Do you support defunding Obamacare if...

“Truth + context + perspective”

Since: Nov 09

informs against BS

#398 Oct 1, 2013
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
He is nothing but a democrat shill.
The guy lost ANY AND ALL credibility when he wrote that the republican Congress voted to cut food stamp funding by 40 billion in that article. That is a complete lie. The guy should have his media credentials revoked and should just make it official and go on the DNC's payroll.
The republican house voted to increase funding by 56%::
http://www.westernjournalism.com/food-stamp-c...
I'm amazed that even folks who are democrats are just so accepting when they are lied to by the media and the powers that be in the democrat party. If you had any ability to think for yourselves, you would be outraged that you are fed propaganda and outright lies by the media and powers that be in the democrat party. If you had any ability to think for yourselves, you would want to be told the truth about the food stamp funding legislation passed in the house and would want to form your own opinion about it, without being lied to.
Nope, not folks like you ... you are quite happy to be lied to, just so long as it reinforces your views.
"Owning" a thread by smokescreen is not "owning" a thread at all, even with your non-expert "expert" buddy -- no follow-up yet by that hilarious claim that was made this past weekend.

The shill and frauds aren't guys/gals that write the news about the actions a Congress. On or about 9/19/2013, the House voted to slash over a 10 year period:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/19/ho...

http://agalert.com/story/...
Both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives are expected to name members of a farm bill conference committee, now that the House has completed its farm bill package. The House approved a three-year nutrition bill last week on a partisan, 217-210 vote. The legislation by Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., would cut $39 billion during 10 years from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamps.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/27/us-...
"The road to the 2013 farm bill is not without a few major stumbling blocks along the way and potentially catastrophic caverns into which the bill could fall," said agricultural economist Vince Smith of Montana State University, author of many articles on the farm bill.

Smith said a two-year extension of current law is the most likely outcome. Others say anything from legislative success to a complete stymie is possible. "It's a pretty stalemated situation," said Otto Doering, professor of agricultural economics at Purdue University.

The overarching issue: food stamps for the poor, accounting for three-fourths of outlays forecast for $500 billion over five years. The Senate voted to pare food stamp spending by $4.5 billion over a decade through closure of a loophole on utility costs.

But the House, in a party-line vote, called for food stamp cuts of $40 billion through tighter eligibility rules that end benefits for 10 percent of recipients in 2014. The rules would shorten the number of weeks that some people could get food stamps and eliminate a 1996 welfare-reform provision that allows benefits to people with slightly higher income or assets.

Overall, the Senate bill would spend $23 billion less over a decade than the current law would were it to stay in place. The House would cut $55 billion.
----------
You're only pissing on other Republicans and those who don't know which way the wind is blowing,... and those who can't figure it out and rely on the hogshit of these fractious right wingnuts.

“"*" Always Thinking "*"”

Level 8

Since: Nov 12

Hoosierville

#399 Oct 1, 2013
Uh Clem wrote:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) invoked Albert Einstein's definition of insanity as performing the same action repeatedly and expecting a different result.
Yep! That's exactly what I said. I also said:
The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it.
[[ That's "US" ]]
Albert Einstein

