CatMan
Well-Known Member
I don't agree with you much , but I do agree with you on this.
Maybe now is the right time to organize
- Thread starter Ghost in the Darkness
- Start date
Your argument is full of holes. If Democrats couldn't get the FAA bill passed in 2010 then why did Fred feel compelled to pass out $32 million in campaign contributions? The Democrats could get the ACA passed but not the FAA bill? Really? As to high deductibles, you're absolutely right, those using the ACA aren't too concerned about deductibles. IT JUST MADE PREMIUMS AND DEDUCTIBLES HIGH FOR THE REST OF US TO PAY FOR ALL THE PREEXISTING CONDITIONS OF THOSE WHO GOT ON THE ACA PLANS. WHY DO YOU THINK INSURANCE WAS MUCH CHEAPER FOR MOST OF US BEFORE THE ACA YOU BLITHERING IDIOT? Don't know where you were in 2010, but for those of us who lived it we were let down, betrayed, by the party you act like does no wrong.You seem to be one of the ignorant, or possibly just a liar when you continue to claim the democrats had full control. The following article is meant for dummies who believe that--
"
For a lie to prosper, as it were, there needs to be a shred of truth woven inside the lie. It is absolutely true that from 2009-2011, Democrats and President Obama had “total control” of the House of Representatives.
But legislation does not become law without the Senate.
The Senate operates with the 60-vote-requirement filibuster rule. There are 100 Senate seats, and it takes 60 Senate votes for “closure” on a piece of legislation....to bring that piece of legislation to the floor of the Senate for amendments and a final vote....that final vote is decided by a simple majority in most cases. But it takes 60 Senate votes to even have a chance of being voted upon.
“Total control”, then, of the Senate requires 60 Democratic or Republican Senators.
On January 20th, 2009, 57 Senate seats were held by Democrats with 2 Independents (Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman) caucusing with the Democrats...which gave Democrats 59 mostly-reliable Democratic votes in the Senate, one shy of filibuster-proof “total control.” Republicans held 41 seats.
The 59 number in January, 2009 included Ted Kennedy and Al Franken. Kennedy had a seizure during an Obama inaugural luncheon and never returned to vote in the Senate.....and Al Franken was not officially seated until July 7th, 2009 (hotly contested recount demanded by Norm Coleman.)
The real Democratic Senate seat number in January, 2009 was 55 Democrats plus 2 Independents equaling 57 Senate seats."
When Obama Had "Total Control of Congress"
The Reverend Lies are easy to get away with if they are repeated often enough and given voice by many different people. Repeat a lie often enough and that lie often becomes conventional wisdom. Repe…www.beaconjournal.com
Since this article Republicans got rid of the 60 vote rule, and did have full control, and almost ruined the country, bringing to the brink of violence with republicans sending an armed mog to an election counting building. Do you still think democrats had 'full control' and are you going to keep believing it. Al Franken was sworn in in JULY- 7 months late, and Ted Kennedy died a month later, and a republican took his place in January 2010. And there is a senator from W. Va who has never tru;y been a democrat- Joe Manchin, who can't be counted on reliably. With all the fake democrats, they barely passed the ACA, so your claim of 'full control proves how ignorant you are, yet you keep posting and keep proving it. I have pointed out you lack of knowledge on other issues you have strong opinions on, and you apparently don't know what the hell you are talking about.
High deductibles stop people from using the ACA????? Wrong- the ACAhas most medical care not subject at all to the deductible, and most of the rest has maybe a 20% copay until the deductible is met. You NEVER need to meet the full deductible to receive care under the ACA. If you have some very expensive treatment, you might need to make payments on your deductible, but it will still be a small % of the total.
And now you ignorantly claim that dems had full control for 2 years. I am just really tired of ignorant people screaming the loudest when it is clear to the rest that the screamer knows nothing.
It is happening now with the idiots believing opinions are facts' "I think there might be fraud" becomes the stupid mob screaming "Socialist Marxist Democrat baby killers stole the election" without skipping a beat. People like you who scream loudly while knowing nothing disgust me no end. But maybe it isn't your fault-maybe you only have one news source available, or maybe you were dropped on your head as a child. My baby brother literally was dropped on his head when he was about 2 years old, and he is a Trumpie, but at least he isn't loudly and proudly ignorant. If you were dropped on your head, or have some other mental limitations, I am sorry. But keep quiet.
