How much will the ACA actually cost our Government?

[damnotagain]

Jan 29, 2015 20:17:07 GMT -5 dondub said:

 Probably did it as a part of the general Repo 'get the ACA' that also included at least 50 Congressional votes that failed.

 If they actually knew something they should have applied that knowledge back when they were in charge and done something about our 47 million without insurance,

our doubled costs versus the rest of the industrialized world, and the 45,000 that died every year due to lack of access to healthcare because of -0- insurance. Instead they

were off somewhere discussing 'family values'.

Don't worry those 47 million are not going without food. That's how many Americans are on food stamps. Brother can you lend me a dime. 

[dondub]

Maybe we should starve them to death so it doesn't bother you so much.

[damnotagain]

Jan 29, 2015 20:45:06 GMT -5 dondub said:

Maybe we should starve them to death so it doesn't bother you so much.

People have been dying for a long time ! What's changed ? Outside of now you have to pay a tax

If you starve in America today your just stupid. 

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 28, 2015 22:31:36 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Jan 28, 2015 21:22:58 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

yes, because we all know how accurate the CBO is at long term forecasting.....

If you mean they UNDERESTIMATE THE REAL COST, then, yes we all know how accurate they are.

I'm glad somebody saved me from having to explain in which direction the CBO's forecasts are consistently wrong.

If their average holds up, we can expect a $3 trillion estimate by the end of 2015, a $4 trillion estimate by the end of 2016, ...

[Deleted]

Jan 29, 2015 20:23:02 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 29, 2015 17:55:30 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Yes, and if you Google it, you will discover that we were correct all along, and supposedly objective lamestream sources like Politifact rated statements of fact such as the truth that there are death panels, and that ObamaCare would cost DOUBLE what was promised as false- and the false ratings are still up.


www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/jul/11/american-commitment/tv-ad-says-health-laws-cost-2-trillion-double-what/

um....you realize that Poltifact says your statement is false, right?  so/ much for Google, I guess?

We rate this statement False.. 

edit: I can't believe you posted that, actually.  from the link above:

The ad upgrades that $1,762 billion, or $1.762 trillion to $2 trillion. In this case, we won’t quibble about $240 billion, because the $1.76 trillion number itself is extreme cherry-picking. It doesn’t account for the law’s tax increases, spending cuts or other cost-saving measures.

In fact, the CBO has said that overall the health care bill actually reduces government spending by about $124 billion over 10 years.

Link to the information in red, please...

(ETA: and not to where Politifact says it, but to the actual raw source)

[dondub]

  I'm hoping they are not only not that stupid but can also use you're when appropriate.

 Do you think they should start shoplifting? Sending the hungry kids with nightly food insecurity running through the aisles at Safeway snatching goods?

[damnotagain]

Jan 29, 2015 20:59:06 GMT -5 dondub said:

  I'm hoping they are not only not that stupid but can also use you're when appropriate.

 Do you think they should start shoplifting? Sending the hungry kids with nightly food insecurity running through the aisles at Safeway snatching goods?

They do that now! You all
At first I thought they were yours.

[Deleted]

Jan 29, 2015 20:52:25 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jan 28, 2015 22:31:36 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

If you mean they UNDERESTIMATE THE REAL COST, then, yes we all know how accurate they are.

I'm glad somebody saved me from having to explain in which direction the CBO's forecasts are consistently wrong.

If their average holds up, we can expect a $3 trillion estimate by the end of 2015, a $4 trillion estimate by the end of 2016, ...

Very good point. The CBO quite often makes estimates that aren't borne out. Typically the estimates by the CBO are much LOWER than the actual end result.

If I had to guess, it's probably because they don't take into consideration "general governmental bloat and waste". (that's JUST a guess though)

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 29, 2015 21:17:36 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jan 29, 2015 20:52:25 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I'm glad somebody saved me from having to explain in which direction the CBO's forecasts are consistently wrong.

If their average holds up, we can expect a $3 trillion estimate by the end of 2015, a $4 trillion estimate by the end of 2016, ...

Very good point. The CBO quite often makes estimates that aren't borne out. Typically the estimates by the CBO are much LOWER than the actual end result.

