Ugh. Dude, I know, I'm living this crap right now. I live in Wisconsin.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
AMiB is correct, and this pretty much applies across the board to all political parties.
Best bet is to start ignoring what they say and start paying attention to what they do, which is next to nothing for the average citizen.
Well here's the thing, the republican party is essentially 2 completely separate groups. On the one hand you have the social conservatives who want god back in the schools and the courthouse, the mexicans back across the border, the gays back in the closet, the baby back in the womb, and the government out of their paycheck.
You then have the billionaire corporations who want crony capitalism, tax breaks, and a tax supported military to ensure their assets overseas. They are NEVER going to get the government out of the first groups pockets , because that would mean they'd have to either pay more money or ramp down the military. However they have no problem giving conservatives the rest of it to get their votes. They can crash the education system because their kids are going to private schools. They can ban abortion because their precious children's indiscretions can be written off by a private doctor.
If you give them enough power they WILL do exactly what they're saying, because thats how they get what they want: By standing for mom, apple pie, and convincing their constituents that corporate subsides are the American way(tm) and subsidies for people is socialism.
AMiB is correct, and this pretty much applies across the board to all political parties.
Best bet is to start ignoring what they say and start paying attention to what they do, which is next to nothing for the average citizen.
Well here's the thing, the republican party is essentially 2 completely separate groups. On the one hand you have the social conservatives who want god back in the schools and the courthouse, the mexicans back across the border, the gays back in the closet, the baby back in the womb, and the government out of their paycheck.
You then have the billionaire corporations who want crony capitalism, tax breaks, and a tax supported military to ensure their assets overseas. They are NEVER going to get the government out of the first groups pockets , because that would mean they'd have to either pay more money or ramp down the military. However they have no problem giving conservatives the rest of it to get their votes. They can crash the education system because their kids are going to private schools. They can ban abortion because their precious children's indiscretions can be written off by a private doctor.
If you give them enough power they WILL do exactly what they're saying, because thats how they get what they want: By standing for mom, apple pie, and convincing their constituents that corporate subsides are the American way(tm) and subsidies for people is socialism.
Yes, yes, I know your stance. Republicans are evil moustache-twirlers, all conservatives are sheeple who want to force their religion upon you, and voting for the Democrats who promise to stand for different things and yet when elected do nothing to back up their promises is justifiable because the current system is like a Mexican standoff in which people should not vote for someone who might actually be different and try to change things. It is better that they simply vote against the one major party that they hate the most, otherwise the bad guys may win.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, yes, I know your stance. Republicans are evil moustache-twirlers, all conservatives are sheeple who want to force their religion upon you, and voting for the Democrats who promise to stand for different things and yet when elected do nothing to back up their promises is justifiable...
Dunno about BNW, but that's more or less my stance -- until you get to the part about it being justifiable to vote for Democrats. I no longer believe that to be true.
Yes, yes, I know your stance. Republicans are evil moustache-twirlers, all conservatives are sheeple who want to force their religion upon you, and voting for the Democrats who promise to stand for different things and yet when elected do nothing to back up their promises is justifiable because the current system is like a Mexican standoff in which people should not vote for someone who might actually be different and try to change things.Hm. Should I vote for the party whose stated goal is to make my life worse and does so when elected, or the party whose stated goal is to make my life better and fails to live up to expectations when elected.
You're right, they're exactly the same!
Hence my earlier post about paying attention to what they do when they are in power. If you ignore their spouted rhetoric and focus only on what agendas they actually push, they are not very different at all.
Yes, yes, I know your stance. Republicans are evil moustache-twirlers, all conservatives are sheeple who want to force their religion upon you
Not all, just most.
and voting for the Democrats who promise to stand for different things and yet when elected do nothing to back up their promises is justifiable because the current system is like a Mexican standoff in which people should not vote for someone who might actually be different and try to change things.
Its either that or stay home. Stay home or vote for 3rd party has the same effect.
I'm hearing a lot of dismissal but not a heck of a lot of denial.
Yes, yes, I know your stance. Republicans are evil moustache-twirlers, all conservatives are sheeple who want to force their religion upon youNot all, just most.
and voting for the Democrats who promise to stand for different things and yet when elected do nothing to back up their promises is justifiable because the current system is like a Mexican standoff in which people should not vote for someone who might actually be different and try to change things.Its either that or stay home. Stay home or vote for 3rd party has the same effect.
I'm hearing a lot of dismissal but not a heck of a lot of denial.
That's because this stance is as easily dismissed as that of your counterpart who thinks that all Democrats are evil, cackling communists who are out to steal their paychecks, and liberals are lazy slackers hoping to ride coattails to a free lunch. One position is every bit as ludicrous and unhelpful as the other. Voting third party would not be anywhere near as useless as abstaining from voting at all if enough people would do it, but too many have bought in to the fear of the other side winning too deeply.
