Want to know the real reason behind all of this madness? Take a good long look at the RNC platform statement in 1980 and then again in 2012. Also, there is this deliciously accurate poll by The Onion, of all places...
American Government is Shut Down!
@turambar said:
@believer258 said:
@turambar: You're, like, the only smart person in this thread.
That's a bit hyperbolic. There are people in this thread that are far more competent in dissecting and analyzing specific Affordable Healthcare Act policies. My expertise just happens to be in a different field.
Well, you're smarter than anyone posting in the last few pages then.
@connerthekewlkid said:
@believer258: So you're saying you're excluding yourself? :3
Nope, I'm just a regular old dude with a few opinions to fart out here and there.
...no. Even a philistine such as myself can see that he didn't nail anything. He just kinda rambled on without much of a point.
@jakob187 said:
@extomar said:
But better than what we have now either. And the GOP was at the table when the law was crafted and refused to participate. Or another way to put it: "Obamacare" is probably a bad law because it was GOP's fault.
The GOP were morons while crafting the law. The GOP are morons now. Two wrongs surely make a right if they tell themselves that. Right?
Again, stop drawing party lines. Democrats were just as moronic when crafting the law. Now that it has gone into affect, Obamacare has pushed private insurance premiums sky-high (some as high as a 300% increase). The website for Obamacare registration barely works, and even then, there are thousands upon thousands of people who are looking at the price of the "Affordable" Care Act and realizing that it's still too costly for them.
Moreover, the Democrats and GOP both didn't think about how this will affect medical practice overall. Medicare and Medicaid are already rarely taken in private practices due to the slow payout (if there's any payout at all). Obamacare will force private practice hands even harder to stop taking socialized health care (as well as most HMOs, they hate that shit). In turn, the addition of socialized health care will solve nothing.
The best thing to do would be to completely eliminate health insurance as a whole and take doctors back to what they did in the first place: accepted payment how THEY wanted to accept it. Unfortunately, because of the continued efforts of the people to "get free money" by throwing out frivolous lawsuits, we've created an atmosphere where insurance, malpractice insurance, and multiple other junk has to be in place. We say it's to protect all involved, but it's not. It all comes down to the NEW American mindset: "how can I get as much free money as possible without doing anything?"
This is what the "American dream" has devolved to. It's not about opportunity anymore. It's about being dumb as shit, doing absolutely nothing, and feeding off others for as much money as you can. If you don't believe me, walk the streets or stand around in a gas station for a little while.
The American people like to sit idly by while they are getting raped in every way possible. They WANT to have shit like ammoniated beef and high fructose corn syrup shoveled down their throats, and they want it available on every fucking street corner possible. They WANT to sit around and watch TV all day, play video games, and do nothing else. If they can't do that, they bitch and complain about it, whining like a 5-year-old until they get what they want. It's how they were raised. They WANT to live in houses they cannot afford, cars they cannot afford, have clothes they cannot afford, wear jewelry they cannot afford, and if someone has something they don't have, you better believe they will bitch and complain until they do have it.
That's the problem: people look at "all men are created equal" and believe that it means "we should all have the same thing." That's not the purpose of that statement at all, though. All men are created equal...meaning that they all have the opportunity to do great things, build great legacies, become something more and do something great with their lives. Instead, the modern interpretation of this is "bitch, I want a smartphone too."
Modern America believes in socialism, that everyone should BE equal in lifestyle. Once FDR instituted Social Security during the New Deal, the redistribution of the wealth started. With Medicaid, Medicare, Federal Income Tax (more specifically the Earned Income Credit portion of it) and Social Security, redistribution of the wealth has been something America has practiced for many decades. We've been a socialist nation for a while, but no one wants to see it or realize it.
So whatever. Obamacare was the next step. It's a bullshit law. As a nation that is supposed to be about being having a choice, having freedom, we should not be FORCED to have something...ever.
@dalai said:
Emotional rant or not, @jakob187 totally nailed it.
Except it doesn't. To claim that the country is comprised of moochers that simply want a piece of the pie without doing any of the work is certainly popular within certain circles, but that doesn't reflect reality all too well, particularly if we're using it as a way to discredit the Affordable Care Act. The majority of the states that have come to oppose the bill take in far more in terms of Federal aid than they put out in terms of tax revenue, after all.
Additionally, it's not as if the uninsured does not affect the rest of the community. Any visit to the emergency room is paid for, insurance or not. The difference is those that cannot afford to do so due to a lack of insurance simply has the cost of their visits passed down to tax payers. If you're truly interested in making sure the health care costs of others do not affect your finances, ensuring as many as possible have insurance would be to your benefit. You can of course advocate that those that cannot afford it, should not receive any care what so ever, but that would be forgetting to take into consideration the financial cost of losing out on worker productivity, amongst other things.
Aside from factual inaccuracies in history, in effects of current policy, and even in the definition of Socialism (It does not mean everyone should have the same lifestyle), the idea that "This is what the "American dream" has devolved to. It's not about opportunity anymore. It's about being dumb as shit, doing absolutely nothing, and feeding off others for as much money as you can." is unsubstantiated.
His post nails nothing.
@jakob187 Finally someone sensible in this thread, as the video states, it's about recouping costs and regaining control of costs in health care. On an individual basis, it's about providing very low barrier entry to health care. Uninsured people end up costing the system more because they simply don't visit doctors in time and end in up ER's, have to stay for prolonged time in the hospital, undergo surgery etc. By forcing people that should have had health care in the first place, you gain health for the person and save costs. Preventing disease is cheaper than treating it.