If I had to guess, it's probably because they don't take into consideration "general governmental bloat and waste". (that's JUST a guess though)

They're just ludicrously optimistic. They make assumptions like perpetual 5% annual growth, rising wages, new taxes that are never implemented, new corporate revenues that never materialize.

I'd say that the problem is that they nearly always put forward "best case", "expected", and "worst case" projections, and the media/blogosphere have a choice of which figure to run with, but reality is consistently worse than even the CBO's worst case projections, and sometimes absurdly so.

The original worst case estimate on the Iraq war was south of $600 billion over 3 years. Social welfare spending was supposed to rise barely more than inflation in the new millennium (cue laffs). Corporate taxes were supposed to be significantly higher than they are now, until bureaucrats realized that American corporations would start to jump ship (Burger King), refuse to repatriate revenues (Apple), exploit tax loop holes (Caterpillar, Pfizer), or just plain fail (GM) as taxes went up and America lost one of its two competitive edges.

Just as importantly, CBO projections don't include events like the 2007 meltdown, or the next meltdown when it occurs.

The result is predictions that cause a lot of (as DJ puts it) when examined in retrospect.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Yes, djAdvocate , I realize that Politifact incorrectly rated a claim which states that ObamaCare will cost exactly what it now will cost as false.

It is in fact my entire point- Politifact was wrong.  In fact, Politifact and other "fact checking" organizations are frequently wrong. This is because they look at the "facts" as they're instructed to look at them, like the CBO will score them, and not at the real facts, to wit:

But for claims about federal spending, we consider the Congressional Budget Office, often called the CBO, to be the standard by which we fact-check claims.

This is something conservatives have always had to struggle with- trying to point out the underlying Grubers in every piece of shit big government comprehensive bill.  The fact checkers say we're wrong, the bill passes, and lo and behold we're discovered to be correct- but it's too late, they've already fucked up 1/7th of the US economy and put us another $1 trillion in debt, never having realized the "savings" from prematurely walking away from Iraq.  In fact, like most messes liberals make-- that's one that's probably going to cost more to clean up than if we'd just done it right.

But I digress...Politifact took a look at this ad which ran in 2012:

 TV ad says health law's cost is $2 trillion, 'double what we were promised'




In fact, the CBO and Politifact got it wrong. The ad is spot on.  I know politifact says the claim is false.  My point is: POLITIFACT IS FUCKING WRONG. A lot in fact- they also rated claims about cutting Medicare as "most false" when it is 100% true; and the fact that ObamaCare is the largest middle class tax increase in history they rated as "pants on fire" when in fact, Mr. Gruber explains why it's true to the economically illiterate pieces of shit at Politifact:

www.wsj.com/articles/tevi-troy-another-obamacare-deception-1416179540

As Mr. Gruber put it, speaking last year at a conference at the University of Pennsylvania: “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, you know, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass.”

Actually, maybe voters aren't so much stupid as they are misinformed by the government media propaganda machine which includes "fact checking" organizations like "Politifact" who take the CBO's word for it, when the CBO takes its numbers from the bill's sponsors and supporters.

One example cited by Mr. Gruber is the so-called Cadillac tax, as the ObamaCare excise tax on high-value employer health plans is known. The tax, which he helped devise and will take effect in 2018, imposes a 40% levy on individual health plans worth more than $10,200, and on family plans worth more than $27,500. As Mr. Gruber’s remarks were unearthed last week, economist Mark Wilson and I released a study of the excise tax that shows he is right about its deceptive design. The tax is likely to hit many people who don’t have high-end coverage.

Mr. Gruber says in one video that his real aim was to reduce the tax break available to those who get employer-sponsored insurance, about 170 million Americans. He lamented that it would be hard to persuade Congress to reduce people’s tax breaks: “You just can’t get through. It’s politically impossible.” True enough—the excise tax does the job instead. It is a stealthy way to reduce the tax preference for health care without taking it away from employers.

Mr. Gruber also noted that the real impact of the tax would fall on individual Americans: “We just tax the insurance companies, they pass on higher prices that offsets the tax break we get, it ends up being the same thing. It’s a very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.” In another video that surfaced on Friday, he explained that the only way to get rid of the tax preference for employer-sponsored insurance was “by mislabeling it, calling it a tax on insurance plans rather than a tax on people, when we all know it’s a tax on people who hold those insurance plans.”