That's because this stance is as easily dismissed
Show. Don't tell. Don't tell me how much smarter you are then I am, SHOW ME. Don't tell me how ludicrous my position is, SHOW it. Otherwise you're just another schmuck on the internet making an appeal to the awesome that is you thinking that should be enough to convince anyone else.
as that of your counterpart who thinks that all Democrats are evil, cackling communists who are out to steal their paychecks, and liberals are lazy slackers hoping to ride coattails to a free lunch.
This is assuming that the two sides are the same. Its entirely POSSIBLE that one side is right and the other side is wrong. Just because two sides are bickering doesn't mean they're both equally at fault.
One position is every bit as ludicrous and unhelpful as the other.
Only because you put "all" in there, which i did not. Its disingenuous of you to judge my position based on a deliberate falsification.
There is genuine objection to many of the democrats plans: i know, I've given some of it. Democrats say they're going to use taxes to try to help people, and they do. Republicans say they want low taxes and no government programs... but still want a large military and won't lower taxes that matter to most people. Obama VS Ron Paul would be an actual Choice: they're both legitimate, honest disagreements about what the best course for the country is, and where we strike the balance between an individuals right to act freely (which does include having the money to act) vs the need for people to act together in concert ( i cannot stop a russian invasion with my hunting rifle)
The republicans however are not Ron Paul. They ARE for big government: big government that benefits large corporations. They are not for lower taxes: they are only for lower capital gains and federal income taxes.
Voting third party would not be anywhere near as useless as abstaining from voting at all if enough people would do it, but too many have bought in to the fear of the other side winning too deeply.
And its well founded. Its like trying to rush a gunman when the crowd is stampeding away from him. Stampeding towards him would work great... but you can't make that choice individually, you have to make it as a group or not at all.
Voting is for ninnies!!
--and--
International proletarian socialist revolution is the only answer.
--finally--
Vive le Galt!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Democrats say they're going to use taxes to try to help people, and they do.
This is where we differ. I don't feel that continuing to prosecute oversees wars, expanding surveillance on Americans to levels that would have given Nixon wet dreams, calling drone strikes against U.S. citizens, continuing to bail out failed big businesses with said tax dollars, massively expanding faith-based programs, and building more prisons is necessarily "helping people."
Democrats say they're going to use taxes to try to help people, and they do.This is where we differ. I don't feel that continuing to prosecute oversees wars, expanding surveillance on Americans to levels that would have given Nixon wet dreams, calling drone strikes against U.S. citizens, continuing to bail out failed big businesses with said tax dollars, massively expanding faith-based programs, and building more prisons is necessarily "helping people."
No, but at least with a republican in a donkey suit if there's any money left over after doing that they will toss you a few crumbs.
Like the ancient Romans!
Democrats say they're going to use taxes to try to help people, and they do.This is where we differ. I don't feel that continuing to prosecute oversees wars, expanding surveillance on Americans to levels that would have given Nixon wet dreams, calling drone strikes against U.S. citizens, continuing to bail out failed big businesses with said tax dollars, massively expanding faith-based programs, and building more prisons is necessarily "helping people."
Tell me more of these drone strikes against U.S. citizens. This seems like something I would have heard about, but I haven't heard a peep on the topic.
Anyway, drone strikes and corporate bailouts aside, thejeff is right. The dems might be a mixed bag, but the one in office right now has made at least a couple giant steps in the right direction. And I find it very defeatist to look at a bag of coal and a mixed bag, and say "Oh what's the point in choosing?" It almost makes me suspect that I'm being manipulated into voluntarily giving up my voting rights so that the bag of coal wins.
|
Tell me more of these drone strikes against U.S. citizens. This seems like something I would have heard about, but I haven't heard a peep on the topic.
You haven't? I know I couldn't avoid it, but that may be due to my active duty status.
Tell me more of these drone strikes against U.S. citizens. This seems like something I would have heard about, but I haven't heard a peep on the topic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tell me more of these drone strikes against U.S. citizens. This seems like something I would have heard about, but I haven't heard a peep on the topic.
Ah, what nostalgic fun!
EDIT: I love how a link to "the discussion" is...a link to another Paizo thread! Paizo.com; why go anywhere else?
As to the vicious and venal twin parties of American imperialism: As near as I can tell, a vote for the Republicans is a vote for plutocracy, war, and the police state in a glorious apocalyptic auto-da-fe. A vote for the Democrats is a vote for plutocracy, war and the police state with food stamps.
