Just because it's in my interest to vote for largess for myself, paid for by someone else, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Maybe a large number of Americans are reflexively fair, and still see a check that shows up in the mail--unearned--is ill-gotten.

Wedge politics.

Red America is poor rural America. They have been conditioned to root against Dems as a way to root against people of color.

They have been taught to hate libs cause libs are nigger lovers, tree huggers, baby killers and overeducated elites.

They have been conditioned to accept what they are told in over simplified talking points which appeal to their basest, most unchristian self agrandized right wing Lib hating poor selves.

They think in bumper sticker talking points which usually translates into "My hometown is the greatest. Cities bigger than my hometown suck. My church is the 1 true church, The Dallas Cowboys are the greatest, my highschool is way better than the one 10 blocks away, Lets bomb those ragheads back into the stone age, and then laugh at folks we never met and dont understand.

They are like Chickens who vote for Col. Sanders, cause chickens rawk!

"Maybe a large number of Americans are reflexively fair, and still see a check that shows up in the mail--unearned--is ill-gotten."

Riiight. Once every social program is created, over the objections of these same people, they are right there in line to get their portion just like everyone else. This is reminiscent of the Republicans President Obama mentioned at their retreat who attend ribbon cutting ceremonies for projects funded by the stimulus bill they opposed.
You know good and well many of the no votes in Congress were made with the happy knowledge that the bill would still pass.

#1 | POSTED BY RIGHTISRIGHT
#2 | POSTED BY OLDWHISKEYSOUR

I think there are elements of truth in both of these posts.

I think OWS's is too extreme. Granted, his description is accurate in some cases, perhaps more than we'd like to think, but overall it's over-the-top. And I suppose that may have been your point.

RiR, I see what you're saying, but I don't think that's WHY people vote the way they do. Again, it's accurate in some cases, but we'll hear "don't take my money and give it someone else" at least as often, if not far more often, than "I don't deserve this".

"Just because it's in my interest to vote for largess for myself, paid for by someone else, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Maybe a large number of Americans are reflexively fair, and still see a check that shows up in the mail--unearned--is ill-gotten."

But it also makes no sense personally or morally to vote for people who enact policies that result in an unfair largesse for someone else. If you made under $250,000 a year and voted for Bush, you were neither acting in your own interest or voting for someone who was fair or had high morals. It was doubly stupid.

"If you made under $250,000 a year and voted for Bush,...It was doubly stupid."
#5 | Posted by Sully

Excuse me, but voting for John Kerry or Al Gore would have been totally stupid. As usual the people are asked to vote for the lesser of two evils.

If you made under $250,000 a year and voted for Bush,...It was doubly stupid."
#5 | Posted by Sully

Excuse me, but voting for John Kerry or Al Gore would have been totally stupid. As usual the people are asked to vote for the lesser of two evils.

#6 | Posted by KBM

Agree, the choices were horrible---although if Gore had won we wouldn't have had to put up with his GW scam.

Agree, the choices were horrible---although if Gore had won we wouldn't have had to put up with his GW scam.

#7 | Posted by matsop

But then again, we would have had to.

Michael Moore votes against his own interests too:

"Michael Moore Gets Michigan Taxpayer Film Subsidy For Latest Movie As He Sits On Board That Recommends The Tax Credit!"

"Michael Moore - an ardent union supporter - flak for, of all things, using non-union workers on his last film"

"Now, he gets caught sucking off the Michigan taxpayers to produce more propaganda for his liberal positions. The real kicker is that Moore is a member of the Michigan Film Office Advisory Council that recommends the doling out the subsidies to film makers."

"Michael Moore went to Wall Street with a request to corporate officials whose companies received bailout money from the federal government."

"We're here to get the money back for the American people," Moore said in the film. "I've got more bags $10 billion probably won't fit in here."

"Moore was criticizing an economic system he calls "legalized greed," but the Mackinac Center has discovered that Moore's movie qualified for a windfall at the expense of Michigan taxpayers."

If you make less than 250K and vote Republican you are retarded. Even if I made 250K I wouldn't vote republican because I don't like ripping off poor folks.

So far, every respondent on this thread has said exactly what I would have expected.

It's kind of like deciding not to rape the living shit out of someone even though you won't get laid

I'll be happy to explain the metaphor to those on the left if they need me to

Sure, BPH, go ahead and walk us through that.

Fortunately, the Jackasses of the world comprise the Democratic Party. If you're a business owner only pulling down $80,000 a year, they think you're out of your mind for not putting on the pompoms for ReidPelosiObama. Never mind that the same guy would also be voting for regulations that would strangle his little business.

These liberals are willfully ignorant and delusional. No cure, unfortunately.

Just because it's in my interest to vote for largess for myself, paid for by someone else, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Maybe a large number of Americans are reflexively fair, and still see a check that shows up in the mail--unearned--is ill-gotten

#1 | Posted by rightisright

As you often describe yourself on this very forum, you don't vote against your own interests. You vote specifically for whatever benefits YOU in general, and not others.

Your answer is pure supposition of why others vote as they do. You're guessing.

Never mind that the same guy would also be voting for regulations that would strangle his little business.

These liberals are willfully ignorant and delusional. No cure, unfortunately.

#15 | Posted by rightisright at 2010-01-30 01:24 PM

If repubs ran everything workers in his little business would have no protections. Things like unemployment insurance and Workmens comp wouldn't have been created. Face it rightcreep you are in favor of workers receiving no protections in the name of profit.

Because no one reads anymore. Since they don't read, all they have is radio & TV soundbites to base the "decision" on.

I was born in 1960 and could read before first grade, why? because both of my parents read, newspapers, magazines, novels, both fiction and non.
I saw that and I wanted to read too.

It became a life long habit. I read everyday. Alot. sometimes I read 2 or 3 books concurrently.

However, I know grown adults who just don't read. At all. Not even the paper.
How can they make an informed decision based just on soundbites when they don't really know the issue, because they don't read and don't know the depth of the issues and the conequences thereof. They only know which commercials and soundbites resonate with them. Regardless of whether it's a fact or something someone pulled out of their ass.

Maybe they're putting the common good ahead of their own interests.

If healthcare passes we'll all wish everyone had voted against their own interests... you'll see.

"Excuse me, but voting for John Kerry or Al Gore would have been totally stupid. As usual the people are asked to vote for the lesser of two evils."

There are more than two choices. I used Bush as an example because he was president for eight years and results of his policies are historical record. The concentration of wealth increased. And the escalation of our economic downfall proves that it wasn't merited.

"If you're a business owner only pulling down $80,000 a year"

The Dems wouldn't help you but these people did horribly under the GOP too.

"So far, every respondent on this thread has said exactly what I would have expected."

Do you think anyone is surprised by what you've had to say?

Nope. Everyone is reverting to form.

Because (perceived) racism trumps all. Even their own survival.

Now ain't that a bitch!

Whiskeydick. Sober up and think about it. I'm sure the bulb will light up for you

O Ignorance
O Stupidity
O Misguided Idealism
O Brainwashing by Right Wing Media
X All Of The Above

"Give me more free stuff! Send the bill to that guy!"--Libbies

"Ummm, no. That doesn't seem fair."--Righties

Fortunately, the Jackasses of the world comprise the Democratic Party

Who ran Congress, the WH, and America into the tank?

Uh, I must have missed 2001-2007 and forgot who ran up the largest debt in history, deregulated everything but regular bowel movements, told us "UNLESS WE DO SOMETHING BY MONDAY THE FINANCIAL SECTOR WILL COLLAPSE!, got us into 2 poorly planned wars, pissed off the world, and left our grandchildren and their grandchildren a Raspberry.

The people who supposedly are working against their own interests, don't trust libs with good intentions. The tea party people recognize that these are the same libs who with their stupid social programs who destroyed the black family structure and the inner cities.

Give me more free stuff! Send the bill to that guy!

Sincerely

The Banks

Found this interesting

While Orszag's 2004 paper assumed that all the Bush era tax cuts would be permanent, the same logic for his conclusion applies to Obama's proposal to make permanent only the tax cuts for people earning under $250,000 for as OMB and the Concord Coalition conclude, that alone would add $3 trillion to the deficit over 10 years.

Keeping all of the Bush tax cuts without offsetting spending cuts would add $4.5 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years, said Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf .

Who ran Congress, the WH, and America into the tank?
* * * *

Big-spending, big-government types. And the trend continues.

Thanks for asking.

Free health insurance, but thanks to things in this bill like the Independent Payment Advisory Board, its a real possibility few doctors if any will take it.