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#401 Oct 1, 2013
Deer Whisperer wrote:
<quoted text>
"Owning" a thread by smokescreen is not "owning" a thread at all, even with your non-expert "expert" buddy -- no follow-up yet by that hilarious claim that was made this past weekend.
The shill and frauds aren't guys/gals that write the news about the actions a Congress. On or about 9/19/2013, the House voted to slash over a 10 year period:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/19/ho...
http://agalert.com/story/...
Both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives are expected to name members of a farm bill conference committee, now that the House has completed its farm bill package. The House approved a three-year nutrition bill last week on a partisan, 217-210 vote. The legislation by Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., would cut $39 billion during 10 years from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamps.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/27/us-...
"The road to the 2013 farm bill is not without a few major stumbling blocks along the way and potentially catastrophic caverns into which the bill could fall," said agricultural economist Vince Smith of Montana State University, author of many articles on the farm bill.
Smith said a two-year extension of current law is the most likely outcome. Others say anything from legislative success to a complete stymie is possible. "It's a pretty stalemated situation," said Otto Doering, professor of agricultural economics at Purdue University.
The overarching issue: food stamps for the poor, accounting for three-fourths of outlays forecast for $500 billion over five years. The Senate voted to pare food stamp spending by $4.5 billion over a decade through closure of a loophole on utility costs.
But the House, in a party-line vote, called for food stamp cuts of $40 billion through tighter eligibility rules that end benefits for 10 percent of recipients in 2014. The rules would shorten the number of weeks that some people could get food stamps and eliminate a 1996 welfare-reform provision that allows benefits to people with slightly higher income or assets.
Overall, the Senate bill would spend $23 billion less over a decade than the current law would were it to stay in place. The House would cut $55 billion.
----------
You're only pissing on other Republicans and those who don't know which way the wind is blowing,... and those who can't figure it out and rely on the hogshit of these fractious right wingnuts.
The only thing House Republicans voted to cut — and only modestly — is the rate at which food stamp spending will increase during the coming decade. While Democrats wanted to see a 65 percent spike in food stamp funding, the GOP agreed to an increase of 57 percent.

Using sneaky and completely misleading language, Democrat mouthpieces erroneously claim that evil conservatives voted to cut spending by almost $40 billion in the food stamp program. In actuality, that number just represents the difference between what the former, i.e democrats, wanted to spend —$764 billion — and what the latter, i.e. republicans, ultimately agreed to —$725 billion.

They didn't cut food stamp spending. That's a lie. They agreed to spend much more (57 percent more) than we are currently spending on the program over the next decade.

You have no clue what you are talking about.

“<3”

Level 9

Since: Jun 10

Black Rock City, NV

#402 Oct 1, 2013
Don't you wish you REALLY knew what was going on.

;-)
Deer Whisperer wrote:
<quoted text>
"Owning" a thread by smokescreen is not "owning" a thread at all, even with your non-expert "expert" buddy -- no follow-up yet by that hilarious claim that was made this past weekend.
The shill and frauds aren't guys/gals that write the news about the actions a Congress. On or about 9/19/2013, the House voted to slash over a 10 year period:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/19/ho...
http://agalert.com/story/...
Both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives are expected to name members of a farm bill conference committee, now that the House has completed its farm bill package. The House approved a three-year nutrition bill last week on a partisan, 217-210 vote. The legislation by Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., would cut $39 billion during 10 years from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamps.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/27/us-...
"The road to the 2013 farm bill is not without a few major stumbling blocks along the way and potentially catastrophic caverns into which the bill could fall," said agricultural economist Vince Smith of Montana State University, author of many articles on the farm bill.
Smith said a two-year extension of current law is the most likely outcome. Others say anything from legislative success to a complete stymie is possible. "It's a pretty stalemated situation," said Otto Doering, professor of agricultural economics at Purdue University.
The overarching issue: food stamps for the poor, accounting for three-fourths of outlays forecast for $500 billion over five years. The Senate voted to pare food stamp spending by $4.5 billion over a decade through closure of a loophole on utility costs.
But the House, in a party-line vote, called for food stamp cuts of $40 billion through tighter eligibility rules that end benefits for 10 percent of recipients in 2014. The rules would shorten the number of weeks that some people could get food stamps and eliminate a 1996 welfare-reform provision that allows benefits to people with slightly higher income or assets.
Overall, the Senate bill would spend $23 billion less over a decade than the current law would were it to stay in place. The House would cut $55 billion.
----------
You're only pissing on other Republicans and those who don't know which way the wind is blowing,... and those who can't figure it out and rely on the hogshit of these fractious right wingnuts.
Uh Fear Whisperer

Los Angeles, CA

#403 Oct 1, 2013
Uh Clem wrote:
<quoted text>
By normal channels you surely mean debate, negotiate, and compromise between both parties in both Houses, not dictatorial demands from the president.
Yes, negotiate and compromise, not dictatorial demands with threats of shutting down the government during 'budget meetings' and then doing so when said 'budget meetings' didn't go your way (Over a law that was already passed yeeee). Dictatorial were your words. Very ironic. Will you be spinning anymore tales there Hans Christian? Or maybe it's 'tails' Duh Fear Whisperer?