Our study bears this out. While the tax is designed to be paid by companies, employees or consumers will see significant increases in costs. These cost increases will be passed on in several ways. Large employers who are subject to the excise tax in 2018 will pay an average of more than $2,700 per employee a year from 2018 to 2024. As Mr. Gruber admits, and basic economics confirms, this cost will be passed on to consumers or to employees in higher prices and lower compensation.

[Deleted]

Jan 29, 2015 19:04:26 GMT -5 dondub said:

What a deal.

Too funny blaming the republicans for it.

"Their idea", "They wanted it"

Only problem is not one single one of them voted for it.

Not one .

 I guess my interpretation of the comments are different. It was a plan that came from a repo think tank and was first enacted by Romney in Mass. I don't see any blame laying,

just a fact.

 It's also a fact that a political party counts votes and can thus not vote on something to keep their hands clean when the other party has a passing vote number. This technique

was also apparent on the 2008 stimulus package. It's just playing politics.

 It's also a fact that upwards of 20 repo governors have not allowed state exchanges, thus making the numbers worse for sign up totals. What is really hilarious is that these

 same Govs., such as Florida's, have decried the lack of ACA successes they have contributed to by their refusal to cooperate with the ACA.

 We'll see what transpires between now and Nov. '16, but I tend to agree with EVT1 on his prediction.

I don't believe Romney had a vote on the ACA.

Just a fact.

[Value Buy]

Jan 29, 2015 22:46:51 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Yes, djAdvocate , I realize that Politifact incorrectly rated a claim which states that ObamaCare will cost exactly what it now will cost as false.

It is in fact my entire point- Politifact was wrong.  In fact, Politifact and other "fact checking" organizations are frequently wrong. This is because they look at the "facts" as they're instructed to look at them, like the CBO will score them, and not at the real facts, to wit:

But for claims about federal spending, we consider the Congressional Budget Office, often called the CBO, to be the standard by which we fact-check claims.

This is something conservatives have always had to struggle with- trying to point out the underlying Grubers in every piece of shit big government comprehensive bill.  The fact checkers say we're wrong, the bill passes, and lo and behold we're discovered to be correct- but it's too late, they've already fucked up 1/7th of the US economy and put us another $1 trillion in debt, never having realized the "savings" from prematurely walking away from Iraq.  In fact, like most messes liberals make-- that's one that's probably going to cost more to clean up than if we'd just done it right.

But I digress...Politifact took a look at this ad which ran in 2012:

 TV ad says health law's cost is $2 trillion, 'double what we were promised'




In fact, the CBO and Politifact got it wrong. The ad is spot on.  I know politifact says the claim is false.  My point is: POLITIFACT IS FUCKING WRONG. A lot in fact- they also rated claims about cutting Medicare as "most false" when it is 100% true; and the fact that ObamaCare is the largest middle class tax increase in history they rated as "pants on fire" when in fact, Mr. Gruber explains why it's true to the economically illiterate pieces of shit at Politifact:

www.wsj.com/articles/tevi-troy-another-obamacare-deception-1416179540

As Mr. Gruber put it, speaking last year at a conference at the University of Pennsylvania: “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, you know, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass.”

Actually, maybe voters aren't so much stupid as they are misinformed by the government media propaganda machine which includes "fact checking" organizations like "Politifact" who take the CBO's word for it, when the CBO takes its numbers from the bill's sponsors and supporters.

One example cited by Mr. Gruber is the so-called Cadillac tax, as the ObamaCare excise tax on high-value employer health plans is known. The tax, which he helped devise and will take effect in 2018, imposes a 40% levy on individual health plans worth more than $10,200, and on family plans worth more than $27,500. As Mr. Gruber’s remarks were unearthed last week, economist Mark Wilson and I released a study of the excise tax that shows he is right about its deceptive design. The tax is likely to hit many people who don’t have high-end coverage.