So yeah, people are voting against getting health insurance, but maybe its because they'll still be up Shit's creek with it.

Uh, I must have missed 2001-2007 and forgot who ran up the largest debt in history, deregulated everything but regular bowel movements, told us "UNLESS WE DO SOMETHING BY MONDAY THE FINANCIAL SECTOR WILL COLLAPSE!, got us into 2 poorly planned wars, pissed off the world, and left our grandchildren and their grandchildren a Raspberry.

#26 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY
* * * *

It wasn't the unregulated part of the market that caused the problems; rather, the regulated ones. FNMA and FRE are regulated by Congress itself. The big Wall Street banks were regulated by Timmy Geithner and the Fed. And so on. When a hedge fund goes under, it bankrupts out. When a big bank does, it comes clamoring to the taxpayer for help. Good thing they had Schumer, Clinton, and Frank on the payroll, huh? Good think Geithner had a good fall-away jumper, otherwise Obama might not have considered him worthy of a Treasury pick.

But as usual, you blame Bush for all those things, rightly so, but give Obama a pass for doing the same.

Maybe when Obama and the Dems man up to their own complicity in all this, things will improve. Don't hold your breath though.

Why against own self interest? Because some people put the good of the country ahead of themselves - it's a conservative thing so many here would not understand the concept.

I tend to look at things through a wide angle lens.
I often consider the bigger picture when making my decisions.
Sometimes those decisions are not the most expedient choice for me personally...sometimes they are.
It really depends on how my decision effects the various things in my life that in turn effect me, then balance that with my core beliefs.
The bottom line for me is, it's not always about me. Being a father has taught me that.

"Because some people put the good of the country ahead of themselves - it's a conservative thing so many here would not understand the concept."

Who is voting for conservatives? There is nothing conservative about either major party.

The major parties use divisive non-issues like abortion (non-issue because the status quo will never change much) to distract people from issues that really affect them. That some people are willing to admit that they vote strictly based on a candidate's abortion stance - and that this stance must be a stupid absolutist stance - is ridiculous. But they don't even realize it.

Someone painted those who doesn't like the Dems or liberals as racist upthread. That's another way the parties dumb us down. Demonize the other side so people will vote for you to prove they don't fall into the negative stereotype you've created for your opponent.

The ways people are fooled is fairly obvious. Why these methods still work is the better question.

Good thing they had Schumer, Clinton, and Frank on the payroll, huh?

RIGHTISRIGHT

Is that why only Paulson and the WH knew the severity of the problem, had a one page several months old plan, and only told Congress and everyone else about the meltdown the WEEKEND before they said we needed TARP or the sky would fall?

The SEC oversees brokerage firms. During Bush's watch the SEC had a 'hands off' policy. Even when accusations were made against Bernie Madhoff no one investigated. Bitch about Bernake. You know, who was appointed by Bush in 2005. If you're unhappy with him blame the man who put him in the chair.

The latest right wing meme. Now it's Bernake. No one will place blame on Paulson or any other Bush Administration official at the SEC or anywhere else.

AIG was by far the biggest recipient of TARP - an insurance company/hedge idiots. Lehman Bros, Bear-Stearns, should I go on?

Many people who oppose the Neodemocratic health dare reform package do so not out of antagonism to the concept but to the massive convoluted monstrosity that the Neodemocrats are attempting to force down our throats. As well as the process that it sprang from. Obama promised an open discussion broadcast on C-Span. What is proposed evolved behind closed doors. We were promised an "Open and Honest Government" What has emerged is shady back room deals. The Imperial Hubris of of the Neodemocratic leadership is nauseating.

Sully suffers from selective memory. Who was it that proposed more regulation and oversight during the last two years of Bush's term? Who was it that held the reins in Congress? It is time for the Neodemocrats to find a new song and dance.

People want to inherently believe in others! We trust because there's a title involved. Until we're shown to be wrong convincingly, we are sheep!

Some of us learn over time and change our views, others never do, they're called Democrats - we're Enlightened!

The latest right wing meme. Now it's Bernake. No one will place blame on Paulson or any other Bush Administration official at the SEC or anywhere else.

AIG was by far the biggest recipient of TARP - an insurance company/hedge idiots. Lehman Bros, Bear-Stearns, should I go on?

#36 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY
* * * *

If you say so. I remember differently. I remember the Republicans saying no to the bailout, and the Dems ramming it through. It was just as wrong for Bush and Bernanke and Geithner to do it as it is for Obama and Bernanke and Geithner to do it.

Be a man for a change. Godalmighty. Is there any on the left who isn't a total pussy? Who won't trot out the Bush deflection every time Obama turns out to be exactly like him?

Here's what America knows: Bush's deficits were bad; Obama's are disgusting. Bush was a lousy president: Obama is shaping up to be worse. As bad as Bush was, a 5% unemployment rate is preferable to one that's over 10%, and while deficits at $500 billion are reckless and irresponsible, they're still better than Obama's $1.9 trillion.

But whatever. That's what elections are for.

"I remember differently. I remember the Republicans saying no to the bailout, and the Dems ramming it through."

Of course that's how you remember it. Never mind the fact almost half the Rs voted for it.

Almost half. And none of them deserve re-election. Not one.

Because the dialogue we have doesn't actually pertain to the issues.

For example a common term bandied about is "Free health care." Nowhere is health care free. The idea of free health care is nonsense.

Perhaps people hear the term "free health care," and armed with that bit of misinformation -- and nothing else -- they conclude the notion doesn't make any sense, so they're against it.

Most Americans have not traveled to another country or learned to speak another language. And there is the notion of American exceptionalism. So when we find out our health care system might be made more like France or England, people are opposed. Even though they have no idea what health care is like elsewhere. (Or more likely, whatever ideas they have are wrong.)

There's a country song, the lyrics are "I've got shoes beneath my feet, and that's good enough for me." This is essentially why many Americans don't want health care reform. If America truly is, as Michael Medved is fond of repeating, "the greatest nation on G-d's green earth," then there is precious little we can do to improve on that. Don't mess with success. Nevermind that our system is horribly inefficient, it's American, it must be good, practically by definition. Heck, American muscle cars are inefficient, but who wouldn't love to drive a Camaro SS?

Another part missing from the health care debate is the concept of rights. The rest of the modern world views access to health care as a basic human right. Canadians, for example, feel that any Canadian should be able to be treated when they are sick, even if they are poor. Americans could embrace this notion if someone would present it to them. However, the competing idea, in which we have to earn our right to health care, is compelling and inseparable from one of America's core mythological beliefs, the Puritan Work Ethic.

Somehow people haven't noticed the idea we have to "earn" rights is exactly the opposite of what a right is. Many have said there is no right to health care, and even that extending such a right is unconstitutional. But the right is there, because no ER in any state can turn away someone seeking care, period. And noone has suggested changing those laws. We have an inkling of what our rights are but haven't seen them fully realized yet.

One cannot ignore the role of wealth. Most wealthy people do not want for health care. They are either covered by an employer's plan, can afford to purchase their own insurance, or simply pay as needed. Those without health care or with insufficient care are typically those who face more severe socioeconomic conditions. And it's seen as their "just deserts" for being lazy. (This isn't even touching on groups like the AMA, who care much more about doctor's pay than delivering health care to all Americans. Or the insurers themselves, who seek profit over all.)

Too many Americans subscribe to the notion "That guy is too lazy to get a job. Why should I pay for his health care?" It's the Puritan work ethic speaking. Perhaps it made sense a few centuries ago in Massachusetts, but that was before the advent of modern medicine. But it is pointedly obvious to anyone who has looked at health care around the world that it costs substantially less when health insurance is part of the national agenda.

Americans are either too stupid, too lazy, or (my guess) too wrapped up in their antiquated mythology to accept new, better ways of doing things.

Modern medicine is, practically by definition, "socialized." This is an inescapable truth. Epidemiology, the study of health and disease in populations, forms the basis for today's medical interventions. It is a study and a science which takes as its largest denomination the nation as a whole, or sometimes the entire world. Decoupling our health care delivery mechanism from our nation hampers our ability to achieve optimal outcomes.

Just because it's in my interest to vote for largess for myself, paid for by someone else, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Maybe a large number of Americans are reflexively fair, and still see a check that shows up in the mail--unearned--is ill-gotten.