I suppose that is a difference, and I probably shouldn't belittle it, but, I don't vote for Stooges of the Plutocracy(TM).
Claims of Obamacare proponents is that the only people that will be taxed/fined are people that "can afford" healthcare, but don't have it. What does "can afford" mean, and who decides who "can afford" it? I know based on some things like parents' income and students applying for financial aid, the government's determination of how much income people have is sometimes warped. So when someone claim that a program is "helping people", are we sure that the implementation is actually going to function how people think it will.
So when someone claim that a program is "helping people", are we sure that the implementation is actually going to function how people think it will.
My guess is "no."
Claims of Obamacare proponents is that the only people that will be taxed/fined are people that "can afford" healthcare, but don't have it. What does "can afford" mean, and who decides who "can afford" it? I know based on some things like parents' income and students applying for financial aid, the government's determination of how much income people have is sometimes warped. So when someone claim that a program is "helping people", are we sure that the implementation is actually going to function how people think it will.
I dunno how we veered into that topic, but I can't make an answer any more comprehensive than the calculator.
A single person that makes $15,300 gets it all paid by medicaid, but if that person makes $15,400 they have to pay $470 (government picks up the rest). So making $100 more means you actually lose $370. This is what I mean by "helping" people. If you are discouraging someone from being more successful, than the policy is seriously flawed.
Seriously? This is your big complaint.
It is A complaint.
To agree a bit with pres man,
I think our system would be a lot better at helping people if it was a graduated system instead of a binary system when it comes to all forms of 'welfare' and public supported safety nets. The number of people I've seen have to turn down raises because it would actually cost them more in benefits than it is worth is disheartening. It would be nice if it was more of a 'weening off' approach instead of an immediate cut off because you made a dollar more than the limit.
|
What's the big deal with raw milk? My fiance practically lives off the stuff.
If you had to boil all of your water to make it drinkable, would you blame 'raw water' or would you blame the people producing the water for producing an unsafe product?
I mean, obviously the French are dropping like flies from their consumption of raw water...
Hmmm. Dumb-stacking. That's a new term.
I'm pretty sure the auto bailouts started under Bush as well.
I'm also pretty sure that the auto bailouts were preconditioned on the shutting down of plants, the loss of jobs, reneging on pensions and health care insurance, and the slashing of starting pay.
I believe GM was reported as making record profits not too long after that. Surprise, surprise.
Claims of Obamacare proponents is that the only people that will be taxed/fined are people that "can afford" healthcare, but don't have it. What does "can afford" mean, and who decides who "can afford" it? I know based on some things like parents' income and students applying for financial aid, the government's determination of how much income people have is sometimes warped. So when someone claim that a program is "helping people", are we sure that the implementation is actually going to function how people think it will.I dunno how we veered into that topic, but I can't make an answer any more comprehensive than the calculator.
The problem arises when someone works for a company that offers coverage but the person doesn't make enough to pay for it.
From the calculator results when choosing the option that coverage is available from the employer:
***
Note: In general, full-time employees with employer coverage available that meets specified requirements are not eligible for premium subsidies, unless the employee would have to pay more than 9.5% of income for the employer-provided coverage.
***
So, if someone makes 15,000 which is basically what one makes at a minimum wage job if working full-time they will receive no help from the government.
Yes, there are plenty of people working such jobs.
$15,000*0.095=$1425.
For someone paid every two weeks, that is over $50 per paycheck.
If your (in general) insurance costs you $45 every two week check (not unreasonably low by any means) it costs $1170 per year and you (in general) will get NO government aid to purchase it or the government plan.
But, you can buy medicaid for what it costs. Of course, the calculator doesn't give that answer...
So, I'm trying to figure out how this (the plan) doesn't put a hurting on people who already hold a job that offers insurance but they just don't have enough money left over to buy it.
Honest question, perhaps I am missing something somewhere.
About this:
"Actually, that person is making 134% of the poverty line. At most, he will be spending $650 a year. The 9.5% that you used ONLY comes into play if he's making more than 300% of the poverty line (which is $11,170). IOW, he would have to make a little more than $35k."
Where did that at most pay $650 per year and the 300% of poverty line come from come from?
Is that specifically in reference to people who have a job that offers insurance?
The "calculator" explicitly gave this result when the insurance available option is chosen:
***
In general, full-time employees with employer coverage available that meets specified requirements are not eligible for premium subsidies, unless the employee would have to pay more than 9.5% of income for the employer-provided coverage.