I don't think anyone understand what it means to have a disease but not having the money to cover the costs. It's not a bad law. Don't bring anecdotal crap that you couldn't cover for a health insurance but you can pay giantbomb $60 annually, or pay for a XBL subscription or some other thing. Unless you've seen the people that this bill is meant for, have spoken to them, seing doctors being frustrated they have to cope with such a broken system...you have no right to speak for them by refusing that bill, that $100 monthly extra expenditure isn't going to kill you. And fuck choice, you can't always go huurrr duurrr choice if you're simply not informed enough on what ACA means to everyone. Bottom line: People are stupid so the government should choose for them in some cases.
Maybe it's just a difference in mentality. Most of european citizen are totally fine that the middle and upper class are bearing some of the costs for health care for the lower-class and poor people. I pay close to a $1000 yearly on health care I don't use much of, but I do know that health care is an investment society has to make all together. If some people are against affordable health care for the very poor and the very sick...maybe that kind of egoism is the american mentality.
@trafalgarlaw: wait were you calling him sensible but then shitting on his idea? or did you mean something else your post is so confusing to me D:
The idea that this type of greed is somehow both indicative of the entire population as well as something that has only emerged within our current generation is a complete joke on both parts.
On a side note, taking a quick look at where Mansfield is located, it is within the same Congressional district that is represented by one John Fleming. Fleming is rather infamous for saying that states would be willing to take on cuts to social programs to bring down government spending, and quickly after criticizing the defense spending cuts brought about by the Sequestration due to the fact that two of the biggest employers in his district are military bases.
Lovely hypocrisy, ain't it?
I actually like many of the quality reporters and writers at CNN, but a lot of the news agency's coverage of the temporary Federal Government cutback has been disconcertingly weird and at times sensational, to say the least. I've already included some gems earlier in this thread, but the current front page of CNN.com just gave me another pause.
At the moment, the CNN frontpage has big text "Making Progress" above an image from the 60's game show "Let's Make a Deal":
I know that headlines need to be somewhat catching, but do lead images have to be as inane or sensational as CNN has been using during this political battle? Either it's an end of the world crisis with yet another terrifying countdown clock or countup clock(which is just a clock), or it's just treated as some stupid game.
It's ridiculous. It's talking down to people. And not even down to the fifth grade level as with most reporting, but to practically preschool at times. It's utter nonsense.
Even setting aside the straight-up factual inaccuracy in his bizarre rant that the Affordable Care Act somehow enables 'mooching' (the law is literally about getting more people to pay for insurance) I find the idea that advocating for cheap or freely-available healthcare is somehow about being lazy and greedy to be downright offensive. Healthcare should be as cheap and freely available as possible.
@turambar said:
The idea that this type of greed is somehow both indicative of the entire population as well as something that has only emerged within our current generation is a complete joke on both parts.
No not the while population. Just the ones on welfare. And no no the current generation either. Were now dealing with generations that have been raised on the government teat and thats all they know how to do. Dont be mad that I can provide an example to support someones idea that you dont support. I just substantiated it.
@video_game_king said:
Whoa, now, bad posters don't necessarily deserve nine-irons to the face.
@animasta said:
@trafalgarlaw: wait were you calling him sensible but then shitting on his idea? or did you mean something else your post is so confusing to me D:
His "emotional" rant on todays america is what I agree with, private insurance companies that increased rates by 300% means they were scum to begin with, Obama is trying to purify the putrid scum and private insurance companies increase rates like an cartel as a last means of rallying people against Obama. "Look what Obama made us do!!! Now, we can't deny pre-existing conditions anymore!!"
@marokai said:
Even setting aside the straight-up factual inaccuracy in his bizarre rant that the Affordable Care Act somehow enables 'mooching' (the law is literally about getting more people to pay for insurance) I find the idea that advocating for cheap or freely-available healthcare is somehow about being lazy and greedy to be downright offensive. Healthcare should be as cheap and freely available as possible.
Youre absoultely right! It should be! But, what I have a problem with it is, is the individual mandate. I dont want the government to force me to purchase anything that I dont want. Sure you can point at auto insurance as a government mandate but I always have the option of not driving. Bikes a cool man! I think its asinine that the Democrats can push back the mandate for corporations but are dead set on keeping its current deadline for actual human beings etched in stone.
And yes it is kinda lazy/greedy that one would have to rely on the government to offer an option for healthcare. Myself I was out o work for a good while and it only took me 2 week to find a job that a)pays my bills and b) offers insurance. I may hate the fuck out of what Im doing at the moment but you gotta do what you gotta do. That there are people out there that say they cant work a desk job and pull down a disability check infuriates me to no end.
What about an America where everybody's guaranteed a dead cat?
@k9 said:
Everyone needs to see this:
Loading Video...
Basically the federal government can't reopen now until the GOP says so.
Came here to post this, shadiest shit I have seen in a long time. If you support the GOP after watching this, I'm so sorry.
@video_game_king said:
What about an America where everybody's guaranteed a dead cat?
Well, I mean, a cat's not quite a chicken, but if there was one in every pot then we couldn't complain too much.
@pulledabrad said:
@marokai said:
Even setting aside the straight-up factual inaccuracy in his bizarre rant that the Affordable Care Act somehow enables 'mooching' (the law is literally about getting more people to pay for insurance) I find the idea that advocating for cheap or freely-available healthcare is somehow about being lazy and greedy to be downright offensive. Healthcare should be as cheap and freely available as possible.
Youre absoultely right! It should be! But, what I have a problem with it is, is the individual mandate. I dont want the government to force me to purchase anything that I dont want. Sure you can point at auto insurance as a government mandate but I always have the option of not driving. Bikes a cool man! I think its asinine that the Democrats can push back the mandate for corporations but are dead set on keeping its current deadline for actual human beings etched in stone.