How much then? You know, tell us. Again, the Republicans are against unions. The Democrats are supposed to be pro-union. It's the Democrats who have left the working man behind in favor of China and illegal immigrants. Dmacattack mentioned Joe Manchin. Why do you think West Virginia has gone from solid blue to solid red? Buy a clue, the Democrats aren't the party of Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson anymore.
You seem to forget that under welfare reform signed by Bill Clinton people who used to sit at home and receive benefits now have to do some gainful employment to receive some assistance. You're twisting reality. What's that sound, uh-oh, it's the Jaws music. Dmacattack is swimming towards me!
You're talking about some thing else altogether. In 2011 Republicans had taken over the House. I'm talking 2010, back when we thought we had a chance because of Oberstar, and your compatriot, what was his name, was posting super long screeds and encouraging everyone to quit.
falcon back
Well-Known Member
When the same families live in sect 8 for 30 or 40 years, they become comfortable and it becomes their acceptable way of living. They could not do anything in that amount of time to better themselves? Having more babies with multiple partners seems to be the norm for many low income people, meaning more money from taxpayers and more money on babys momma EBT card. When you deliver to low income areas you notice grown men and women sitting outside doing NOTHING. Why aren't they looking for work? Jobs paying $15 or more an hour are begging for applicants, yet these people sit around all day waiting on their next handout. Then when their children grow up, they watched their mom have 6 kids with 6 different men and they continue the cycle.
I recently had a conversation regarding the matter with my state's HHS secretary. She came out and said that in many cases after losing their medical benefits, paying for childcare paying transportation paying FICA and more there's little to no benefit from taking a job especially when many pay well below that $15 number you mentioned.
It's simply a case of why work for nothing if you can do nothing for nothing?
Is it fair to others?... No . But at the same time neither is being chained to a menial no future job just to appease so called "conservatives" who themselves in many cases are consuming reservoirs of public benefits.
falcon back
Well-Known Member
There are PLENTY of jobs paying $15 an hour or more. Chick-fil-a, Home Depot, Lowes, Amazon, FedEx Hub all pay $15 or more starting out with full benefits. All of those I mentioned are begging for employees. You cant start out as a high paying employee, you start at the bottom and work your way up. I am sure most on here did it that way, others with limited skills and education can do it as well.
Fred's Myth
Nonhyphenated American
What is your solution for getting able-bodied welfare recipients off the government teat?
Besides higher taxes for those trying to wean themselves.
falcon back
Well-Known Member
Liberals believe we should keep giving them benefits while the rest of society gets up and goes to work each day.
They are contributing taxes. Saying working Americans have to support tens of millions of able bodied, younger non-workers because the work is beneath them is ridiculous.
Working4the1%
Well-Known Member
Bingo. Republicans have a hard time understanding Demographics
Well, maybe they don't want to be like you..... Start at the bottom...and stay there. Or perhaps they don't want to follow your career path...Start off slow....and then tail off.
If you really want to reduce the cost of public benefit programs, the place to begin is to raise wages to the level where they don't have to seek benefits in order to survive. A nationwide federal minimum wage of $15 an hour is generally the cutoff point where wage subsidies begin fading out. You not just eliminating public welfare you're eliminating corporate welfare.
Fred's Myth
Nonhyphenated American
Instead of a government mandate of a wage minimum, how about limiting the available labor pool (supply and demand) so that competition for that labor becomes an upward trajectory of wages (immigration control). Then require (government sponsored) job training/education, or military service of all able-bodied jobseekers. Leave the milk in the teat for emergencies, or those who actually qualify. Stop cultivating generational welfare beneficiaries.
Like the old saying goes, "A rising tide lifts all boats."
Why not give them something to work for? Like a living wage and a benefit plan? If it's good enough for the people on the top it's good enough for the people on the bottom. Besides what would all of the rich Texas oilmen down your way do if they didn't have their Mexican gardeners?
