(04-14-2014 08:14 PM)Max Power Wrote:  So Republicans yada yada 17,000 people killed?


MIT health economist Jonathan Gruber: GOP "awesome in its evilness":

http://www.esquire.com/_mobile/blogs/pol...ion-040914
I'm offended on two levels here. I'm offended because I believe we can help poor people get health insurance, but I'm almost more offended there's a principle of political economy that basically, if you'd told me, when the Supreme Court decision came down, I said, "It's not a big deal. What state would turn down free money from the federal government to cover their poorest citizens?" The fact that half the states are is such a massive rejection of any sensible model of political economy, it's sort of offensive to me as an academic. And I think it's nothing short of political malpractice that we are seeing in these states and we've got to emphasize that....They are not just not interested in covering poor people, they are willing to sacrifice billions of dollars of injections into their economy in order to punish poor people. It really is just almost awesome in its evilness.

Wow. Another moron. Turn down "free money"? I'm offended this guy even callls himself an economist. Or an academic. just proves once again that lots of stupid people can get a useless job as a perfesser. Wow. Just. wow.

I just read a Harvard study, this thread is full of ****.

Responding to the OP, Biden said its patriotic to pay taxes. He implied you're not patriotic if you don't.

(04-14-2014 08:43 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Facts tend to have a liberal bias.

Max? This is my favorite story. But I've heard it before a few times.

Can you tell me the fairy tale about the "free money" one, though?

THAT one sounds very exciting, kinda like the Leprechaun and a pot of gold at the end of a pretty, pretty rainbow.

thanks max, I've been having trouble sleeping at night cause of the noisy gremlins in me attic.

(04-14-2014 08:09 PM)Max Power Wrote:  http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ha...ion-deaths

As many as 17,000 Americans will die directly as a result of states deciding not to expand Medicaid under Obamacare, according to a new study.

Researchers from Harvard University and City University of New York have estimated that between 7,115 and 17,104 deaths will be "attributable to the lack of Medicaid expansion in opt-out states" in a study published in Health Affairs.

This is just (very) late term abortion.

(04-14-2014 08:43 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Facts tend to have a liberal bias.

No, liberal bias has a liberal bias.

And what you believe to be facts are what makes it through your liberally biased filter.

(04-14-2014 07:52 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(04-14-2014 05:08 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-14-2014 04:57 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Why do you keep accusing Obama of not wanting jobs?

Kindly point out where I said this.

Obama's problem is that he has completely lost credibility on job creation (even within his own party) based on the overly optimistic projections of his previous 'shovel ready' jobs bills. I'm quite sure he DOES want them... Desperately... as they would validate his legacy... but he has made so many unfulfilled promises already. I probably said he's been ineffective. I don't think i said he didn't want them.

Besides, the primary pillar of the jobs act is tax cuts... which is something ONE of you claimed was something only designed to make the wealthy wealthier.

You just suggested he doesn't want to cut welfare spending by increasing employment. That implies the opposite must be true-- that he doesn't want people to get jobs so he can keep welfare spending high. I'm glad you see this as ridiculous.

Yes. It's one of the many ridiculous things you've said. I've said none of them.

I'm suggesting that what he wants... and what his policies accomplish are two different things. I'm also suggesting that those who describe cuts in projected expenses for assistance going forward as 'harming poor people' as has been done, I believe by you but certainly by many dems show their ignorance.

Quote:Unfortunately he can only be as effective as the Republicans in the House are reasonable. And, the GOP in the states in hiring and laying off public employees.

Load of crap. Democrats had total control of both houses and passed trillions in spending and we didn't get the jobs they promised... not by a long shot. For centuries, parties have had to work across the aisle. You're basically suggesting that your President and our elected democratic leaders are impotent. They walked all over Republicans because they could. If they pay a price for their hubris, that is their own fault. As they were so quick to say at the time, elections have consequences.

Quote:Tax cuts for the rich will just make the rich richer. Tax cuts for the low and middle classes are much better for the economy because they have a higher propensity to spend.