And yes it is kinda lazy/greedy that one would have to rely on the government to offer an option for healthcare. Myself I was out o work for a good while and it only took me 2 week to find a job that a)pays my bills and b) offers insurance. I may hate the fuck out of what Im doing at the moment but you gotta do what you gotta do. That there are people out there that say they cant work a desk job and pull down a disability check infuriates me to no end.
And that disability check is barely enough to pay rent in most states. If you're sitting around thinking that people coast through life on a free ride on Social Security, you are wrong. It's typically less than $8,000 a year. Some people CAN'T work. For some, getting work is nearly impossible; if they're legally disabled, do you think that people are going to hire them over other people that can actually hold those jobs without special treatment? Sure you can tell me that workplaces are generally non discriminatory in their hiring practices but that's not true, it's a legal thing you have to slap on there. Even if I were legally considered a female, if it was out there that I'm a trans girl and not a biological one, I'm going to have a hell of a time being hired at Victoria's Secret.
But congratulations on finding work in two weeks(which is not actually a "good while" by the way) that benefits you by giving you benefits! But don't try and use your experiences to say that they're the same as everyone else's.
@pulledabrad said:
@turambar said:
The idea that this type of greed is somehow both indicative of the entire population as well as something that has only emerged within our current generation is a complete joke on both parts.
No not the while population. Just the ones on welfare. And no no the current generation either. Were now dealing with generations that have been raised on the government teat and thats all they know how to do. Dont be mad that I can provide an example to support someones idea that you dont support. I just substantiated it.
I don't believe I need to point to anything beyond the subprime mortgage bubble that burst a mere half a decade earlier. Those involved in the packaging and selling of mortgage linked securities as well as falsifying the risks of mortgages contained within them were far from welfare queens.
Also, do understand, a run on a Walmart store is not useful as representation of any national trend
@artelinarose said:
@pulledabrad said:
@marokai said:
Even setting aside the straight-up factual inaccuracy in his bizarre rant that the Affordable Care Act somehow enables 'mooching' (the law is literally about getting more people to pay for insurance) I find the idea that advocating for cheap or freely-available healthcare is somehow about being lazy and greedy to be downright offensive. Healthcare should be as cheap and freely available as possible.
Youre absoultely right! It should be! But, what I have a problem with it is, is the individual mandate. I dont want the government to force me to purchase anything that I dont want. Sure you can point at auto insurance as a government mandate but I always have the option of not driving. Bikes a cool man! I think its asinine that the Democrats can push back the mandate for corporations but are dead set on keeping its current deadline for actual human beings etched in stone.
And yes it is kinda lazy/greedy that one would have to rely on the government to offer an option for healthcare. Myself I was out o work for a good while and it only took me 2 week to find a job that a)pays my bills and b) offers insurance. I may hate the fuck out of what Im doing at the moment but you gotta do what you gotta do. That there are people out there that say they cant work a desk job and pull down a disability check infuriates me to no end.
And that disability check is barely enough to pay rent in most states. If you're sitting around thinking that people coast through life on a free ride on Social Security, you are wrong. It's typically less than $8,000 a year. Some people CAN'T work. For some, getting work is nearly impossible; if they're legally disabled, do you think that people are going to hire them over other people that can actually hold those jobs without special treatment? Sure you can tell me that workplaces are generally non discriminatory in their hiring practices but that's not true, it's a legal thing you have to slap on there. Even if I were legally considered a female, if it was out there that I'm a trans girl and not a biological one, I'm going to have a hell of a time being hired at Victoria's Secret.
But congratulations on finding work in two weeks(which is not actually a "good while" by the way) that benefits you by giving you benefits! But don't try and use your experiences to say that they're the same as everyone else's.
I should clairify. I was out of work for 2 years. When I started my job hunt it took 2 weeks. Funilly enough we just hired a trans girl where I work. Not Victoria Secret mind you, but odd that you would mention that. Tell me though how is it that someone on disability cant work a desk job? Like say a back injury or something similar. Its flat out the mentality of "I dont have to do this if I dont want to." People don just get disability. There's SSI, EBT, HUD housing etc. What Im trying to say is that you can go and get a job at a place in fairly quick order that provides healthcare rather than being in the 100-400% of the poverty level income bracket that sucks off tax dollars to subsidize their individual mandate.
@pulledabrad: Have you ever been on food stamps? Or the equivalent of food assistance, wherever you live? I have been, for many months. I've received Medicaid, too. (Had my wisdom teeth taken out by a sketchy Medicaid approved place; had literally no problems. Was pretty impressed.) It's not an enviable position, a position I ever wanted to be in, and those food assistance dollars are not sufficient to feed a household. When I see stories about people on welfare trying to get more food, I don't think "those greedy/lazy takers", I think "these are malnourished people who don't have enough money to live on and they're taking advantage because they need it."
I understand the individual mandate being a hitch for some people, but why isn't that something you're totally down with, if you're all about personal responsibility? The individual mandate is, for better or worse, all about forcing people to sign up and start contributing to the system. It's about making people take responsibility for their healthcare. That would seem to me to be the exact sort of thing that those concerned with lazy/greedy people would support.
@pulledabrad: welfare queens don't exist in nearly the numbers you think they do. Hell, SNAP is way less wasted than most government programs (including medicaid and medicare)
@pulledabrad said:
That there are people out there that say they cant work a desk job and pull down a disability check infuriates me to no end.
I think we're in need of statistical evidence that shows that group of people you're using as example comprises of a significant portion of those currently unemployed and receiving benefits.