They used reconciliation to get the ACA passed, and they couldn't do that with the FAA bill. You should know that before whining. And you are still crying about deductibles that don't apply to most care???????? You CLEARLY do not understand how deductibles work under the ACA. And insurance was cheaper for SOME because it covered very little and you DID need to pay the full deductible before getting ANY care. I HAD cheaper insurance before the ACA and couldn't afford to see a doctor because I had to meet the full cost of an office visit and all standard blood tests out of pocket. An annual checkup cost close to $700 on top of premiums. Now, an annual visit is covered fully, no deductible, as are all recommended/required lab tests with no deductible.
You REALLY need to understand how copays, deductibles, co-insurance and annual and lifetime limits work before proving your ignorance on those subjects. Under the ACA, your deductible is your out of pocket max, and you will never go broke from co-insurance, or be told that you reached your annual limit because of a cheap plan. And the total deductible under a family plan is not the deductible each person needs to meet- each person will have a much lower individual deductible. A plan with a $13,000 deductible may mean that if one person gets very ill or needs expensive treatment, they only need to meet $4000 before insurance pays everything that does have a deductible. If you need a $750 ambulance transport, your plan deductible may say you have a $6000 deductible, but for an ambulance transport, your out of pocket deductible will only be $250. You DO NOT need to meet the full deductible. And again, most care HAS ZERO DEDUCTIBLE. You really need to try to understand this, because you are wasting your energy worrying about high deductibles. It is STUPID to even bring them up.
Your coverage offers a lot more protection now under the ACA. and IF you ever need even a few days of hospitalization, the slightly higher premium will be paid of for tens of years by the savings. If you are afraid to visit a doctor under the ACA because if high deductibles, you are just too stupid.
And if people take those jobs, which generally don't offer health insurance, their children won't have insurance, and without insurance- even Medicaid- they will literally be refused service except if needed for immediate survival. If they take a job that barely pays the bills, but leaves little for food, their children will suffer when the earnings are 'too high' to stay on SNAP. Unless one has children, public benefits are VERY limited, and you want to punish children for the sins of the parents- if you call being unable to find work, or even afford to be able to pay bus fare to travel to look for a job a 'sin.' And as long as employers are allowed to pay wages that don't allow life to succeed, we will need to provide for the children. The vast majority of people who get any aid ARE already working. Making employers pay them enough would save TAXPAYERS from needing to help keep these workers alive.
And for some reason, you believe that working at a low paying job long enough guarantees that you will move up the payscale. That is ignorant. Maybe 1 out of 10 people is a supervisor, and raises of 4 cents an hour every year is NOT moving up.And if someone starts working right out of high scholl because they got a poor education and didn't qualify for college, and they need to work 12 hours a day to feed themselves, how are they going to move up? We already have thousands and thousands of college grads working minimum wage jobs, and those with degrees are going to get 'promoted' to shift manager at Pizza Hut before the people without college degrees. THERE ARE NOT AS MANY GOOD PAYING JOBS AS THERE ARE LOW PAYING JOBS SO MATHEMETICALLY, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR EVERYONE TO MOVE UP INTO A BETTER PAYING JOB.
I know math is hard for some people, and some people don't know that men of working age, or women, who don't have children can't get much more than food assistance. And having child after child after child to always have a child under school age is not something most people want, just to live in low income housing. That is RARE and is only meant to distract and raise hate among the stupid who believe it is a serious problem, as seen here.
Able bodied people are already required to either work or be in training to get anything but food. Unless you are a parent of a young child you get nothing, and even then, childcare is made available once the child is old enough, and benefits end. You are seriously mistaken about able bodied people getting an easy living off public assistance.
No, that is what you THINK liberals believe. Able bodied people are NOT eligible for anything but food assistance, and even that is limited. Liberals believe that employers should be required to support their workers, not the tax payer. The employers is allowed to prosper while taxpayers need to help feed their workers. It is a shame that you think being forced to do work that will not provide enough to live on is such a great thing. EVERY employer should be required to pay enough for an employee who works full time to live on, including basic housing, clothing, food, transportation to work, and necessities. If your employer can or does pay enough, why shouldn't all employers????? Why should some employers get to burden society???????
Similar threads