#1 | Posted by rightisright at 2010-01-30 11:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

What a sad, sad, commentary. What extremely poor logic. Did you earn the same amount of money as everyone else who put their taxes into the road system you use? Did you earn the same amount of money as everyone else who put their taxes into the school system your children use? Did you earn the same amount of money as everyone else who put their taxes for the protection of the military to protect your home? Police? Fire Department? Libraries? Are uyou saying that if your children get sick with a curable, but deadly disease, that it is only fair that they die because you couldn't afford their health care? How about yourself---is it only fair that you die if you get cancer because you can't afford the treatments that would save you?

Americans should be willing to help out each other in times of need. If you were my neighbor and needed help, I would certainly do my best, but if I were broke too, it would be nice to know that the taxes I paid helped you when necessary. With your way of thinking, even neighbors couldn't help out since you didn't earn it, and would consider their help unearned, and ill-gotten. The sad part is, is that you are voting for this outcome for other families also. Americans help each other achieve greatness with military protection, the road system, education, fire departments, police departments, water and sewer projects, and more. Health care should be near the top of the list. Especially for someone who is pro-life. Are you pro-life only for those who can afford to pay? It seems so.

"Agree, the choices were horrible---although if Gore had won we wouldn't have had to put up with his GW scam.
#7 | Posted by matsop"

"But then again, we would have had to.
#8 | Posted by matsop"

Schizo.

Why do blacks continue to vote for their (democrat) owners?

Great question!

"Sully suffers from selective memory. Who was it that proposed more regulation and oversight during the last two years of Bush's term? Who was it that held the reins in Congress? It is time for the Neodemocrats to find a new song and dance."

LOL. I was talking about Bush's term as a whole in a few sentences. If you've read what I wrote, I clearly don't support the Dems either. You're a cheerleading fool.

#18 | POSTED BY BRIWO

Across the board, across the political spectrum, across the nation, you have hit it on the head.

Good post.

I believe people sometimes keep voting for the same politicians over and over again, even though the politician may not always be in that voter's best interests, simply because they fear change.

Often a voter feels it's "better the devil you know than the devil you don't."

Just because it's in my interest to vote for largess for myself, paid for by someone else, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

Absent from this train of thought is any notion of doing what's best for everyone. Or even that American, as a nation, could better itself.

I strongly suspect Americans do not want their neighbors to prosper. They want a nicer lawn, a newer car, and for the neighbor's kid to be the one with polio.

Essentially I don't think we're a unified enough nation to have a concept of what it means to be an American. Ask an American "What are you?" and they won't say "An American." Instead they'll tell you where their parents emigrated from.

Fair enough Bob. Send me a thousand dollars. That's certainly in my interest.

#18 | POSTED BY BRIWO

Across the board, across the political spectrum, across the nation, you have hit it on the head.

Good post.

#48 | Posted by TheTom at 2010-01-30 03:53 PM

Thanks, TheTom, for calling attention to Briwo's excellent post. I might have missed reading it otherwise.

I gave Briwo's #18 a well-deserved "Newsworthy" flag.

Some of us learn over time and change our views, others never do, they're called Democrats - we're Enlightened!

Spoken like a true liberal asshole. You think you are above everyone else

#18 - BRI
I'll agree that many are woefully ignorant. I assume you're saying that such ignorance crosses into both sides of the political aisle?

If not, why?

Fair enough Bob. Send me a thousand dollars. That's certainly in my interest.

#51 | Posted by rightisright at 2010-01-30 04:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

Who said anything about sending you money. The point was health care. Do you think if you got sick, that it would cost everyone in the country a thousand dollars?

How about you tell your children they deserve to die because you think it is fair, and wouldn't want them to live with unearned and ill-gotten money.

Okay. Send me a thousand dollars to pay my health insurance premiums.

"Deserve to die because you think it is fair." What a joke you are.

Okay. Send me a thousand dollars to pay my health insurance premiums.

"Deserve to die because you think it is fair." What a joke you are.

#56 | Posted by rightisright at 2010-01-30 04:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sorry--according to your philosophy, such money is ill-gotten and unearned. Now the government would pay if you can't under the new program proposal.

You fail to face reality, and answewr simple questions.

1. Did you earn the same amount of money as everyone else who put their taxes into the road system you use?

2. Did you earn the same amount of money as everyone else who put their taxes into the school system your children use?

3. Did you earn the same amount of money as everyone else who put their taxes for the protection of the military to protect your home? Police? Fire Department? Libraries?

4. Are uyou saying that if your children get sick with a curable, but deadly disease, that it is only fair that they die because you couldn't afford their health care?

5. How about yourself---is it only fair that you die if you get cancer because you can't afford the treatments that would save you?

Can you answer these simple questions, or will you just continue to dodge reality. My bet is you dodge reality and go to a personal attack on me to avoid facing the poor logic of your position.

I guess I'll just continue to dodge reality. In my fantasy world, a government that is spending one trillion nine hundred billion dollars more than it will take in this year doesn't need to figure out ways to spend still more. Silly me, huh? Is that "against my interest"? Or is it a realization that I'll have to pay it back myself, eventually, through higher taxes or lower standard of living?

Ironically, the people voting against their interest vis a vis healthcare aren't, really.

I think one of the things Bob is trying to find out is if certain people understand the marginal utility of money but it is hard to tell because even when he has a point to make, he just bombards one with questions instead of making it.

Just say it, Bob. People shouldn't have to answer a questionaire before you will tell them what is on your mind.

In my fantasy world, a government that is spending one trillion nine hundred billion dollars more than it will take in this year doesn't need to figure out ways to spend still more.

Did you just think of this now? Or did you feel the same when Reagan and W. did the same thing?

"Sully suffers from selective memory. Who was it that proposed more regulation and oversight during the last two years of Bush's term? Who was it that held the reins in Congress? It is time for the Neodemocrats to find a new song and dance."
LOL. I was talking about Bush's term as a whole in a few sentences. If you've read what I wrote, I clearly don't support the Dems either. You're a cheerleading fool.
#47 | POSTED BY SULLY

Ah yes a brilliant reply, no discussion, no facts, simply insults. Spoken like a true Neodemocrat regardless of your disclaimer.

Or is it a realization that I'll have to pay it back myself, eventually, through higher taxes or lower standard of living?

Ironically, the people voting against their interest vis a vis healthcare aren't, really.

#58 | Posted by rightisright at 2010-01-30 04:41 PM | Reply | Flag

You won't have to pay back anything. You don't even make enough money to take care of your family, let alone pay off the national debt. You should take care of your family before you worry about the national debt.

I think one of the things Bob is trying to find out is if certain people understand the marginal utility of money but it is hard to tell because even when he has a point to make, he just bombards one with questions instead of making it.

Just say it, Bob. People shouldn't have to answer a questionaire before you will tell them what is on your mind.

#59 | Posted by Sully at 2010-01-30 04:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

I said exactly what was on my mind. I was trying to see if he realised the logic he was using was poor at best. He takes advantage of other things that other people pay for in taxes, but would deny his own family's welfare under the same circumstances.

"Ah yes a brilliant reply, no discussion, no facts, simply insults. Spoken like a true Neodemocrat regardless of your disclaimer."

You claimed I was being one-sided. That was the issue YOU raised. I pointed out the fact that I did criticize both parties in my posts on this thread, which is the only fact that is relevant to the incorrect point you were making. Then you denied that I posted any facts because you must not know what a fact is.

I insulted you because you are clearly an idiot who is out of his league.

Everybody's going to be paying back the national debt. Either through inflation, increased borrowing costs, or a lower standard of living.

Oh, I'm sorry. That's my fantasy world again--I keep forgetting that you can borrow money ad infinitum, and never have to pay it back.

"I said exactly what was on my mind. I was trying to see if he realised the logic he was using was poor at best. He takes advantage of other things that other people pay for in taxes, but would deny his own family's welfare under the same circumstances."

Fair enough. It just seemed like alot of answers to demand of someone.

Gotta go. G'night all.

I understand the dems think that their plan is in the majority's best interest because the majority (the greater than 50% that pay no income tax) are going to get handouts paid for at the point of a gun by the minority. However, these people may be smart enough to think that tanking the economy further, fucking up the health care system, giving employers another incentive to either export jobs or simply not hire, putting the wealthy in a position where they move their dollars out of circulation, and raising everyone's costs (because corporations are not in business to take a loss) is not in the best interest of the country as a whole - and therefore not in their best interests after all.

Now I suppose there are those that have sponged off the system all of their lives. They have never had a job and therefore have no idea how such dumbassed decisions may affect the country...they only think about "me, me, me". While most of them never made it out of the hood, ONE has....he lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Oh, I'm sorry. That's my fantasy world again--I keep forgetting that you can borrow money ad infinitum, and never have to pay it back.

Here we are again.