***
Found the FAQ
****
How do premium subsidies work? People purchasing coverage on their own would be eligible for government subsidies (through a tax credit) towards their health insurance premiums based on income. Subsidies would be provided to people with family income between 133% and 400% of the federal poverty level. The most that families buying coverage in an insurance Exchange would pay towards a health insurance premium would range from 3.0% of income at 133% of poverty to 9.5% of income at 400% of poverty, with amounts at specific income levels specified in a table in the law. Subsidies are tied to a benchmark level of coverage based on actuarial value. And, subsidies would only be available through organized purchasing pools called Exchanges
****
Still, that is money that these people will have to pay out of pocket. Close to $20 per two week check for 3% of $15000 although it might be a over3%.
Tell me more of these drone strikes against U.S. citizens. This seems like something I would have heard about, but I haven't heard a peep on the topic.You haven't? I know I couldn't avoid it, but that may be due to my active duty status.
Tell me more of these drone strikes against U.S. citizens. This seems like something I would have heard about, but I haven't heard a peep on the topic.
Thanks! I've been hearing about these drone strikes and the modern way that U.S. presidents wage war without officially declaring war, but Kirth made it sound like Obama might be on Google Earth right now scoping out my house. Yeah, killing U.S. citizens is a dangerous precedent, but context matters.
About this:
"Actually, that person is making 134% of the poverty line. At most, he will be spending $650 a year. The 9.5% that you used ONLY comes into play if he's making more than 300% of the poverty line (which is $11,170). IOW, he would have to make a little more than $35k."
Where did that at most pay $650 per year and the 300% of poverty line come from come from?
Is that specifically in reference to people who have a job that offers insurance?
The "calculator" explicitly gave this result when the insurance available option is chosen:
***
In general, full-time employees with employer coverage available that meets specified requirements are not eligible for premium subsidies, unless the employee would have to pay more than 9.5% of income for the employer-provided coverage.
***
The Poverty Line is figured by the Dept. HHS and for 2012, it is $11,170. The 300% of the poverty Line comes from the section of the ACA discussing the different income levels and % of out of pocket health insurance. Here's the chart that the Congressional Research Service released last year:
Federal Maximum Maximum Annual Premium, by Family Size
Poverty Premium as a
line % of Income
(2014) 1 2 3 4
100% 2.0% $217 $291 $366 $441
133.00% 2.0% $288 $388 $487 $587
133.01% 3.0% $487 $656 $824 $992
150% 4.0% $650 $874 $1,099 $1,323
200% 6.3% $1,365 $1,836 $2,307 $2,778
250% 8.05% $2,180 $2,932 $3,685 $4,438
300% 9.5% $3,087 $4,152 $5,218 $6,284
350% 9.5% $3,601 $4,845 $6,088 $7,332
400% 9.5% $4,115 $5,537 $6,958 $8,379So using your example: Steve makes $15,000 a year. Single. The Poverty Line is $11170. Which means he makes 134% of the FPL. So he will pay between $487 and $650 a year for insurance. Which turns out to be at most $25 a paycheck.
I was not asking how the number was calculated to be 133% of the poverty line.
I was asking where it is stated (link?) that for those who have access to employer provided insurance can gain acces to these subsidies as it is explicitly stated that those who have access to employer provided insurance do not gain access to subsidies to pay for the required insurance unless they are being charged over 9.5%
The link I provided stated it is for people gaining subsidies to purchase from the exchange pool.
That exchange pool is for people who don't have access to employee health insurance which is why the %s given are different than the 9.5% of income. That 9.5% was explicitly stated in the calculator results.
I'm still looking for a statement as to what subsidies are available to those who have access to company healthcare.
Congressional Research Service-Private Health Insurance Provisions of HR 3962
The table of contents states that "Individual Eligibility for Premium Credits and Cost-sharing Credits" can be found on page 19.
Going to page 19 has the following bullets...
Exchange Credit individuals could receive a credit in the Exchange if they
* are lawfully present in a state in the United States, with some exclusions;
* are not enrolled under an Exchange plan as an employee or their dependent
(through an employer who purchases coverage for its employees through the
Exchange and satisfies the minimum employer contribution amounts);
* have modified adjusted gross income MAGI) of less than 400% of the
federal poverty level (FPL);
* are not eligible for Medicaid;
* are not enrolled in an employer’s QHBP, a grandfathered plan (group or
nongroup), Medicare, Medicaid, military or veterans’ coverage, or other
coverage recognized by the Commissioner; and
* are not a full-time employee in a firm where the employer offers health insurance and makes the required contribution toward that coverage.
These people do not get subsidies. It is right there in black and white. The qualification bullets start on page 19 and finish on page 20.
Is this the report being referenced?
Edit Note: The %s are different and the date is 2010 rather than last year but I would rather see the report referenced than arbitrary numbers and try to guess which report it is in and then try to find it. The report has a chart similar to the one referenced (but with some differing numbers) but it is for those who qualify under the bullets listed above.