Tell that to Obama. The Jobs bill you support provides tax cuts for the rich.

People work all their lives and build up our country and the Democrats
let in 20,000,000 illegals so they can get their votes. Now they have to
help feed them and provide medical care. Where is the logic?

(04-14-2014 11:33 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  People work all their lives and build up our country and the Democrats
let in 20,000,000 illegals so they can get their votes. Now they have to
help feed them and provide medical care. Where is the logic?

The end justifies the means with Libs. Always has. It is about growing the size and scope of the State and entrenching as many people as possible into some type of welfare program. They know exactly what they are doing.

(04-14-2014 04:55 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(04-14-2014 04:45 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-14-2014 04:44 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Well I'm pretty wealthy and I get demonized by the left. So therefore, I see this as an opportunity for redistribution.

Everyone on this forum is independently wealthy.

And some think they're pretty smart.

I prefer to say "well educated".

(04-14-2014 02:07 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  pfft

Your side doesn't know the difference between cutting welfare because you're actually improving people's lives and they no longer need assistance and cutting welfare because you want people to die. This is the rhetoric your side spews because all you're interested in is having more people on the dole... because that is 'votes' for your agenda.

Poor people don't vote.


And then you have folks on 'your side' saying things like this:

Tom Perkins Wrote:"But what I really think is, it should be like a corporation. You pay a million dollars in taxes, you get a million votes. How's that?"

Who the f is Tom Perkins?

Should I start quoting Robert and blame you for it?

You guys are weak

And while poor people may not vote, it doesn't mean you don't court them hard... Because you do.

In other words, none of what you say refutes anything I said... You're merely trying to deflect from the facts I've mentioned

FTR, I'm not in the tank for the right as you guys on the left are. If you'll note, I consider myself more of a centrist, down the middle. I am libertarian if anything, but still not an 'off the grid' one.

(04-15-2014 03:52 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-14-2014 02:07 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  pfft

Your side doesn't know the difference between cutting welfare because you're actually improving people's lives and they no longer need assistance and cutting welfare because you want people to die. This is the rhetoric your side spews because all you're interested in is having more people on the dole... because that is 'votes' for your agenda.

Poor people don't vote.


And then you have folks on 'your side' saying things like this:

Tom Perkins Wrote:"But what I really think is, it should be like a corporation. You pay a million dollars in taxes, you get a million votes. How's that?"

You can't really be this simple, can you?

where do you think most of the great unwashed masses of you people fall? Of course people of means vote at a higher rate, far more to lose succumbing to the socialist parasite agenda. BUT, who are those with more to gain? And where on your pretty chart do they fall?

C'mon. It's like you and your redistributionist fellow travellers aren't even trying anymore.

Step up your game.

Poor people don't live in America.

(04-15-2014 03:52 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-14-2014 02:07 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  pfft

Your side doesn't know the difference between cutting welfare because you're actually improving people's lives and they no longer need assistance and cutting welfare because you want people to die. This is the rhetoric your side spews because all you're interested in is having more people on the dole... because that is 'votes' for your agenda.

Poor people don't vote.


And then you have folks on 'your side' saying things like this:

Tom Perkins Wrote:"But what I really think is, it should be like a corporation. You pay a million dollars in taxes, you get a million votes. How's that?"

When you consider the number of folks in each bar, the number of votes cast by people with income less than $30,000 was 24 million, while the number of votes cast by folks with incomes above $75,000, was 18 million. So poor folks accounted for 33% more votes than wealthy.

(04-17-2014 07:37 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Poor people don't live in America.

This is true according to the United Nations standards.

(04-17-2014 07:37 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Poor people don't live in America.

Not in a "World sense".

(04-17-2014 07:48 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 07:37 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Poor people don't live in America.

Not in a "World sense".

Just pointing out that the word used here is totally incorrect. It makes the plight of these people sound much worse than it actually is. This is another subtle tactic of the Left to make a case for a larger and larger welfare state and increased generational slavery...all for only ONE thing. Political power.

Ill go with "less fortunate"...thank you.