Reagan proved "deficits don't matter." True or false?

I said exactly what was on my mind. I was trying to see if he realised the logic he was using was poor at best. He takes advantage of other things that other people pay for in taxes, but would deny his own family's welfare under the same circumstances.

#63 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob
* * * *

I know what I pay for schools. I know my sales taxes go to buy libraries and police and fire protection. I know that when I buy gasoline, some of that money gets plowed into new roads and bridges.

And I also know that if someone in Washington tells me that I'll be getting something, it's I who will be paying for it. It'll get shuffled around this agency and that one, and you'll have all kinds of slippage giving people jobs in the massive bureaucracy it would require, but I've no delusions about who is paying. I paid for the roads, commensurate with how much I drive. I pay for the schools, commensurate with how expensive my property is. And I'll be paying for healthcare too. So is it in my interest to do it my way, with high deductibles and low monthly payments? Or should I let Obama and Pelosi and Reid decide those things for me?

Here we are again.

Reagan proved "deficits don't matter." True or false?

#68 | Posted by snoofy

* * * *

Given the mind-bending size of Obama's deficits, you had better hope so.

the bill does nothing for those people. just pays off the insurance mafia. and many people know it.

the real issue is trust. the people know full fucking well that the assholes in washington don't give a fuck about them.

pigs at the trough.

Gotta go. G'night all.

#66 | Posted by Sully at 2010-01-30 04:56 PM

Sweet dreams, Sully.

Or should I let Obama and Pelosi and Reid decide those things for me?

#69 | Posted by rightisright at 2010-01-30 04:59 PM I hope you get sick and your insurance denies your claim leaving you penniless and homeless after all your assets get seized.

I know you do.

They have never had a job and therefore have no idea how such dumbassed decisions may affect the country...they only think about "me, me, me". While most of them never made it out of the hood, ONE has....he lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

You mean this guy?

"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes." -- George W. Bush

Yep, even during the height of the Vietnam war, he couldn't be bothered to serve his country. And being too cowardly to render himself unfit for service, he found a way into the National Guard where he could "better himself." Look, I can fly airplanes! Me, me, me!

However, it should be noted he doesn't live at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue any more.

Another Bush deflection. What a novel idea!

I hope this doesn't catch on here on the DR. It would be almost unreadable with the "Yes, my guy sucks, but look what Bush did!"

All day long. All week long. Forever and ever.

Deflection? You brought it up. And your comment was simply more suited to our previous President. Well, except for that "made it out of the hood" part.

W. Bush, being born to immense wealth, certainly never had to work for anything. And he didn't see the need to make any tough sacrifices for his country. When given the choice of serving his nation or serving himself, he chose himself. As would many of us, I'm sure.

And I also know that if someone in Washington tells me that I'll be getting something, it's I who will be paying for it. It'll get shuffled around this agency and that one, and you'll have all kinds of slippage giving people jobs in the massive bureaucracy it would require, but I've no delusions about who is paying. I paid for the roads, commensurate with how much I drive. I pay for the schools, commensurate with how expensive my property is. And I'll be paying for healthcare too. So is it in my interest to do it my way, with high deductibles and low monthly payments? Or should I let Obama and Pelosi and Reid decide those things for me?

#69 | Posted by rightisright at 2010-01-30 04:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yes, you will be paying for your healthcare too. What's the problem with that? You have none now, and you will be paying your fair share. Again, if you don't make enough, the government would pay for it. Do you think more of the other things you pay for in taxes than you do your family? Would you take back the taxes you pay for the other things and not use them?

Should you let Obama or Pelosi decide those things for you? You seem incapable of taking care of your family---someone has to care about them. If it were up to you, you would have none of those things. What could be more important than your family---the national debt? Your money?

Wedge politics.
Red America is poor rural America. They have been conditioned to root against Dems as a way to root against people of color.
They have been taught to hate libs cause libs are nigger lovers, tree huggers, baby killers and overeducated elites.
They have been conditioned to accept what they are told in over simplified talking points which appeal to their basest, most unchristian self agrandized right wing Lib hating poor selves.
They think in bumper sticker talking points which usually translates into "My hometown is the greatest. Cities bigger than my hometown suck. My church is the 1 true church, The Dallas Cowboys are the greatest, my highschool is way better than the one 10 blocks away, Lets bomb those ragheads back into the stone age, and then laugh at folks we never met and dont understand.
They are like Chickens who vote for Col. Sanders, cause chickens rawk!
#2 | POSTED BY OLDWHISKEYSOUR

this summed it up perfectly.

LEG-
That's a gross oversimplification, in my view. The same could easily be said for the lesser-lights among your crowd.

If healthcare passes we'll all wish everyone had voted against their own interests... you'll see.

#19 | POSTED BY ROB_THE_A_HOLE

Sorry I don't believe you.

Americans are either too stupid, too lazy, or (my guess) too wrapped up in their antiquated mythology to accept new, better ways of doing things.
Modern medicine is, practically by definition, "socialized." This is an inescapable truth. Epidemiology, the study of health and disease in populations, forms the basis for today's medical interventions. It is a study and a science which takes as its largest denomination the nation as a whole, or sometimes the entire world. Decoupling our health care delivery mechanism from our nation hampers our ability to achieve optimal outcomes.

#43 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

no doubt..

Why Do People Vote Against Their Own Interests?

Who says they do? This piece must've been written by one of those "We're from the government and we're here to help. Quit thinking for yourselves." people.

Red America is poor rural America. They have been conditioned to root against Dems as a way to root against people of color.

I'll bet anyone here $10 that legio is too dense to see the irony in his own own words. Let me spell it out for you, legio, using your own words:

Legio's america is stupid America. They have been conditioned to root against Republicans as a way to root against rural people.

Legio, if you are going to rant against prejudices, that's great. But don't do it by putting yourself into the same prejudiced, stereotypical, narrow minded mold you put others in. LOL

"Who says they do? This piece must've been written by"

God forbid you should do the slightest bit of research before reminding us that you are just an ET on an oil rig.

Drew Westen

Professor of Psychology

489 Psychology Building
36 Eagle Row
Emory University
Atlanta, GA 30322

"Why against own self interest? Because some people put the good of the country ahead of themselves - it's a conservative thing so many here would not understand the concept.

#33 | Posted by MSgt"

Fucking Socialist

Agree or disagree about health care, he's gotta point.
We elected Obama didn't we?

#18 - BRI
I'll agree that many are woefully ignorant. I assume you're saying that such ignorance crosses into both sides of the political aisle?

If not, why?

#54 | Posted by OohRah at 2010-01-30 04:15 PM

Oh I agree completely. It's less of a Red-Blue thing and points more to our woefully inadequate education system.

Remember, even the most ignorant poster on The Retort is much more informed than the average soundbiter, simply because the ignorant poster reads, has a better grasp of the roots of the issue, and even if you or I think they have drawn the wrong conclusion, at least they read up on it. And they cared enough to come here and post/discuss it.

If you don't/can't read, you're an unqualified voter, no matter what the party.

Fucking Socialist

#86 | Posted by furio at 2010-01-30 06:51 PM

Since I know you live up to your beliefs, I applaud you for giving up your Medicare, Medicaid, SS retirement, SSI, SSD.
Not to mention all the money you spend on books since you also have forgone the Public Library.

Sir, I applaud you for standing by your convictions.

God forbid you should do the slightest bit of research before reminding us that you are just an ET on an oil rig

I have researched. I don't trust people who say they know what is best for someone else. People know what is best for themselves, not you or your government, zat.

PS, I love being "just" and ET on an oil rig. Don't worry about me. As I said, I know what is best for me, not you.

" Fucking Socialist

#86 | Posted by furio at 2010-01-30 06:51 PM

Since I know you live up to your beliefs, I applaud you for giving up your Medicare, Medicaid, SS retirement, SSI, SSD.
Not to mention all the money you spend on books since you also have forgone the Public Library.

Sir, I applaud you for standing by your convictions.

#89 | Posted by briwo"

Read, very, very, slowly, BRIWO.

MSgt Is Very Conservative, He Hates Socialism. I Was Pointing Out The Hypocrisy Of His Statment That Conservatives Sacrifice For The "Good Of The Country"

You Understand Now?

"PS, I love being "just" and ET on an oil rig. Don't worry about me. As I said, I know what is best for me, not you.

#90 | Posted by goatman"

GoatTroll, cut the poor guy some slack. He just didn't know you are the Retort's resident MacGyver. Hell, I even heard you could devise a dirty nuke with a car antenna, lightening bugs, two packs of Pop Rocks and a handful of Tosser's pubes.