Some additional information:
In the case of the SSI, number of total recipients as a percentage of the population at the same age has not had much of a jump. Percentage of disabled adult recipients has ticked up from below 2% to just above 2%. Percentage of those above the age of 65 has in fact decreased by over 3%. The group that has seen the highest increased are disabled children (under the age of 18), and that increase is still under 2%.
As for SNAP (which I assume is what you meant when talking about the EBT), the total number of participants has in fact stayed relatively even from 1992 to 2007, hovering between 20 and 25 million monthly participants. It did not see any substantial rise until after 2007, for reasons I don't believe I need to spell out.
@l4wd0g said:
Yeah. Remember when this happened and the United States fell apart during the Clinton administration or the Reagan administration?
You do realize that this thread is polarized enough that somebody could say America was destroyed during one of the administrations, right?
@pulledabrad said:
@artelinarose said:
@pulledabrad said:
@marokai said:
Even setting aside the straight-up factual inaccuracy in his bizarre rant that the Affordable Care Act somehow enables 'mooching' (the law is literally about getting more people to pay for insurance) I find the idea that advocating for cheap or freely-available healthcare is somehow about being lazy and greedy to be downright offensive. Healthcare should be as cheap and freely available as possible.
Youre absoultely right! It should be! But, what I have a problem with it is, is the individual mandate. I dont want the government to force me to purchase anything that I dont want. Sure you can point at auto insurance as a government mandate but I always have the option of not driving. Bikes a cool man! I think its asinine that the Democrats can push back the mandate for corporations but are dead set on keeping its current deadline for actual human beings etched in stone.
And yes it is kinda lazy/greedy that one would have to rely on the government to offer an option for healthcare. Myself I was out o work for a good while and it only took me 2 week to find a job that a)pays my bills and b) offers insurance. I may hate the fuck out of what Im doing at the moment but you gotta do what you gotta do. That there are people out there that say they cant work a desk job and pull down a disability check infuriates me to no end.
And that disability check is barely enough to pay rent in most states. If you're sitting around thinking that people coast through life on a free ride on Social Security, you are wrong. It's typically less than $8,000 a year. Some people CAN'T work. For some, getting work is nearly impossible; if they're legally disabled, do you think that people are going to hire them over other people that can actually hold those jobs without special treatment? Sure you can tell me that workplaces are generally non discriminatory in their hiring practices but that's not true, it's a legal thing you have to slap on there. Even if I were legally considered a female, if it was out there that I'm a trans girl and not a biological one, I'm going to have a hell of a time being hired at Victoria's Secret.
But congratulations on finding work in two weeks(which is not actually a "good while" by the way) that benefits you by giving you benefits! But don't try and use your experiences to say that they're the same as everyone else's.
I should clairify. I was out of work for 2 years. When I started my job hunt it took 2 weeks. Funilly enough we just hired a trans girl where I work. Not Victoria Secret mind you, but odd that you would mention that. Tell me though how is it that someone on disability cant work a desk job? Like say a back injury or something similar. Its flat out the mentality of "I dont have to do this if I dont want to." People don just get disability. There's SSI, EBT, HUD housing etc. What Im trying to say is that you can go and get a job at a place in fairly quick order that provides healthcare rather than being in the 100-400% of the poverty level income bracket that sucks off tax dollars to subsidize their individual mandate.
Any disabilty preventing you from doing your work is a disability. You grossly underestimate the impact of (chronic) lower back pain on work and life. I could list dozens of diseases or disbilities in which you can walk and talk perfectly fine but have trouble with work.
"People don just get disability". They do. You can have a stroke out of the blue and live disabled/paralysed. Car accidents and back trauma also notorious for been wheelchair-bound. You are a lot more fragile than you'd think and for a desk job you need more than just functioning upper limbs.
@marokai said:
@pulledabrad: Have you ever been on food stamps? Or the equivalent of food assistance, wherever you live? I have been, for many months. I've received Medicaid, too. (Had my wisdom teeth taken out by a sketchy Medicaid approved place; had literally no problems. Was pretty impressed.) It's not an enviable position, a position I ever wanted to be in, and those food assistance dollars are not sufficient to feed a household. When I see stories about people on welfare trying to get more food, I don't think "those greedy/lazy takers", I think "these are malnourished people who don't have enough money to live on and they're taking advantage because they need it."
I understand the individual mandate being a hitch for some people, but why isn't that something you're totally down with, if you're all about personal responsibility? The individual mandate is, for better or worse, all about forcing people to sign up and start contributing to the system. It's about making people take responsibility for their healthcare. That would seem to me to be the exact sort of thing that those concerned with lazy/greedy people would support.
In the story I quoted people were loading thousands and thousands of dollars into carts and when the announcement was made that the EBT cards were being cut off they just left them in the aisles. This wasnt about not getting enough food for the week/month. It was "we got an unlimited spending limit so lets go nuts" Its not malnourished people dying for food, its people raised in the welfare culture that dont know anything else other thatn "how can I get more out of the system by doing less".
But see on your last point is where I have the problem the lazy/greedy are going to be the poorest, imo. Ergo they are going to fall into the subsidized bracket and they arent out anything. Theres no penalty for them. But if I choose to not carry health insurance I get a penalty because my income dictates that I should be. Thats where they problem is. They still wont have to change a thing, get coverage at the expense of the taxpayer and not get fined for it. And they know that. To the lazy/greedy stereotype we need to add "crafty as fuck" because they know how to abuse the system to the fulllest extent. We need less government not more. Larger government breeds larger loopholes and oversight that lets people abuse the system. Its gotta stop.
@l4wd0g said:
Yeah. Remember when this happened and the United States fell apart during the Clinton administration or the Reagan administration?
True, but back then both parties weren't hellbent on sticking it to one another...after typing that I am doing my best to hold back making a Clinton joke.