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#404 Oct 1, 2013
What's even more concerning to me is, does anyone think our GDP is going to grow by 57% over the next decade? Does anyone think federal tax revenue will grow 57% over the next decade? There is no way that will even come close to happening. Food stamp spending growth will out pace both of these.

What we are doing is allocating a greater and greater amount of our GDP and tax revenue to entitlements ... just to pay for folks to exist ... not to increase productivity, education, opportunities, or wealth potential ... just to exist. Obamacare adds even further to this too.

At the same time, over the next decade and beyond SS, Medicare, and servicing our national debt are going to eat up ever increasing portions of our GDP and federal tax revenue.

We are a nation in terminal decline ... thanks to democrats. It's not reversible, either, because you can't have an honest discussion or do any reforms to any of these social programs, without folks on the left screaming about how mean you are being to poor people who just WANT FREE STUFF, without being asked for anything in return.
Never Fear Whisperer

Francesville, IN

#405 Oct 1, 2013
"Bah! Humbug!"
Never Fear Whisperer

Francesville, IN

#406 Oct 1, 2013
Clem it's our ol'friend,
Clem Wayne Gacy
better known as:

Naperville

“My Bad! Just hold me. ”

Level 9

Since: Aug 07

Orion's Belt

#407 Oct 1, 2013
A little early in the morning to be drinking, no?

“"*" Always Thinking "*"”

Level 8

Since: Nov 12

Hoosierville

#408 Oct 1, 2013
26 states of the 54 Obama says "WE"got led by Republican governors or Republican majority legislatures have refused to set up websites to let their residents shop for insurance plans

Read more: http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/juan-wi...
Follow us:@thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

“<3”

Level 9

Since: Jun 10

Black Rock City, NV

#409 Oct 1, 2013
You should see the mess out here already. hahaha
dem

Los Angeles, CA

#410 Oct 1, 2013
-Persephone- wrote:
You should see the mess out here already. hahaha
We're talking about politics, not your shorts.

“<3”

Level 9

Since: Jun 10

Black Rock City, NV

#411 Oct 1, 2013
Dem wattles confused you "dem"...them there's a skirt.

Level 4

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#413 Oct 1, 2013
Sublime1 wrote:
What's even more concerning to me is, does anyone think our GDP is going to grow by 57% over the next decade? Does anyone think federal tax revenue will grow 57% over the next decade? There is no way that will even come close to happening. Food stamp spending growth will out pace both of these.
What we are doing is allocating a greater and greater amount of our GDP and tax revenue to entitlements ... just to pay for folks to exist ... not to increase productivity, education, opportunities, or wealth potential ... just to exist. Obamacare adds even further to this too.
At the same time, over the next decade and beyond SS, Medicare, and servicing our national debt are going to eat up ever increasing portions of our GDP and federal tax revenue.
We are a nation in terminal decline ... thanks to democrats. It's not reversible, either, because you can't have an honest discussion or do any reforms to any of these social programs, without folks on the left screaming about how mean you are being to poor people who just WANT FREE STUFF, without being asked for anything in return.
What the,Republicans,get wrong ...is in not making it Clear that old
People are not on their hit list....they have no options,in life ..

They worked for decades.....blue collar workers cannot work any more,at physical labor .......yet have paid into the LOCKBOX that wasn't locked ...for thirty or forty years.

They would have gotten more congressional votes a least to knock REED out of his chair ...