" I love being "just" and ET on an oil rig. "

Beats being a baker.

'And done a hundred things you have not dreamed of'

And that was just my junior year in high school.

My father-in-law once maintained nuclear weapons at Sandia.
He can still describe in great detail the construction of the "Mark x" innards.

He used to maintain the B36.

He worked with my dad (They never met.) on the Berlin Airlift.

ZAT

PBS had a great documentary on the Berlin Airlift a few weeks ago. What an incredible accomplishment. The way the air corridors and logistics were set up and operated like clockwork 24/7 was something to behold.

Hat's off to your dad!

One of the pilots went down over East Germany. They interviewed the folks who rescued him and got him into friendly hands. Especially heartwarming was the then little they found who wrote one of the pilots to 'please drop me some chocolate'. He was interviewed as well. She got her chocolate with a letter from the pilot. Others profiled were interviewed with the Frauleins they married and brought to the U.S.

Since I know you live up to your beliefs, I applaud you for giving up your Medicare, Medicaid, SS retirement, SSI, SSD

I will give up Social Security and rights to Medicare when the federal gov't gives me back all the money they have taxed me for these programs since the age of 16. When people collect social security are just collecting what the gov't has taken from them over the course of their lives.

"Hat's off to your dad!"

He was Army-Air Force liason officer, reported to Tunner.

He loved the Airlift.
He didn't have to kill anyone.

I have to think about my five year old grandson. His world is on TV and I was shooting a rifle at five.

My dad was teaching me to be a sniper.

My father-in-law was in maintenance in Britain during the Airlift.

He's still here.

One of the greatest humanitarian efforts in world history. Watching that documentary reminded me of the sustained goodwill 'soft power' creates.

IGNORANCE.

The Conservative domination of economic theory, Think Tanks, Mass Media, computerized vote rigging and SCOTUS all work to maintain Rethuglican viability. They depend on ignorant rednecks and independents to stay in the race. Their regular loyal membership hovers around 20%. The reform party got that much support. So to remain viable they put out a daily talking points memo to important broadcasters from Rush & Beck to Hannity and O'Reilly, the entire Fox cast really, and this even includes many newspaper columnists. The charade overflows into Demowussie rhetoric and actions and is a vital part of moving money from your pocket to the bullshitter's pocket.

The Moonie owned Washington Times was created so right wing talking heads could point to one of their articles for 'credibility' - "the Washington Times reported today that ....."

When people collect social security are just collecting what the gov't has taken from them over the course of their lives.

No they aren't. They're collecting what the gov't currently takes from active members of the work force.

The money that's been taken from them during their productive years was already spent on other people's benefits.

Money is a fungible commodity. Do you know what "fungible" means?

The gov't keeps track of how much you're entitled to. But they don't set "your" money in its own little account to give back to you later. Quite simply, once you pay your taxes, it's their money; i.e. no longer yours.

I have to think about my five year old grandson. His world is on TV and I was shooting a rifle at five.

My dad was teaching me to be a sniper.

Your grandson's dad is teaching him to be a... fat slob consumer?

Larry Craig consistently voted against gays....yet he is one.

Larry Craig consistently voted against gays....yet he is one.

I'm against state lotteries, but I admit I occasionally play them once or twice a year.

I'm against state lotteries, but I admit I occasionally play them once or twice a year.

#105 | Posted by goatman

But, but it's for the children....lol

Why work for a living when it's easier to vote for it. It was only a matter of time when the voters would outnumber the producers. The ratio is now approximately one tax producer to two tax consumers.

But, but it's for the children....lol

Or it's some people's retirement plan.

Larry Craig consistently voted against gays....yet he is one.

If that's what his constituents want, then he's doing the job he was elected to do. That's how a republic works -- a group of people are represented by someone who represents them and votes as they want him to.

Or it's some people's retirement plan.

#108 | Posted by goatman

NC's lottery is doing great and we still have a 3% temporary tax to fund teachers salaries in my county. The temporary tax was passed in 1997'.

I don't disagree that lotteries are great for the state. But I see them as a regressive tax. It seems the poor are the ones who play them the most often. At least some of that money they spend is going to the education of their children -- in most states that have them, anyway

#109 GOAT

You raise an interesting topic. For me, it's sort of the chicken and the egg scenario and the "what came first." Let me explain.

On the one hand, as you've indicated, an elected official is there to serve his constituents. He should listen to those who put him in office and vote accordingly. In theory that sounds great, except that no state, county or city is comprised of a homogenious voter bloc. So there will ALWAYS be those who feel their legislator isn't listening.

Another school of thought is to have him vote the way he wants to and not have it be based on "listening." Theoretically, during the campaign he'll lay out where he stands... so that people can vote for or against him based on how they understand he'll govern. Not unlike when you marry someone. Expecting to "change" them after the wedding is, while theoretically possible, not something I'd hold my breath on.

The problem I have that it perpetuates the myth that winning the lottery is the only way poor people have of breaking out of poverty. It plays on people's hopes. To say it's a tax on the stupid is accurate, but a little cold hearted. It leaves out the fact that emotions cause people who are not stupid to do stupid things.

That article is overflowing with so much elitism that it makes me sick. Here is why they oppose it:

-It's a 2,000 page monstrosity that I can guarantee you does a whole lot more than just "try to keep premiums lower". Oh, and nobody who is voting on it has read it.

-Americans, despite the charge of them being stupid, actually know a thing or two. We know for a fact that every single domestic welfare program has started small. Promised that it was only one small tax, for one small thing, for one small segment of the population. And like clockwork every single one of them has ballooned into an unaffordable boondoggle that has ruined our society. We are smart enough to know that once the camel's nose is under the tent, it isn't long before he's completely inside.

-American welfare programs don't work. The government ALREADY pays for .60 of every healthcare dollar spent. On their watch, costs have spiraled out of control. We know that more of the same, will get us, well, more of the same.

So save your pompous, condescending elitism for someone else. It doesn't work here.

Nobody should aspire to be like England. They have managed to become a 1000 times worse than the country our forefathers left. It is a police state.

The Dead Kennedy's said it best...

"Kill kill kill kill Kill the poor"

also the old, fat and stupid,

jspraque doesn't know what he is talking about. We are far more of a police state than England. But England is morphing into something new and unsustainable as Pakis, Indians and Middle East Moslems overrun their superior social safety net.

Meanwhile, in the USA, where integration has enjoyed more success, illusion reigns supreme. That is what really sets us apart from the rest of the world.

Now the death of God combined with the perfection of image has brought us to a whole new state of expectation. We are the image. We are the viewer and the viewed. There is no other distracting presence. And that image has all the Godly powers. It kills at will. It kills effortlessly. Kills beautifully. It dispenses morality. Judges endlessly. The electronic image is man as God and the ritual involved leads us not to a mysterious Holy Trinity, but back to ourselves. In the absence of a clear understanding that we are now the only source, these images cannot help but return to the expression of magic and fear proper to idolatrous societies. This in turn facilitates the use of electronic image as propaganda by whoever can control some part of it. -John Ralston Saul

Sorry I don't believe you.

#81 | POSTED BY LEGIO

well HC reform is either dead, or theres no stopping it, so we'll see what happens over the coming weeks/months.

Surgeons and other specialists are dead set against this bill... but who gives a shit about what they want right? I mean its not like they're the ones that actually fix what's wrong with you when you're sick or hurt... right? Oh, whoops...

No they aren't. They're collecting what the gov't currently takes from active members of the work force.

The money that's been taken from them during their productive years was already spent on other people's benefits.

Money is a fungible commodity. Do you know what "fungible" means?

The gov't keeps track of how much you're entitled to. But they don't set "your" money in its own little account to give back to you later. Quite simply, once you pay your taxes, it's their money; i.e. no longer yours.

#102 | Posted by snoofy

You are evading. Give me back my money and I then you won't have to worry about paying me social security EVER. Just like mt father I will just end up spending on some donuts. My father uses it to pay a mortgage on a vacation home.

My money should be in Al Gore's lockbox

What I would like to see is 100% of wages being taxed for SS. Then when you retire your check is based on financial need.

What I would like to see is 100% of wages being taxed for SS. Then when you retire your check is based on financial need.

#120 | Posted by jackass

You do that middle class and lower class are the only ones who work for wages?

You do that middle class and lower class are the only ones who work for wages?

#121 | Posted by STIRSUMUP

Not true, Many wealthy people need to make money. They spend more. If the ultra rich refuse to contribute the Govt can simply levy their bank account based on what the highest earners paid in the previous year.

