toilet, will be without Obamacare. They will only care if their coverage gets fucked over.
Makes you wonder if there is some backdoor exploit (not to sound like a hacker) that, should this Vitter Amendment be adopted, 'unintentionally' (thanks to clever design) allows the GOP to screw up the rest of the law somehow too.
Yes but even now they get federally-sponsored healthcare, right? So that just means Congress/staffers get their insurance that way. Who cares? I must be missing something here.
Because those staffers will clearly go one to plush lobby jobs while Congressman are stuck only making 180k a year
platypotamus
Member
Every single staffer of every single congressperson who votes for the Vitter Amendment should immediately go on strike.
It sounds like the amendment would in effect forbid congressional staff members from participating in the insurance exchanges, locking them into the federal employee health program. It would also force them to pay COBRA rates for these health benefits.
The Librarian
Banned
Is this really their goal now? All of this to just get one stupid amendment?
https://twitter.com/robertcostanro/status/384090029187801088
Fucking wasting our time.
https://twitter.com/robertcostanro/status/384090029187801088
Fucking wasting our time.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Because they don't want to be perceived as being "exempt" from the law, basically. Apparently this is going to majorly screw staffers too. I'm not sure if this is an extra subsidy they get, or just the subsidy people get through Obamacare.
zero shift
Banned
It seems to me he is slowly learning his lessons.
They need a win, and this is something that they've been spinning as an indication of how awful Obamacare is for a little while now. It would be awkward for Reid to kill a CR which is clean except for the Vitter amendment, and if he does kill it Republicans can argue that Reid allowed the government to shut down rather than subject himself to Obamacare.
- Status