I think the Republicans,have the worst strategies ...for getting elected ..And half have no guts.

This,putting things off for a year,...Well ..it's,not legal for the,Pres to do ...And will mask how horrid this,plan is ...which of course is what they wAnt ..so they get elected ..in 2014 '

Then Hil lary will be next unless they get a really good candidate ..just my thought .

Reed would not even go to conference ..smug ..
They want to pin any chaos on the REPS..

Level 4

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#414 Oct 1, 2013
Do you even have coverage wrote:
<quoted text>Is this why you moan so much about it? You don't want to pony up and actually HAVE to buy healthcare? You like just going to the hospital and saddling us with the debt?? Geez, what part about - eliminating pre-existing conditions, insurance companies not able to drop you when you get sick, if you get sick they can't take YOUR bank account and all the things you've worked for now, gender discrimination and, really important here, big boy stuff, the expansion of preventative services - What don't you like here? Please don't tell me Tablets dot com has any employees YOU have to fund. Dude, do you know who picks up the tab when the uninsured go into a hospital with an illness or accident as it is now?
If you could just raise your posting content up just one molecule...
Ahh forget it, you'd still be dragoon
It's,called affordable ..it's,not . Most folks premiums doubled .
For worse coverage

The Congress exempt s itself ..And their workers,.

How,good could it be . Oh..And the white house

People are losing jobs,and hours ..Less taxes to pay for his thing .

They could have fixed things,differently ..

Thing is it hurts the middle class,

“<3”

Level 9

Since: Jun 10

Black Rock City, NV

#416 Oct 1, 2013
Tatty Cat wrote:
<quoted text>
It's,called affordable ..it's,not . Most folks premiums doubled .
For worse coverage
The Congress exempt s itself ..And their workers,.
How,good could it be . Oh..And the white house
People are losing jobs,and hours ..Less taxes to pay for his thing .
They could have fixed things,differently ..
Thing is it hurts the middle class,
True.
A noted observer

Hoffman Estates, IL

#417 Oct 1, 2013
So, last night I'm watching a movie and a guy is in a 7-11 type store and he's got a knife to an employees neck and he's demanding cash! It wasn't Red Cruz either. Just some guy so, if the republicans are looking to run him in '16, they should check their local listings for the name of the movie and maybe IMBD for the actor.

Anyway, he screams out: "GIVE ME THE MONEY AND NO ONE GETS HURT!!!"

OK. Robbery is illegal. So is threatening to knife some one. BUT- so what? What's that mean in a republic where- despite laws- one small group of the government can shut down the rest of the government just because they don't like a law?

All the store guy had to do was give the teapublican the money. It was THAT SIMPLE!

If the teaparty has taught us anything it's that you give terrorists what they want when they DEMAND it! How effing hard is that to understand? Sheesh.

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#418 Oct 1, 2013
Tatty Cat wrote:
<quoted text>
What the,Republicans,get wrong ...is in not making it Clear that old
People are not on their hit list....they have no options,in life ..
They worked for decades.....blue collar workers cannot work any more,at physical labor .......yet have paid into the LOCKBOX that wasn't locked ...for thirty or forty years.
They would have gotten more congressional votes a least to knock REED out of his chair ...
I think the Republicans,have the worst strategies ...for getting elected ..And half have no guts.
This,putting things off for a year,...Well ..it's,not legal for the,Pres to do ...And will mask how horrid this,plan is ...which of course is what they wAnt ..so they get elected ..in 2014 '
Then Hil lary will be next unless they get a really good candidate ..just my thought .
Reed would not even go to conference ..smug ..
They want to pin any chaos on the REPS..
Wait until you see what happens to folks in our generation when we retire. I’m 36. I’ll be lucky to get any of the money I put into social security. At some point they will probably raise SS taxes on me too and I'll have to put a high percentage of my income into it than earlier generations. Not only that, but my generation will have the pleasure of higher medical insurance and higher taxes, so that the government can subsidize and give other folks medical insurance, which is a burden no other generation has borne… Eventually the dems and sell out republicans will legalize all the 10-20 million illegal immigrants here too and we will give them all Obamacare, SS, Medicare, Medicaid, for which my generation will have the pleasure of paying for…