Mr. Gruber says in one video that his real aim was to reduce the tax break available to those who get employer-sponsored insurance, about 170 million Americans. He lamented that it would be hard to persuade Congress to reduce people’s tax breaks: “You just can’t get through. It’s politically impossible.” True enough—the excise tax does the job instead. It is a stealthy way to reduce the tax preference for health care without taking it away from employers.

Mr. Gruber also noted that the real impact of the tax would fall on individual Americans: “We just tax the insurance companies, they pass on higher prices that offsets the tax break we get, it ends up being the same thing. It’s a very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.” In another video that surfaced on Friday, he explained that the only way to get rid of the tax preference for employer-sponsored insurance was “by mislabeling it, calling it a tax on insurance plans rather than a tax on people, when we all know it’s a tax on people who hold those insurance plans.”

Our study bears this out. While the tax is designed to be paid by companies, employees or consumers will see significant increases in costs. These cost increases will be passed on in several ways. Large employers who are subject to the excise tax in 2018 will pay an average of more than $2,700 per employee a year from 2018 to 2024. As Mr. Gruber admits, and basic economics confirms, this cost will be passed on to consumers or to employees in higher prices and lower compensation.

Paul, speaking of Gruber, did you catch his classroom rap video he made?

What an idiot, but as with most leftists, so full of himself.

In fairness, I do not know if the video was filmed before or after he was outed for the liar he is.

[Tennesseer]

Jan 30, 2015 8:42:20 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Jan 29, 2015 22:46:51 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Yes, djAdvocate , I realize that Politifact incorrectly rated a claim which states that ObamaCare will cost exactly what it now will cost as false.

It is in fact my entire point- Politifact was wrong.  In fact, Politifact and other "fact checking" organizations are frequently wrong. This is because they look at the "facts" as they're instructed to look at them, like the CBO will score them, and not at the real facts, to wit:
This is something conservatives have always had to struggle with- trying to point out the underlying Grubers in every piece of shit big government comprehensive bill.  The fact checkers say we're wrong, the bill passes, and lo and behold we're discovered to be correct- but it's too late, they've already fucked up 1/7th of the US economy and put us another $1 trillion in debt, never having realized the "savings" from prematurely walking away from Iraq.  In fact, like most messes liberals make-- that's one that's probably going to cost more to clean up than if we'd just done it right.

But I digress...Politifact took a look at this ad which ran in 2012:

 TV ad says health law's cost is $2 trillion, 'double what we were promised'




In fact, the CBO and Politifact got it wrong. The ad is spot on.  I know politifact says the claim is false.  My point is: POLITIFACT IS FUCKING WRONG. A lot in fact- they also rated claims about cutting Medicare as "most false" when it is 100% true; and the fact that ObamaCare is the largest middle class tax increase in history they rated as "pants on fire" when in fact, Mr. Gruber explains why it's true to the economically illiterate pieces of shit at Politifact:

www.wsj.com/articles/tevi-troy-another-obamacare-deception-1416179540

Paul, speaking of Gruber, did you catch his classroom rap video he made?

What an idiot, but as with most leftists, so full of himself.

In fairness, I do not know if the video was filmed before or after he was outed for the liar he is.

And most righties aren't full off themselves? Have you looked in a mirror lately?

[Value Buy]

Jan 30, 2015 9:40:20 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Tennesseer please edit your last question in post #42.

Thank You,

deminmaine, Moderator.

Dem, I see nothing wrong with his post. He is just trying to get a rise out of me. He won't.

Really, no problem with it.

Let it stand.

ty

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Jan 29, 2015 20:23:02 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 29, 2015 17:55:30 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Yes, and if you Google it, you will discover that we were correct all along, and supposedly objective lamestream sources like Politifact rated statements of fact such as the truth that there are death panels, and that ObamaCare would cost DOUBLE what was promised as false- and the false ratings are still up.


www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/jul/11/american-commitment/tv-ad-says-health-laws-cost-2-trillion-double-what/

um....you realize that Poltifact says your statement is false, right?  so/ much for Google, I guess?

We rate this statement False.. 

edit: I can't believe you posted that, actually.  from the link above:

The ad upgrades that $1,762 billion, or $1.762 trillion to $2 trillion. In this case, we won’t quibble about $240 billion, because the $1.76 trillion number itself is extreme cherry-picking. It doesn’t account for the law’s tax increases, spending cuts or other cost-saving measures.