@l4wd0g said:
Yeah. Remember when this happened and the United States fell apart during the Clinton administration or the Reagan administration?
The difference however was that those budget fall outs were in fact about the budget itself. This current one has the budget being used to fight over another issue: healthcare reform.
@pulledabrad said:
@artelinarose said:
@pulledabrad said:
@marokai said:
Even setting aside the straight-up factual inaccuracy in his bizarre rant that the Affordable Care Act somehow enables 'mooching' (the law is literally about getting more people to pay for insurance) I find the idea that advocating for cheap or freely-available healthcare is somehow about being lazy and greedy to be downright offensive. Healthcare should be as cheap and freely available as possible.
Youre absoultely right! It should be! But, what I have a problem with it is, is the individual mandate. I dont want the government to force me to purchase anything that I dont want. Sure you can point at auto insurance as a government mandate but I always have the option of not driving. Bikes a cool man! I think its asinine that the Democrats can push back the mandate for corporations but are dead set on keeping its current deadline for actual human beings etched in stone.
And yes it is kinda lazy/greedy that one would have to rely on the government to offer an option for healthcare. Myself I was out o work for a good while and it only took me 2 week to find a job that a)pays my bills and b) offers insurance. I may hate the fuck out of what Im doing at the moment but you gotta do what you gotta do. That there are people out there that say they cant work a desk job and pull down a disability check infuriates me to no end.
And that disability check is barely enough to pay rent in most states. If you're sitting around thinking that people coast through life on a free ride on Social Security, you are wrong. It's typically less than $8,000 a year. Some people CAN'T work. For some, getting work is nearly impossible; if they're legally disabled, do you think that people are going to hire them over other people that can actually hold those jobs without special treatment? Sure you can tell me that workplaces are generally non discriminatory in their hiring practices but that's not true, it's a legal thing you have to slap on there. Even if I were legally considered a female, if it was out there that I'm a trans girl and not a biological one, I'm going to have a hell of a time being hired at Victoria's Secret.
But congratulations on finding work in two weeks(which is not actually a "good while" by the way) that benefits you by giving you benefits! But don't try and use your experiences to say that they're the same as everyone else's.
I should clairify. I was out of work for 2 years. When I started my job hunt it took 2 weeks. Funilly enough we just hired a trans girl where I work. Not Victoria Secret mind you, but odd that you would mention that. Tell me though how is it that someone on disability cant work a desk job? Like say a back injury or something similar. Its flat out the mentality of "I dont have to do this if I dont want to." People don just get disability. There's SSI, EBT, HUD housing etc. What Im trying to say is that you can go and get a job at a place in fairly quick order that provides healthcare rather than being in the 100-400% of the poverty level income bracket that sucks off tax dollars to subsidize their individual mandate.
I get disability money every month and the maximum payout to any individual in Washington state is about $650 a month, with the maximum federal amount being $710 for wherever that is in the United States. I have a part time job that does not give me benefits and with every two dollars I make, one dollar is subtracted from my monthly payments. Actually, with the government shutdown continuing, if things go real horrible and it isn't resolved quickly I will go from making $950 a month to about $440. My rent is $400. I get $90 in food benefits from the state every month which if we do the math at three meals a day, is $1 per meal per day. I don't fucking feel like eating macaroni and cheese for every meal so I end up spending a lot of money I should be saving just to eat healthy and continue trying to lose weight.
I am not proud of my situation. I look forward to the day where I can support myself through my own hard work and not have to sit here knowing that I'll never be able to afford a car or be able to maintain one or do anything worthwhile because I'm well below the poverty line. But at least I am allowed to subsist.
"yeah but what if you just got a job though"
It's not that easy. It really isn't.
I have never ever known someone personally who was happy to ask for government assistance. They do it as a last resort. They feel ashamed for doing it.
There have been "moochers" since the first tribes came together and some tried to get out of doing the collective work but get the same rewards for collectively succeeding. People showing up in Emergency Rooms with severe problems but are too poor to pay are in most cases not "moochers".
@trafalgarlaw said:
This was the best part of everything you said.
As for the other comments from other people, it's pointless for someone with my political, theological, and ethical views to honestly comment on anything. I find it interesting that people want to have debates, arguments, and other such discussions...but then will be completely dismissive of someone else's viewpoints because they don't agree with them. I personally have done nothing to dismiss anyone's views, as I don't believe that my solutions are perfect.
In turn, I added my two bits to the conversation, and I am exiting it just as fast. Why? There's no point in arguing. We're all fucked anyways.
@artelinarose: Not having enough is a terrible feeling. Is anything keeping you in Washington State? I've had to move/change jobs 4 times in the past 6 years because I haven't made enough to support myself and my family. My jobs have ranged from working at Sears as a box boy to being a sound designer to an IT Admin. When I lost my job (no unemployment), my wife and I lived off of 16k for two years while paying for private health insurance in the shadier side of Baltimore. We had to sell our car to make rent. Our budget for entertainment was the 18 bucks we paid for terrible Verizon internet. It sucked for a time but it was worth it. I hope it works out for you.
@pulledabrad said:
But see on your last point is where I have the problem the lazy/greedy are going to be the poorest, imo. Ergo they are going to fall into the subsidized bracket and they arent out anything. Theres no penalty for them. But if I choose to not carry health insurance I get a penalty because my income dictates that I should be. Thats where they problem is. They still wont have to change a thing, get coverage at the expense of the taxpayer and not get fined for it. And they know that. To the lazy/greedy stereotype we need to add "crafty as fuck" because they know how to abuse the system to the fulllest extent. We need less government not more. Larger government breeds larger loopholes and oversight that lets people abuse the system. Its gotta stop.