In terms of republicans, they are their own worst enemies. From being on the wrong side of history when it comes to gay rights, to beating the dead horse when it comes to abortion, to stupid one off comments deemed offensive by women and minorities by members of their party, and to over prioritization of business interests when it comes to a range of issues, including the environment. They are too extreme on many issues. They lose a lot of votes because of this. The Bush Presidency cost them dearly too. That war in Iraq was pure folly. Massive spending too during his administration.

They need more moderates and sometimes they need to meet democrats half way. Let’s take minimum wage, maybe $15 an hour is stupid talk for a fast food worker, but is it too much to make it 9 an hour and index it for inflation so you don’t have to raise the thing every 5 years? I don’t think many folks would have a problem with that, and I don’t think it would hurt businesses that bad.

On the other side, you have democrats who want to mortgage our children's and grandchildren’s future. Yes, republicans can be offensive and their own worst enemy, but democrats and their unsustainable spending are dangerous and will bring about the decline of America. We need a party that can counteract that … not one that is so focused on secondary matters that rub a lot of folks the wrong way.

“<3”

Level 9

Since: Jun 10

Black Rock City, NV

#419 Oct 1, 2013
Sent you a funny link.
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wait until you see what happens to folks in our generation when we retire. I’m 36. I’ll be lucky to get any of the money I put into social security. At some point they will probably raise SS taxes on me too and I'll have to put a high percentage of my income into it than earlier generations. Not only that, but my generation will have the pleasure of higher medical insurance and higher taxes, so that the government can subsidize and give other folks medical insurance, which is a burden no other generation has borne… Eventually the dems and sell out republicans will legalize all the 10-20 million illegal immigrants here too and we will give them all Obamacare, SS, Medicare, Medicaid, for which my generation will have the pleasure of paying for…
In terms of republicans, they are their own worst enemies. From being on the wrong side of history when it comes to gay rights, to beating the dead horse when it comes to abortion, to stupid one off comments deemed offensive by women and minorities by members of their party, and to over prioritization of business interests when it comes to a range of issues, including the environment. They are too extreme on many issues. They lose a lot of votes because of this. The Bush Presidency cost them dearly too. That war in Iraq was pure folly. Massive spending too during his administration.
They need more moderates and sometimes they need to meet democrats half way. Let’s take minimum wage, maybe $15 an hour is stupid talk for a fast food worker, but is it too much to make it 9 an hour and index it for inflation so you don’t have to raise the thing every 5 years? I don’t think many folks would have a problem with that, and I don’t think it would hurt businesses that bad.
On the other side, you have democrats who want to mortgage our children's and grandchildren’s future. Yes, republicans can be offensive and their own worst enemy, but democrats and their unsustainable spending are dangerous and will bring about the decline of America. We need a party that can counteract that … not one that is so focused on secondary matters that rub a lot of folks the wrong way.

“We're all Bozos on this bus”

Since: Jan 07

Chicago, IL

#420 Oct 1, 2013
So now we know that the guys who set up barricades around national monuments are classified as 'essential personnel' because they were assigned the job of trucking those barricades in and assemble them.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Yes/No Game (May '11) 2 min Enzo49 8,204
Crystal_Clears Kitchen (Refurbished) (Jan '16) 3 min Bad Bex 8,444
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 5 min DanFromSmithville 200,979
*add A word / drop a word* (Nov '12) 5 min SweLL GirL 13,406
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 7 min Go Blue Forever 7,784
How's your weather today? (Mar '12) 7 min Enzo49 5,821
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 7 min Mega Monster 58,047
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 24 min avon5735 194,090
News 10 weird and crazy sex facts you may not know 3 hr Sam 5
More from around the web