In fact, the CBO has said that overall the health care bill actually reduces government spending by about $124 billion over 10 years.

The issue with some of the spending cuts include the government paying less for healthcare through it's programs (i.e. Medicare) for things such as customer satisfaction (with the real irony being that the most affected hospitals and doctors being the ones that work in areas with the highest level of dependence on "government sponsored health insurances")....those areas are usually lower income areas.  As for other cost-saving measures, some of those are taking credit for things that were enacted by *gasp* the previous President, such as electronic health records (which was already in the works).

The ACA is a train wreck IMO and as for those people who are still arguing that it's a Republican plan (not really sure how much more partisan a person can be if they actually want to use this argument), and that Republican governors had it for their states...there is a need to realize that programs may be successful in some states, but not on a federal level.  There is a need to understand that some programs may actually be successful in one state, but not another.  I'm ok with states doing certain things that I definitely wouldn't want the federal government doing.

Is health insurance reform needed?  Absolutely.  Did the ACA change it for the better...nope.  It didn't make it cheaper, and didn't really help anything in the long run, other than to make everything more expensive and I still honestly believe that was the original intention (to make it so bad that people will claim that the government needs to step in and takeover).  I don't disagree with the concept of everybody being able to have access to healthcare.  I don't even disagree with the premise behind people thinking a government sponsored program because they want everybody to have access to basic healthcare.  There seems to be disagreement about what "basic healthcare" means.  BTW, Medicare isn't really all that great when you look at what it covers and how much people pay into it (which is why Medicare Supplements and Medicare Advantage plans are as popular as they are).  I do disagree with the idea that these people often times ignore....in situations where the government is the insurance company, it would impose many of the same limits (and more) than those evil insurance companies because despite what people may believe, the government can't indefinitely spend with no limitations.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 29, 2015 22:46:51 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Yes, djAdvocate , I realize that Politifact incorrectly rated a claim which states that ObamaCare will cost exactly what it now will cost as false.

It is in fact my entire point- Politifact was wrong.  In fact, Politifact and other "fact checking" organizations are frequently wrong. This is because they look at the "facts" as they're instructed to look at them, like the CBO will score them, and not at the real facts, to wit:

LOL!

do you know how much i enjoy your posts, Paul. seriously. this one made my day.

i grew up with a narcissist.  your line of reasoning is deeply familiar to me.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 29, 2015 20:58:17 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jan 29, 2015 20:23:02 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

um....you realize that Poltifact says your statement is false, right?  so/ much for Google, I guess?

We rate this statement False.. 

edit: I can't believe you posted that, actually.  from the link above:

The ad upgrades that $1,762 billion, or $1.762 trillion to $2 trillion. In this case, we won’t quibble about $240 billion, because the $1.76 trillion number itself is extreme cherry-picking. It doesn’t account for the law’s tax increases, spending cuts or other cost-saving measures.

In fact, the CBO has said that overall the health care bill actually reduces government spending by about $124 billion over 10 years.

Link to the information in red, please...

(ETA: and not to where Politifact says it, but to the actual raw source)

sorry, but that is not actually a requirement of the board.  look it up yourself. 

[djAdvocate]

Jan 29, 2015 20:52:25 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jan 28, 2015 22:31:36 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

If you mean they UNDERESTIMATE THE REAL COST, then, yes we all know how accurate they are.

I'm glad somebody saved me from having to explain in which direction the CBO's forecasts are consistently wrong.

If their average holds up, we can expect a $3 trillion estimate by the end of 2015, a $4 trillion estimate by the end of 2016, ...

of course the CBO is consistently wrong.  it is a FORECAST, Virgil, it is not a statement of fact.

i found that Politifact page to be very informative about this subject. it pointed out two things:

ONE: that the CBO is the gold standard for government accounting. it might suck, but it is better than Breitbart.  oh, and no offense, it is better than YOU, my friend.

TWO: that the CBO actually DOES OVERESTIMATE costs occasionally! I KNOW, RIGHT? you would never guess that based on the incredible harpooning that is done of the CBO here (except when you use it to make your points).