It's true. When I lived in Baltimore, we'd see people driving Jags but paying for their food with food stamps. It's sad but more people than not take advantage of the system. If someone gets paid to do nothing, they will continue to do nothing.
I don't have a good solution for this healthcare/welfare system but I believe people are capable of more than what they think they are. This goes for people with disabilities, etc. Check out http://www.fastcoexist.com/1681911/a-blind-man-hikes-the-appalachian-trail-using-just-a-five-year-old-phone.
@pulledabrad: In addition to what I had posted previously, there was another program you didn't mention that I was rather interested in, the EITC.
I don't have participation numbers for other years (because I'm lazy and didn't look as hard as I could have), however for 2001, the participation rate of those with 0 children out of all that are eligible was only 44%. For those with one or two children, the participation rate climbs to 96% and 93% respectively. Beyond that however, and it drops again to the 62%.
While I lack the participation numbers for years in between, there were reports published in 2007 that illustrated a continued significant gap in percentage of participants out of the eligible population.
My point is this: personal anecdotes be what they may, statistics do not support the notion that the percentage of participants of government welfare have had any significant increase before the 2008 depression. The EITC numbers in particular, incomplete as they are, invalidates the notion that we have a generation eager to gobble up as much welfare as they can.
The whole "moocher" narrative has been pretty darn destructive; never mind the fact that we have tons of full-time employees on food stamps simply because they aren't paid enough to afford basic necessities. It's rarely a case of people just being lazy. Increasingly severe income inequality over the last decade is not something just anyone can overcome.
@sirpsychosexy said:
@k9 said:
Everyone needs to see this:
Loading Video...
Basically the federal government can't reopen now until the GOP says so.
Came here to post this, shadiest shit I have seen in a long time. If you support the GOP after watching this, I'm so sorry.
Gerrymandering, Voter ID Laws, the complete dismantling of congress even long before their orchestrated shutdown and hostage situation; I've studied a lot of US history, and I don't think I've ever seen a party being so belligerently destructive to democracy.
I don't know how we can even dig ourselves out of this mess when a great number of these people could easily survive their next elections.
My brother is on disability, and yeah, he could probably never afford to go on a vacation, he's not exactly eating steak every night, and he's probably never going to improve his financial situation. That sucks. That being said this government shut down is the first time he's had to sweat about his rent check in a decade, and he gets to spend all day every day doing whatever the fuck he wants. I'm not really crying him a river while he finishes two television series and a book every single week, sending me texts on his smart phone from his cozy apartment where he bitches about the quality of his life. I know him well enough to know that he's not really capable of having a job, so I'm definitely not calling him a mooch. But he does not have it that hard.
@draxyle said:
The whole "moocher" narrative has been pretty darn destructive; never mind the fact that we have tons of full-time employees on food stamps simply because they aren't paid enough to afford basic necessities. It's rarely a case of people just being lazy. Increasingly severe income inequality over the last decade is not something just anyone can overcome.
@sirpsychosexy said:
@k9 said:
Everyone needs to see this:
Loading Video...
Basically the federal government can't reopen now until the GOP says so.
Came here to post this, shadiest shit I have seen in a long time. If you support the GOP after watching this, I'm so sorry.
Gerrymandering, Voter ID Laws, the complete dismantling of congress even long before their orchestrated shutdown and hostage situation; I've studied a lot of US history, and I don't think I've ever seen a party being so belligerently destructive to democracy.
I don't know how we can even dig ourselves out of this mess when a great number of these people could easily survive their next elections.
What the actual fuck?
@jakob187 said:
@trafalgarlaw said:
This was the best part of everything you said.
As for the other comments from other people, it's pointless for someone with my political, theological, and ethical views to honestly comment on anything. I find it interesting that people want to have debates, arguments, and other such discussions...but then will be completely dismissive of someone else's viewpoints because they don't agree with them. I personally have done nothing to dismiss anyone's views, as I don't believe that my solutions are perfect.
In turn, I added my two bits to the conversation, and I am exiting it just as fast. Why? There's no point in arguing. We're all fucked anyways.
I don't think most people dismissed your viewpoints simply because they disagree. Myself and others have pointed to factual inaccuracies that unfortunately invalidates your points. If you feel you have not made such inaccuracies, by all means, offer your own evidence. Simply saying "peace, I'm out!" doesn't do anything to help legitimize your argument.
@maceg said:
It's true. When I lived in Baltimore, we'd see people driving Jags but paying for their food with food stamps. It's sad but more people than not take advantage of the system. If someone gets paid to do nothing, they will continue to do nothing.
Except the argument that SNAP is heavily burdened by fraud and abuse is also a myth. Trafficking, the sale of SNAP benefits for cash, has been reduced by 75% over the last 15 years, and currently only 1% of all SNAP benefits are trafficked.
@turambar: Is that across the country or in a specific area? Where we lived, abuse of the system was rampant.It's hard to look at statistics when you're living in the midst of it. It's just what people did. I'll use the analogy of being a Redskins fan. When we had Arrington, we had one of the top rated Ds in the league. Portis was setting new rushing records. At the end of the season, we weren't in the playoffs.