I never said they don't make money, I Said they don't work for wages. They may take a salary, but the real money comes from ownership of the business. No SS on that. But you knew that....

Like I said Bank Levy's work wonders. If they are caught hiding money in off shore accounts we simply lock them up and take everything they own leaving their family penniless. Fear of prison works wonders when it comes to compliance.

Then they will stop making money. Simple as that.

Then they will stop making money. Simple as that.

#125 | Posted by STIRSUMUP

Maybe your not grasping what I am saying. If they stop making money the Govt can simply go into their saving accounts and take a certain amount. If you aren't working but have 10 million in the bank you should still be forced into contributing to the welfare of this nation.

Like I said Bank Levy's work wonders. If they are caught hiding money in off shore accounts we simply lock them up and take everything they own leaving their family penniless. Fear of prison works wonders when it comes to compliance.

#124 | Posted by jackass

Good luck finding offshore accounts. By the way several Senators have offshore accounts including John Kerry. The Kennedy's moved assets offshore decades ago. thn you got some Congressmen that are supposedto wite tax laws buying real estate offshore and not paying taxes on rental income

If you aren't working but have 10 million in the bank you should still be forced into contributing to the welfare of this nation.

#126 | Posted by jackass

No one keeps $10 million in a bank a/c. That is stupid.

"Give me back my money and I then you won't have to worry about paying me social security EVER."

You were protected in case of disability through all the years you contributed into Social Security so you have as much right to the return of that money now as I have to demand that a life insurance company return my premiums because of the fact I didn't die.

Tim yes people do hide money only because the penalties are not harsh enough. If they knew that they would be stuck in Gen Pop many would think twice. How many accountants would be willing to help in this fraud if they knew they were possibly going to get raped or stabbed by a toothbrush for their efforts? Imagine if Bernie Madoff was stuck in a cell with a gang banger that was pimping him out for sex. That would act as a deterrent to other white collar criminals.

You were protected in case of disability through all the years you contributed into Social Security so you have as much right to the return of that money now as I have to demand that a life insurance company return my premiums because of the fact I didn't die.

#129 | Posted by dann

Life insurance is optional and is a contract between two parties. Social Security is not optional. At one point it was but the gov't closed that loophole

Tim yes people do hide money only because the penalties are not harsh enough. If they knew that they would be stuck in Gen Pop many would think twice. How many accountants would be willing to help in this fraud if they knew they were possibly going to get raped or stabbed by a toothbrush for their efforts? Imagine if Bernie Madoff was stuck in a cell with a gang banger that was pimping him out for sex. That would act as a deterrent to other white collar criminals.

#130 | Posted by jackass

Sorry but the penalties are harsh and people go to jail for tax evasion. The IRS ends up cutting deals with many people just because of the cost of trials. Many Carribean Countries rely on offshore accounts. The IRS will never get their cooperation

"Social Security is not optional. "

Sure it is. There are large subsets of workers who are outside the SS system, including workers in closed-school system pension plans, and some government workers. Also, there is a way to legally earn up to $125,000 a year via your labor without paying a penny into Social Security: buy, refurbish, and sell a home every two years. All profits up to $250,000 per person are tax-free after two years.

#132 | Posted by timbci

This is just sad. you've resorted to talking to yourself.

"Social Security is not optional."

Where's Aflac when he could actually contribute something?

Red America is poor rural America. They have been conditioned to root against Dems as a way to root against people of color.

#2 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2010-01-30 11:54 AM | Reply

Lay off the booze, dumbass.

Change the headline to ...... Why won't some people take a bribe?

Fortunately, the Jackasses of the world comprise the Democratic Party. If you're a business owner only pulling down $80,000 a year, they think you're out of your mind for not putting on the pompoms for ReidPelosiObama. Never mind that the same guy would also be voting for regulations that would strangle his little business.
These liberals are willfully ignorant and delusional. No cure, unfortunately.

#15 | POSTED BY RIGHTISRIGHT

I'm a business owner. I pull in about $80K a year. I don't vote Republican. Republicans would kill the social programs for many of my clients. Without those programs, my clients can't eat, keep a roof over their heads, and they sure as hell can't pay me even at discount rates. I have some wealthy clients too. But I need more than just the wealthy to keep a business going.

"Ask not what your country can do for you...ask what you can do for your country."

I think in that quote, JFK provided the answer. Too bad most Democrats quit quoting him and started quoting Lenin.

Question: Why Do People Vote Against Their Own Interests?

Answer: Most Americans are actually too disconnected from reality due to their family and work priorities, struggling finances, lack of interest and they are too susceptible to the opinions of talking heads who are really promoting paid agendas. These working Americans don't have the time and inclination to do independent thinking. The media and political interests thrive on this.

Retiring boomers may change all of this and have the time to tune into the political system and represent a new informed bubble of the population that will have independent beliefs.

Question: Why Do People Vote Against Their Own Interests?

"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34)

2 Timothy 3

1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come (at the hands of thy GOP):

2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents (founding fathers - torture), unthankful, unholy,

3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God (although they use His name for their own purposes);

5 Having a form of godliness (James Dobson/Falwell/Robertson), but denying the power thereof: from such turn away (and snicker behind their backs for being gullible like the Bush WH "Office of Faith" staff did).

6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses (via FauxNews and Beck/Limbaugh), and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts (for power),

7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

(8) So is the prophesy of the coming age of Newt and minions of those who will not see the truth and make up their own in it's place. (OK, I made that up, but this is a good description of FauxNews and the GOP LOL)

Change the headline to ...... Why won't some people take a bribe?

Bush tax refund reference?

The question is asked: Why do people vote against their own self-interest?

One answer is, the perceived "self-interest" by the author may be more than off-set by ever larger government intrusion into our private lives. Furthermore, it is very clear that government sponsored health care will cost far far more than we were originally told (government programs ALWAYS cost multiples of their estimated cost) -- and we have no confidence that it will not turn into an economic fiasco as the nation simply cannot afford to pay for it.

In addition, there is no constitutional authority for our government to be in the health care business, or force its citizens to purchase health care under penalty of going to prison.

Finally, what government creates, government can ration or take away. And for every ounce of "entitlements" a government grants, it exacts a pound of freedoms.

So, in the end, many of us soundly believe we ARE acting in our own self-interest to prevent government from gaining control of our health care system on a national basis.

If you make less than 250K and you are not voting Dem you need your head examined.

So, in the end, many of us soundly believe we ARE acting in our own self-interest to prevent government from gaining control of our health care system on a national basis.

#143 | Posted by Bruce427

Tell that to the people who are sick and eventually dying because you are greedy and don't want to extend coverage to everyone. I'll bet you consider yourself a Christian too. Well you aren't a very good one. You rank at the bottom of the barrel. There is not much difference between you and Ted Bundy. You just kill differently.

Larry Craig consistently voted against gays....yet he is one.

I'm against state lotteries, but I admit I occasionally play them once or twice a year.

#105 | Posted by goatman at 2010-01-31 07:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

Is lottery some code-word for 'skin flute'?

j/k

So, according to the story, the people who can bullshit the best in a debate are the ones more likely to win. If you present the facts or appear intelligible in any other way, you're fucked. Considering our election history, I suppose that sounds just right.

In all honesty, voters are stupid. Most people don't have the time to explore every issue in depth and even if they did, most of them aren't smart enough to come to their own reasonable conclusion. I guess this article is just more proof of how flawed our social structure is.

"In all honesty, voters are stupid. "

Tell that to the people who are sick and eventually dying because you are greedy and don't want to extend coverage to everyone.

Perhaps these people that are sick and supposedly dying should go out and buy some healthcare and stop drinking cheap beer for breakfast

I love jackasses commentary. He has no qualms stealing from people and "leaving their families penniless" but its all the good name of helping everyone else. What a fucking hypocrite.

I also enjoyed his commentary on those who are rich and "refuse to contribute" LMFAO. He advocates raiding their bank accounts and "forcing them to contribute". So I guess anyone who happens to live below their means and saves money to live on in case of periods of unemployment or simply making enough to live on from a career (say in pro sports). Those folks get to have their earnings retroactively taxed because Jackass has decided that they just arent contributing what they were at one time and that money is essentially the governments to steal at its own whim. God this guy has to be a communist.

In a world were yes actually means no, and no means yes...

...who the fuck knows?

I doubt most people even read the ballots they cast. Why should they?

Our "elected" representatives certainly don't read the shit they vote on either.

Do they?

"Just because it's in my interest to vote for largess for myself, paid for by someone else, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Maybe a large number of Americans are reflexively fair, and still see a check that shows up in the mail--unearned--is ill-gotten."

But it also makes no sense personally or morally to vote for people who enact policies that result in an unfair largesse for someone else. If you made under $250,000 a year and voted for Bush, you were neither acting in your own interest or voting for someone who was fair or had high morals. It was doubly stupid.

#5 | Posted by Sully

WRONG! Republicans voted for Republicans because they want to work for Capitalists not the government! It is very much in their interest that their employers are able to function in the American environment without a Chavez-like government hovering over them, seizing assets and running them out of the country because they had to raise their prices 5% to stay in business!!

But it is striking that the people who most dislike the whole idea of healthcare reform - the ones who think it is socialist, godless, a step on the road to a police state - are often the ones it seems designed to help.

In Texas, where barely two-thirds of the population have full health insurance and over a fifth of all children have no cover at all, opposition to the legislation is currently running at 87%.

UNFREAKENBELIEVABLE!!!!

YOU CAN'T LIE IN AN ARTICLE AND PASS IT OFF AS THE TRUTH!!!

I think even Michael Moore learned that.

Show me someone, besides the health insurance executives, who DON'T want health care reform?

Oh, yeah, go ahead, let my insurance premium double every year. I'M A REPUBLICAN!!! I CAN PAY IT!!! LET IT GO TO $10,000 a MONTH.

LOL!!!

Republicans want health reform, not this piece of crap that is being ramrodded through. Do you see Nancy Pelosi STILL trying to pass this thing? It's like she's wearing a sign "FIRE ME, I FREAKEN DARE YOU!"

It seems that the Obama crowd don't understand why people won't take "free stuff". Here! You're poor. Take the free stuff. That's because a work ethic has been passed down through the generations to never le the government take over--self reliance! It's a genuine fear of strings being attached to everything coming from the government.

Just because it's in my interest to vote for largess for myself, paid for by someone else, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

But it was okay to take the social security taxes paid for by the working people and refund them to millionaires.

Tell that to the people who are sick and eventually dying because you are greedy and don't want to extend coverage to everyone. I'll bet you consider yourself a Christian too. Well you aren't a very good one. You rank at the bottom of the barrel. There is not much difference between you and Ted Bundy. You just kill differently.

#144 | Posted by jackass

LOL!!! You're calling me a hypocrite and I'm looking back at you like you're a Jackass!

Why? Because I keep trying to give you my ideas about healthcare reform and you won't listen!

Eventually, I just call you a jackass, brush you aside, reject COMPLETELY all of your legislation, kick OUT your representation, and start over with good ideas.

The basic Conservative idea for healthcare reform is to force states to allow ALL viable health insurance companies to operate in their state. Use an undisputable basic policy that simply covers everything and can't be cancelled. Revisit an old and trusted practice of risk pools for the now "uninsurable" and every company operating in the state must participate.

Jackass, this is a fair plan for EVERYONE! I see everyone being covered and insurance premiums plummeting!

There! Jackass! You have heard the Conservative plan and it didn't take 20,000 pages either. So suck it up!

Revisit an old and trusted practice of risk pools for the now "uninsurable" and every company operating in the state must participate.

and how much to charge for those people?

Use an undisputable basic policy that simply covers everything and can't be cancelled.

you don't mean "everything" do you?

and how much to charge for those people?

#155 | Posted by eberly

It's a risk pool. It's not going to be as cheap as the mainstream premiums, but it won't be at a cost that prevents people from buying it and it more depends on how much the state wants to participate. It also makes the situation local. There will be an appeals process that allows the cronically ill move up into the system and allow the state to take over their premiums to help to prevent them from goign bankrupt, losing their home and business, becoming an even larger burden on the state. States like Oregon, Massachusetts, and Louisiana (of last century) will probably make the costs of premiums in this risk pool very affordable. The idea is to put the responsibility squarely on the state as it is written into the Constitution.

There! Jackass! You have heard the Conservative plan and it didn't take 20,000 pages either. So suck it up!

#154 | Posted by Eddie

The conservative plan is for those without insurance to die. Maybe open up state to state buying. That is it.

The conservative plan is for those without insurance to die. Maybe open up state to state buying. That is it.

#157 | Posted by jackass

Jackass means it's not free so it's fair.

It's a risk pool. It's not going to be as cheap as the mainstream premiums, but it won't be at a cost that prevents people from buying it and it more depends on how much the state wants to participate.

it would HAVE to involve state involvement. There is no way a private insurer can surround the costs of a pool like that. It would not be affordable.

The conservative plan is for those without insurance to die.

don't stop there. We want those WITH insurance to do die also.

Well, just liberal psychos.......

Jackass means it's not free so it's fair.

#158 | Posted by STIRSUMUP at 2010-02-01 11:16 AM

Wrong fool. Most people with pre-existing conditions don't mind paying more but most can't even get coverage no matter what. There are several states that offer no risk pool. It should be mandatory for all states to offer a risk pool.

you don't mean "everything" do you?

#155 | Posted by eberly

Hey, I only had a sentence to describe it. But, again, this depends on the state of what they want to put into the basic policy.

The basic policy will be simple and easy to read (what a concept!??!). Today, Insurance companies hire attorneys to write these policies in such a way that it so favors insurance company. They can get out of paying anything! Why can they do this, because there's no competition.

When did this happen?

Anyway, a basic policy will be written by the state and every insurance company must sell that definition of health insurance. It will be fair for both parties... What a concept? Geez!

The conservative plan is for those without insurance to die. Maybe open up state to state buying. That is it.

#157 | Posted by jackass

elaborate on the state to state thing.

elaborate on the state to state thing.

#163 | Posted by Eddie at 2010-02-01 11:26 AM

If you live in Cali but want a GA plan you can buy it. Insurance companies will be able to sell in all 50 states like Auto Insurance.

Wrong fool. Most people with pre-existing conditions don't mind paying more but most can't even get coverage no matter what. There are several states that offer no risk pool. It should be mandatory for all states to offer a risk pool.

#161 | Posted by jackass

If you don't get control of your high blood pressure your going to end up on dialysis.

Today, Insurance companies hire attorneys to write these policies in such a way that it so favors insurance company. They can get out of paying anything! Why can they do this, because there's no competition.

To be fair, plaintiffs attorneys are always suing health insurance companies over the "language" so it has been an ongoing effort on both sides to make those policies impossible to read.

And at the end of the day, State insurance departments have to approve that language.

so let's sum it up....who has a say when decididng on what policies cover and not cover and how it's communicated in a policy.

1. attorney for insurance company
2. attorney for plaintiffs
3. politicians at the State Govt level.

#3 should represent the patients but unfortunately, when the 3 are in the room together, #3 is the dumbest of the 3.

It's a risk pool. It's not going to be as cheap as the mainstream premiums, but it won't be at a cost that prevents people from buying it and it more depends on how much the state wants to participate.

it would HAVE to involve state involvement. There is no way a private insurer can surround the costs of a pool like that. It would not be affordable.

#159 | Posted by eberly

Have faith! And also have knowledge that are many many factors driving the cost of medical care (and yes, Jackass, I think that greed is part, but not all, of it). Some of them are,

-- advances in Medical Technology. We pay for it while the rest of the world takes last year's model. Med Tech includes advances in drugs, procedures, equipment, and yes the providers themselves (procedures). We pay top dollar in this country and are constantly using the latest and greatest of that entire med tech has to offer.

-- lawsuits. The way a doctor explained it to me was that when you are in practice, expect to be sued. Believe it or not there are some people out there that will sue doctors just because they see an opportunity to get a few hundred thousand dollars. Hell, all they want is ten thousand, but a lawyer talks them into a few hundred. Anyway, the way it works is that a patient complains about a chronic problem and the doctor tries to help them. It doesn't work or the patient claims it is worse. Well, they sue. Under the current system, even if they go to court and the doctor proves there is no malpractice, the patient does not have to pay the doctor's legal fees. Instead of going to court and paying attorneys and other experts to defend him, they settle out of court almost every time. It's less expensive that way. The patient is rewarded for doing something immoral.

-- Defensive medicine (see lawsuits). Doctors are routinely performing expensive tests and procedures to prevent malpractice lawsuits.

Have faith! And also have knowledge that are many many factors driving the cost of medical care

you are right and that is a good partial list. there are many to add to it which is why this issue is so complex.

but I agree with you in principle.

If you live in Cali but want a GA plan you can buy it. Insurance companies will be able to sell in all 50 states like Auto Insurance.

#164 | Posted by jackass

Yes, this is a basic Conservative requirement.

But no, you can't force an insurance company to sell in all 50 states and you can't force states to accept all insurance companies.

The larger insurance companies have the assets to cover all states, but smaller, but very good insurance companies have the assets to operate in a few states and as they grow, they can move into others states.

but very good insurance companies have the assets to operate in a few states and as they grow, they can move into others states.

excellent point. In the P&C world, there are tons of regional and niche market carriers. Perhaps they only want certain industries or a certain region of the country.

It would be foolish to force them to change their business model for any reason.

It should be the same for Health insurance companies too.

And at the end of the day, State insurance departments have to approve that language.

#166 | Posted by eberly

I say that the basic policy be the same for everyone operating in that state! Written by the people and the insurance companies. If a sixteen-year-old highschooler can understand it and it makes good business sense to the insurance company, then it's good.

Insurance companies can compete in other ways. Service, risk management, investments (regulated by the state).

#171

Again, I agree. I like to coin a lot of this problem in a phrase "we can't stand our own prosperity"

which means that companies, in an effort to attract and retain good employees, enriched their health plans with very low co-pays (which never used to exist) for drugs and office visits and very low premium costs for the employees. My first employer out of school used to pay 100% of all health insurance premiums whether or not you were a single or family etc.. when they started having employees pay something for family coverage, you would have thought they had taken away their birthdays by the reaction from the employees.

And now companies (large and small) are feeling the pain of reversing those rich plans into more basic ones...which is definately fuel for the fire on this debate.

The years I sold group health plans to employers, I warned them about making their plans too rich for several reasons.....1. the govt will try to punish you for your success and your efforts to take care of your employees (see cadillac plans..) and 2. you never know when a few unhealthy members or a change in the competitive market will send premiums so high that you will have to reverse this and take away some these rich benefits in the plans......and you know how employees will react to that!!!

My employer raised my health insurance 300% last year. Private coverage comes out to cost as much as my new policy.

At my next open enrollment I will cancel my private insurance with Aetna, enroll in V.A. benefits for myself, and have the wife and kid on a low cost private plan.

One less private citizen for Aetna to rape, another for the VA to pick-up. Do I feel guilty about government care for myself? No...

I take excellent physical care of myself, have no prescriptions (at 50 years old), no weight/eating problems and absolutely no ailments.

Haven't been to the doctor in 18 years, but paid $216,000 to Aetna. Do I get a discount....no. I understand that an accident or unexpected illness would cost Aetna possibly more than I paid in, but that never happened. If I had played the stock market, or invested all that money, I probably could retire earlier. There must be a solution...

I have to pay high premiums for fat ass , disease ridden slobs that take no care of themselves. That's unfair, is it not?

I also pay high premiums so I can pay for the uninsured and/or illegals that probably receive the same level of health care that I would receive if we were both admitted simultaneously.

somethings gotta change...

Haven't been to the doctor in 18 years, but paid $216,000 to Aetna.

That is $1,000 a month average. I'm sure that inflation is in there so I'm guess you used to pay a lot less than that 10 years ago and a lot more now.

Those the total premiums between you AND your employer right?

Why Do People Vote Against Their Own Interests?

I haven't bothered to read all the posts yet, but I am sure I am not the first explain why this happens. It is summed up in one word: Principles.

Advocating something just because it would benefit you is the epitome of self-centeredness and greed. It takes a pricipled person to do what they feel is the right thing even if it isn't the thing that would benefit them the most.

I think it is very telling that some people just don't seem to understand this concept.

I'm paying $1,120 per month today....That's a mortgage....

The years I sold group health plans to employers, I warned them about making their plans too rich for several reasons.....1. the govt will try to punish you for your success and your efforts to take care of your employees (see cadillac plans..) and 2. you never know when a few unhealthy members or a change in the competitive market will send premiums so high that you will have to reverse this and take away some these rich benefits in the plans......and you know how employees will react to that!!!

#172 | Posted by eberly

Very true!

The years of the practice of employers providing full coverage and actually paying for the premiums has conditioned a generation of Americans into believing that health care should be free.

This phenomenon has allowed the cost of health care to sky-rocket. For example, the doctor prescribes tests and procedures to the patient for various reasons and the patient says, ok, whatever, mostly because he's not paying for it, the insurance company is. The insurance company will question it, but is not in direct contact with the patient and doesn't really know if the tests and procedures are absolutely necessary.

In other words, if the patient is forced to question the cost of care, the cost will magicly start to come down. Also the patient has the added benefit of becoming "interested" in his own care. Funny how that works!

When did you sell insurance? It was much different in the 80's

I'm paying $1,120 per month today....That's a mortgage....

#176 | Posted by ArmyVet

How old are you? Is this a family policy? What's your deductible? What's your co-pay? Are you healthy?

somethings gotta change...

#173 | Posted by ArmyVet

Agreed!!!!

Those the total premiums between you AND your employer right?

#174 | Posted by eberly

Eberly,

Armyvet has the right attitude rather he paid it or if his employer did. He counts his paying the premium as his responsibility. If his employer paid, it, then that was part of his compensation.

Armyvet has the right attitude rather he paid it or if his employer did. He counts his paying the premium as his responsibility. If his employer paid, it, then that was part of his compensation.

I agree. I am just trying to get a fix on what the total costs are and his situation.

I sold group health plans from 2000 to 2007. I also sold commercial P&C during that time along with life/di insurance.

Now I just sell commerical P&C.

Government is the one of the biggest drivers of inflation, so someone who is voting against a government program is really voting against inflation which hurts the middle class and the poor the most, so they are not really voting against their own self interest as the Author try's to portray.

The author uses the state of Texas as an example of people voting against their self interest, because they oppose the Democrats health care reform. After you factor in the cost of living increase due to more government the very same Texans the author claims would benefit, probablly lose.

Also are the poor better off living in California where they get a bigger hand out from the Government or are they better off in Texas where the handout is smaller? After you factor in cost of living the poor in Texas are better off.

I have to pay high premiums for fat ass , disease ridden slobs that take no care of themselves. That's unfair, is it not?

I also pay high premiums so I can pay for the uninsured and/or illegals that probably receive the same level of health care that I would receive if we were both admitted simultaneously.

somethings gotta change...

Probably the biggest "unfair" thing you pay for is women. Women tend to cost about twice what men do, because of the costs associated with pregnancy.

Men subsidize women's health care costs.

Ignorant trolls like Snoofy don't seem to realize that he already is paying way more to take care of the people he hates than he would if meaningful health care reform was enacted.

It is way more important for him to keep parroting Glenda Beck than to take 10 minutes and learn ANYTHING about the real problem.

OOPS, should have been ArmyVet, not Snoofy. Sorry.

#102 | Posted by snoofy

Simple terms: Ponzi scheme

Between social security and medicare, America has $116 trillion unfunded liability.

I haven't bothered to read all the posts yet, but I am sure I am not the first explain why this happens. It is summed up in one word: Principles.

Advocating something just because it would benefit you is the epitome of self-centeredness and greed. It takes a pricipled person to do what they feel is the right thing even if it isn't the thing that would benefit them the most.

I think it is very telling that some people just don't seem to understand this concept.

#175 | Posted by moomanfl at 2010-02-01 12:41 PM | Reply | Flag

The rich must fully understand this and that is why they tend to vote in their interests as opposed to their principles. That's why they always vote Republican. Those on Wall Street still vote Republican but donate to and control the Democrats.
It's like having their cake and eat it too.

The government has used up the Social Security trust as the kitty to run wars and government and give tax cuts to the rich. The rich do hate entitlements unless they get to pillage the source as they've done with social security.

#102 | Posted by snoofy

Simple terms: Ponzi scheme

I disagree. Mainly because SSI doesn't offer you some amazing 10% per year guaranteed return on your investment. It's a mechanism for redistributing wealth, not an investment in any sense, really.

Between social security and medicare, America has $116 trillion unfunded liability.

Medicare is a mess, not sure how to fix that. (Well, I know, it's called single payer universal coverage, but people with no concept of economics and no willingness to learn either stand in the way of that.)

Social Security could easily find more funds with two simple actions: First, make a person's entire income, not just the first $100K or so, subject to SSI withholding. Second, introduce a means test for SSI distributions. (You know, the way it operated until Reagan changed it to benefit the rich.)

The government has little credibility. The same is true for traditional media. So how is the reaction a surprise?
Credibility needs to be restored before replacing the health care system is feasible. The same is true for global warming.
Derrogatory comments and buzz words are counter productive to such restoration. These approaches also enable rationalizations over confronting reality.