[djAdvocate]

NOTE:

why not, instead of blasting away at the CBO, blast away at the OP, which fails to account for the tax stream generated by the ACA, fails to account for the savings to Medicare that will come through it, etc. if you want to question whether the bent inflation curve has anything to do with the ACA, that would be an INTELLIGENT discussion- but simply dismissing the revenue side of the ACA equation, and posting the $2T cost is misleading at best.

Politifact occasionally gets it right.

[deziloooooo]

 " didn't really help anything in the long run"

I wonder what the 27/29 million now covered with Insurance who were not covered before...many of them un happy with Obama and die hard GOP supporters...and many who have health needs..many very seriouse ones but now...I wonder if they would feel the program doesn't really help anything....even in the long run...

I wonder too, how GOP would like the responsibility to be the ones to go to these people who are now covered and receiving the same type of coverage I , you and they..{ GOP } have but now be the ones to tell these folks all bets are off...for the good of the country..{ Their feelings of } the program is over and now everything goes back to what it was...

I am thinking that the leaders of that group {GOP } have paid for a study that will show that in losing forever the votes of those 27/29 million folks , they are going to gain many more votes by those who aren't happy for what ever reason of the current program...possible one of the reasons is these folks aren't important enough to the country.

Personally I believe that is wrong thinking and will  be a bad  out come and it will be fatal to the GOP..Something like what happened with President Johnson and his civil right legislation...He was told it would cost him the election..He replied  "No, your wrong..we'll win the election but we,  the Democrats,  will lose the South..and that is what happened...

[dondub]

I don't believe Romney had a vote on the ACA.

Just a fact.

I don't believe anyone said he did. Also a fact.

Here are more facts....The ACA was modeled on a plan that came out of a repo think tank and was first enacted in the state of Massachusetts. There was a governor there by the name of Romney.

It became known as Romneycare.

Nice try anyway.

[Deleted]

Jan 30, 2015 16:37:20 GMT -5 dondub said:

I don't believe Romney had a vote on the ACA.

Just a fact.

I don't believe anyone said he did. Also a fact.

Here are more facts....The ACA was modeled on a plan that came out of a repo think tank and was first enacted in the state of Massachusetts. There was a governor there by the name of Romney.

It became known as Romneycare.

Nice try anyway.

So flipping what?

 Romney had a plan for his state with a population of less than 7 million.

Democrats have a plan for the nation with a population of more than 300 million modeled after Romney's plan.

Democrats make this plan the law of the nation all by themselves.

Therefore it's Romney/Repuplicans fault cuz we all know it sucks now and he /they thought of it 1st.

[dondub]

 No one said it was, just sharing the reality after you thought someone said Romney voted for the ACA. I would have thought you knew that already.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jan 30, 2015 14:55:30 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 29, 2015 22:46:51 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Yes, djAdvocate , I realize that Politifact incorrectly rated a claim which states that ObamaCare will cost exactly what it now will cost as false.

It is in fact my entire point- Politifact was wrong.  In fact, Politifact and other "fact checking" organizations are frequently wrong. This is because they look at the "facts" as they're instructed to look at them, like the CBO will score them, and not at the real facts, to wit:

LOL!

do you know how much i enjoy your posts, Paul. seriously. this one made my day.

i grew up with a narcissist.  your line of reasoning is deeply familiar to me.

The fact that a claim that Politifact rated as false in 2012 is now known to be true has nothing to do with me being awesome and right. 

[djAdvocate]

Jan 30, 2015 17:20:50 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jan 30, 2015 14:55:30 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

LOL!

do you know how much i enjoy your posts, Paul. seriously. this one made my day.

i grew up with a narcissist.  your line of reasoning is deeply familiar to me.

The fact that a claim that Politifact rated as false in 2012 is now known to be true has nothing to do with me being awesome and right. 

I am not a big fan of Politifact either, but I find them far more reliable than most of our esteemed posters.

for that reason, I would NEVER put a link to Politifact if they disagreed with me.  NEVER. 

but it is what I like about you.  you don't give a crap about how things look to others.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jan 30, 2015 17:55:23 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 30, 2015 17:20:50 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

The fact that a claim that Politifact rated as false in 2012 is now known to be true has nothing to do with me being awesome and right. 

I am not a big fan of Politifact either, but I find them far more reliable than most of our esteemed posters.

for that reason, I would NEVER put a link to Politifact if they disagreed with me.  NEVER. 

but it is what I like about you.  you don't give a crap about how things look to others.

I actually like that about him too.

[Deleted]

Jan 30, 2015 14:56:36 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 29, 2015 20:58:17 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Link to the information in red, please...

(ETA: and not to where Politifact says it, but to the actual raw source)

sorry, but that is not actually a requirement of the board.  look it up yourself. 

Never said it was a requirement. I did say "please" though.

For the record, I did a little hunting, and, they did say that... in 2011. 4 years ago.

It's been a few years since then though, and numbers have been adjusted since then to reflect changes in Obamacare since then, and new understanding of the actual impacts of Obamacare.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jan 30, 2015 17:55:23 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 30, 2015 17:20:50 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

The fact that a claim that Politifact rated as false in 2012 is now known to be true has nothing to do with me being awesome and right. 

I am not a big fan of Politifact either, but I find them far more reliable than most of our esteemed posters.

for that reason, I would NEVER put a link to Politifact if they disagreed with me.  NEVER. 

but it is what I like about you.  you don't give a crap about how things look to others.

The fact that 'others' don't see things the way they are is not actually of concern to me, and so no- I don't give a crap about how things look to others. I give a crap about the truth, and I'll post it- and if others somehow miss the point- that says more about them than it does my post.

[deziloooooo]

Jan 29, 2015 20:51:25 GMT -5 damnotagain said:

Jan 29, 2015 20:45:06 GMT -5 dondub said:

Maybe we should starve them to death so it doesn't bother you so much.

People have been dying for a long time ! What's changed ? Outside of now you have to pay a tax

If you starve in America today your just stupid. 

That statement is just plain out wrong and what is stupid, IMHO, is your statement....{   Sorry, will take back the stupid..that you are not , I was just playing off of your own words..You be a smart ass so will I..} but you are wrong as far as your statement..If you consider there is almost always peanut butter and bread and stuff one can get out of the trash bins your probably correct ..

That there are people still living on the street, shelters cars  and many are juveniles, kids..that is true too...You also don't consider the thousand of mentally handicape who at one time were institutionalized...usually in State homes...They have been on the street now for many decades ..


That doesn't mean those folks have stopped being among us..all of a sudden  have been miraculously cured...Many of these folks are vets ...just a additional layer of disadvantaged folks we didn't have before..still young but from their experiences during their service  they do have problems..major ones...To many deployments because there just aren't enough in house personnel to go around with all our commitments..multiple tours.  Really screwing up the grunt as well as the grunts family. So many today are  reservist, National Guard ..almost all the support units..transportation, medical quartermaster and such..reservist. In the past rarely called up unless desperate times..today...seems it is a automatic happening..and also multiple deployments and many of them have major problems as mentioned earlier and they never considered themselves full professionals...their professions were their civilien callings.

Just because they were all volunteers , no more drafts..

{ a one year tour, in my mind does not make a individual a true professional yet...I want to see a good tour and a reup...a real commitment, then I feel we have a 100% professional soldier ..} .

and with the smaller forces we have and it seems most are all in favor of that..

{ I am not...less hi, hi expensive  as can be new weapons systems and less feet on the ground..we need , IMHO, more boots on the ground, light infantry, special operation types ...seems that is the type of enemy we will be seeing for the foreseeable future..not brigades of armor and waves of jet fighters and massed artillery..}

more chance many of these people become homeless..have mental problems...end up on the street..It's not a guess , it is a fact..in fact they are meeting as groups in many metropolitin areas...I have done volunteer work at local VA hospital..less know actually but age catching up with me..and I have met so many of these guys and woman too..most young...and on the street...so are they hungry...many of them are and many are not really aware there are organizations available they can seek help..so yep..many are hungry...cold ....disadvantaged...

[dondub]

Being the last Friday of the month, the food bank was hoppin' today. Many new faces and most of the regulars.