@maceg@artelinarose: I know the feeling. My father didn't make a lot of money while we were growing up, and I know what it's like to wear the same school clothes for three years in a row and be made fun of for it. I know what it's like to wonder if dinner will be on the table that night. My father refused to go on welfare of any kind because he believed in the American Dream, of creating opportunity and taking it upon oneself to be responsible. He fought tooth and nail for promotions and better jobs, and he eventually ended up going into aircraft cabinetry and doing it. He finally got to the point of buying his own house two years ago (at 56 years old) and his VA check now covers the house payment because of the reevaluating of his disability (he is missing three fingers, has been since Vietnam). He instilled in me a very strong value: you do not take handouts; you work for what you have. It's a value that I rarely see instilled in any child that I've seen in the last eight years (my job involves me being around children, specifically in an environment that sells junk food and lets them play video games on a daily basis). I have yet to take a handout. Everything that I have, it's because I worked hard for it and never gave in to the bullshit. I'm not going to sit here and say that I've made it. Right now, I'm doing math in my budget to make sure we can have money for dinner this week. It's not a question of how much money I'm making either. I wouldn't be at a job for eight years if it didn't pay enough for me to provide a living. It is about a recent move increasing rent by about $100, accounting for health insurance now (which my girlfriend being a Type 1 Diabetic does not make that an easy task to undertake), and making sure to cover all of the necessary bills. I have sold things from the luxuries I've been afforded over the years in order to help provide. It's just the way it goes. I say good luck to the both of you, and I hope all is well with you both.
@turambar said:
My point is this: personal anecdotes be what they may, statistics do not support the notion that the percentage of participants of government welfare have had any significant increase before the 2008 depression. The EITC numbers in particular, incomplete as they are, invalidates the notion that we have a generation eager to gobble up as much welfare as they can.
Do those numbers show how many welfare recipients use their food stamps, WIC card, and other forms of welfare as a trade offering to those with cash? Are there attached rates of drug abuse among those receiving welfare? What about any form of link between welfare recipients and obesity? Even better...do these numbers show the number of illegal immigrants coming to this nation and encouraging their 13 and 14 year old daughters to have children in order to get benefits?
No?
The first thing to know about welfare is that there are problems that go beyond just "receiving welfare."
As someone who has watched a mother holding her eight-month-old child at a gas station spending $22 on Cheetos, Coca-Cola, Blow Pops, and other assorted junk foods with their food stamps...and then another $2.19 in cash on cigarillos for the blunts she's going to be rolling later (which she specifically stated "them peach ones taste better with weed"), I would be hard-pressed to see your numbers reflect the actual usage of welfare among welfare recipients.
I know people personally that will trade food stamps for cash in order to buy whatever they want. Hell, one of my customers traded $200 in food stamps to get a set of rims for his car! I have a customer who is married to an El Salvadorian woman with her two children, and the mother encouraged her 15-year-old daughter to have a kid so they could start getting WIC, food stamps, and other social services to provide them with an income. She didn't tell her daughter "get a job and build a life for yourself." She told her to pump out a kid so they can get something for nothing, for acting irresponsibly. I asked the customer how he felt about this, and he said "we eat a lot of ribs."
So you can throw out all the numbers you want at the situation, but personal anecdotes HAVE to be taken into account when looking at those numbers. Why? Because the numbers are just that: numbers. They do not reflect anything beyond that.
If you would like to provide anything else attached to those numbers, it would be appreciated. Otherwise, numbers mean as much to me as farting in a car and locking the doors with the windows rolled up and the heater turned on.
@draxyle said:
The whole "moocher" narrative has been pretty darn destructive; never mind the fact that we have tons of full-time employees on food stamps simply because they aren't paid enough to afford basic necessities.
It's very hard for any employer to keep up with stuff like that when artificial inflation...err..."printing more money and upping minimum wage" continues to happen.
From what I've heard, it's actually ridiculously low (or at least significantly lower than the general population).
So you can throw out all the numbers you want at the situation, but personal anecdotes HAVE to be taken into account when looking at those numbers. Why? Because the numbers are just that: numbers. They do not reflect anything beyond that.
That is some weak fucking reasoning. "I'm going to reject your wide-reaching statistics because they don't agree with my personal experiences."
@jakob187: @video_game_king: With that reasoning, we must be winning the war in Iraq Afghanistan. We've only had 3390 casualties in a few years as opposed to the 12,000 during the first few hours of D-Day.
I'd trust the boots on the ground with their dicks planted firmly in the sand WAY before I trust a General with his statistics.
Being Australian I just have to say for the first time in a long time, I am so glad we are a part of the commonwealth. Britian has the power to just rip out the current party in power (if something like this where to occur) or we have the power of a double dissolution which forces a re-election on the spot.
From the outside looking in, I can't help but feel I am watching something massive world wide starting to unfold.
@video_game_king said:
From what I've heard, it's actually ridiculously low (or at least significantly lower than the general population).
So you can throw out all the numbers you want at the situation, but personal anecdotes HAVE to be taken into account when looking at those numbers. Why? Because the numbers are just that: numbers. They do not reflect anything beyond that.
That is some weak fucking reasoning. "I'm going to reject your wide-reaching statistics because they don't agree with my personal experiences."
It's so low that states are instituting mandatory drug testing for those receiving welfare...right? O___O I fail to see your logic.
Also, if I say that 50% of Americans commit suicide, all that says is people kill themselves. Without personal anecdotes and links to other things and forms of reason, you cannot understand the base numbers of anything. Also, the number of suicides is not 50% of Americans...as far as I know. It's not a particular statistic that I look for. It's just used as an example. Just need to make that clear for everyone.
In turn, when he presents information/evidence (most of which doesn't have some type of link to any form of research at that so we have to take him as his word, much the same we have to do with almost everyone here), I would just like more context to it. That's all. Plainly stating numbers only goes so far.
As I pointed out in my own personal anecdotes, I have seen cases personally that can go against his statistics in at least a 1-person case. He mentioned that SNAP trafficking was down 75% over the last 15 years and it now down to about 1% of cases? Where is the evidence on that, and is that only for one specific state? All states in terms of overall food stamps and welfare? It's a very vague stat to throw out.
It's me arguing semantics at this point. Anything I'll say will be emotional anyways, as it's tough for me to keep my emotions out of issues like this. In turn, I will genuinely exit the conversation at this point, recognize that @turambar is indeed someone that is interesting to read and holds many good points, and go hit the gym and then make some dinner.
I'm sorry that people seem to always find a problem with anything I say. This is why I rarely want to be involved in conversations anymore and have lacked much presence on these forums in some time. Everything I seem to say means nothing to anyone and is just discarded.
Anyways, I'm out. You gentlemen continue.
*throws smoke bomb*
@maceg said:
@turambar: Is that across the country or in a specific area? Where we lived, abuse of the system was rampant.It's hard to look at statistics when you're living in the midst of it. It's just what people did. I'll use the analogy of being a Redskins fan. When we had Arrington, we had one of the top rated Ds in the league. Portis was setting new rushing records. At the end of the season, we weren't in the playoffs.
That is across country.
@jakob187 said:
@turambar said:
My point is this: personal anecdotes be what they may, statistics do not support the notion that the percentage of participants of government welfare have had any significant increase before the 2008 depression. The EITC numbers in particular, incomplete as they are, invalidates the notion that we have a generation eager to gobble up as much welfare as they can.
Do those numbers show how many welfare recipients use their food stamps, WIC card, and other forms of welfare as a trade offering to those with cash? Are there attached rates of drug abuse among those receiving welfare? What about any form of link between welfare recipients and obesity? Even better...do these numbers show the number of illegal immigrants coming to this nation and encouraging their 13 and 14 year old daughters to have children in order to get benefits?
....
So you can throw out all the numbers you want at the situation, but personal anecdotes HAVE to be taken into account when looking at those numbers. Why? Because the numbers are just that: numbers. They do not reflect anything beyond that.
The rate of trafficking of SNAP benefits has just been addressed two posts up. Comments on abuse of the EITC by having many children has also been addressed to a degree in the very post of mine you quoted. Drug abuse and welfare recipients is rather low. One study puts it at 3.6%. There is correlation between obesity rates and welfare recipients (42% of all female participants of SNAP I believe). However, such correlation does not prove causation, as obesity rates for lower income population are higher in general.
As for your comments on statistics, while they are by no means perfect, statistics gives us a far more complete overall picture. To put it in other words, any personal anecdotes you may have, there are a multitude more that others have that run in stark contrast to your experiences from others across the country. Statistics are facts, albeit imperfect, and should matter a great deal when used as information in crafting policy.
@jakob187 said:
@draxyle said:
The whole "moocher" narrative has been pretty darn destructive; never mind the fact that we have tons of full-time employees on food stamps simply because they aren't paid enough to afford basic necessities.
It's very hard for any employer to keep up with stuff like that when artificial inflation...err..."printing more money and upping minimum wage" continues to happen.
What business are they in where it is ethical to hire skilled or trained people but not pay them a living wage? Or do they need to put all of that business acumen into figuring out a better business plan than depending absurdly low cost labor? They can pick their poison on that but whining about how hard capitalism is not an excuse.
@jakob187 said:
@video_game_king said:
From what I've heard, it's actually ridiculously low (or at least significantly lower than the general population).
So you can throw out all the numbers you want at the situation, but personal anecdotes HAVE to be taken into account when looking at those numbers. Why? Because the numbers are just that: numbers. They do not reflect anything beyond that.
That is some weak fucking reasoning. "I'm going to reject your wide-reaching statistics because they don't agree with my personal experiences."
It's so low that states are instituting mandatory drug testing for those receiving welfare...right? O___O I fail to see your logic.
Also, if I say that 50% of Americans commit suicide, all that says is people kill themselves. Without personal anecdotes and links to other things and forms of reason, you cannot understand the base numbers of anything. Also, the number of suicides is not 50% of Americans...as far as I know. It's not a particular statistic that I look for. It's just used as an example. Just need to make that clear for everyone.
That doesn't mean anything other than your statistics are incomplete and/or misrepresented. If you were to say something like, "50% of all American citizens born between 1947 and 1977 have committed suicide as of the end of 2012," then the statistic has more legitimate weight to it. What your example lacks isn't anecdotes, but context.
@jakob187 said:
@draxyle said:
The whole "moocher" narrative has been pretty darn destructive; never mind the fact that we have tons of full-time employees on food stamps simply because they aren't paid enough to afford basic necessities.
It's very hard for any employer to keep up with stuff like that when artificial inflation...err..."printing more money and upping minimum wage" continues to happen.
...
It's so low that states are instituting mandatory drug testing for those receiving welfare...right? O___O I fail to see your logic.
Inflation has more to do with widening the money supply so that new businesses can be started up (loans) than anything to do with minimum wage increases.
Many, have criticized states that desire to institute such drug testing specifically because the actual numbers are so low.
@jakob187 said:
It's so low that states are instituting mandatory drug testing for those receiving welfare...right? O___O I fail to see your logic.
Which is how we know that the drug abuse rate among welfare recipients is lower than the general population? Hooray stereotypes!
As I pointed out in my own personal anecdotes, I have seen cases personally that can go against his statistics in at least a 1-person case.
That's because it's not 100%. One contrary example doesn't negate the entire statistic. This isn't even basic statistics; it's basic logic.
He mentioned that SNAP trafficking was down 75% over the last 15 years and it now down to about 1% of cases? Where is the evidence on that, and is that only for one specific state? All states in terms of overall food stamps and welfare? It's a very vague stat to throw out.
At least these are thoughtful criticisms of his claims.
I'm sorry that people seem to always find a problem with anything I say.
Maybe because you probably shouldn't borrow rhetoric from Andrew Ryan when debating politics on a video game forum?
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment