[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

At least you're now admitting that it will kill people.

What, you think Sarah Palin was kidding about those death panels?

[ebuddy]

Have you signed up yet, besson3c? Millions of unhealthy people were counting on you.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Originally Posted by Laminar 

<3 you guys.

but seriously, I have no desire to get into a debate about social Darwinism in Africa.

[laughingbunny]

this is really interesting, it seems like Obama is not only good with politics and the shut it down thing, he seem to have good understanding with games too

Obama Compares Health Insurance To Buying A PlayStation

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Have you signed up yet, besson3c? Millions of unhealthy people were counting on you.

I will at least get a quote once I can, and will eventually happily sign up too.

[The Final Dakar]

I thought you were leaving the country...? or are you guys joking around?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I thought you were leaving the country...? or are you guys joking around?

We are leaving, but it won't be until summer 2014 or so. Things have been complicated by the immigration processing (CIC) strike in Canada.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Was my question unclear?

You asked if I had a problem with Dakar's commentary.

No, I don't have a problem with Dakar's commentary. In order for me to have a problem with Dakar's commentary, Dakar has to provide commentary. Could you point me to where the commentary in response to my post resides on the last page? I'm still just seeing gifs and lolcats. Unless, that is, you count lolcats and gifs as commentary, in which case I do have a problem with Dakar's commentary.

In all of this, not a single one of you answered a single one of my questions.

I'll give it another shot, and condense my questions to just one:

What is the justification for congress, big business, unions, and the president being exempt from the ACA while the rest of us are not?

I'm interested to know because A) The democrats champion themselves as a party of equality, one that strives to reduce the striation between upper and lower classes and B) The democrats have created a government enforced striation by picking and choosing their friends that don't need to play by the rules the rest of us play by. This seems to escape quite a few people, and the psychology of it perplexes me as they (presumably) have a vested stake in how all of this turns out, considering it is their healthcare on the line. I'm just curious as to the justification for this, but no one seems to be able to turn anything more then a lolcat or gif out.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

This is an honest, non-snarky question and statement.

Are you cranky right now? You seem cranky.

I just find it extremely disturbing to encounter such a lack of interest in honest debate about something that will likely determine the shape and ultimately the length of the rest of our lives.

Me? I'm concerned, and I come to the PWL (among other places) to express my views and see other's take on it. I don't know....Can't seem to find a lolcat to express my views.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

You asked if I had a problem with Dakar's commentary.

No, I don't have a problem with Dakar's commentary. In order for me to have a problem with Dakar's commentary, Dakar has to provide commentary. Could you point me to where the commentary in response to my post resides on the last page? I'm still just seeing gifs and lolcats. Unless, that is, you count lolcats and gifs as commentary, in which case I do have a problem with Dakar's commentary.

Do you have a problem with Turtle dropping in nothing but the laughing face in mocking certain posts/people?

I don't mind your minding these sorts of posts, I just think we should call out all of this, not just those who do it with viewpoints we disagree with. If you are sore about Dakar's response to your post where you said that the Senate was responsible for the shutdown, sorry, you were just flat-out wrong on that.

What is the justification for congress, big business, unions, and the president being exempt from the ACA while the rest of us are not?

I don't know about Congress, but businesses already carry their own private health insurance plans, and aren't eligible for the subsidies anyway.

The big benefactors of the ACA are lower income people, and indirectly the rest of us for increasing the pool of people with insurance (which should lead to lower prices across-the-board). Come January 1, 2014 though, it will be business as usual for those that already have their own insurance policies. Nothing will change for the employers/employees who have no plans to give up their insurance plans.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Do you have a problem with Turtle dropping in nothing but the laughing face in mocking certain posts/people?

So if i mind Dakar's commentary, I should mind turtle's as well right. Ok, fair enough. Can you point me to Dakar's commentary?

And usually, bess, turtle just does that to you which I really don't have an issue with. No offense man, but I can't remember a time I've seen you honestly debate something without ignoring the questions and responses posed to you. For instance, you still haven't pointed me to Dakar's commentary (which you've equated to turtle's). Maybe we can come to terms and get some understanding of each other, but I don't want to exert that effort when it becomes obvious I'm the only one making that effort.

I don't know about Congress, but businesses already carry their own private health insurance plans, and aren't eligible for the subsidies anyway.

The big benefactors of the ACA are lower income people, and indirectly the rest of us for increasing the pool of people with insurance (which should lead to lower prices across-the-board). Come January 1, 2014 though, it will be business as usual for those that already have their own insurance policies. Nothing will change for the employers/employees.

So why do business, unions, and congress need to be exempt? What is the justification? If nothing will change, why are they exempt and why did they fight so hard to become exempt?

If all things are equal, lets make all things equal right? Why am I shouldering the burden for lower income people when I can barely make it work myself, while unions and congress sit pretty by taking my tax dollars and buying premium plans?

So now the average taxpayer pays for both lower income people and funds Congress's cadillac plans with tax money?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I just find it extremely disturbing to encounter such a lack of interest in honest debate about something that will likely determine the shape and ultimately the length of the rest of our lives.

This thread was primarily about the shutdown and then it sort of evolved into the debt ceiling too, since they started to combine. Then it evolved into talk about the debt ceiling and whether it should be raised ever again.

Then badkosh said Africans deserved to die from unclean water so I graphically rolled my eyes. Somehow I crossed the line here.

If you're talking ACA, in you're in the wrong thread; You might have better luck here. Or start a new thread. It'd be timely considering open enrollment has started and the website seems to be a piece of shit.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

IMe? I'm concerned, and I come to the PWL (among other places) to express my views and see other's take on it. I don't know....Can't seem to find a lolcat to express my views, maybe you and dakar could help me find one.

Done.


Any animated gif is now considered a lolcat? Are you 70 years old?

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Do you have a problem with Turtle dropping in nothing but the laughing face in mocking certain posts/people?

That's a good reminder. I'll have to keep an eye I don't fall too far down the hole and become a parody of a poster. That said, wasn't my previous usage in the thread addendums to news I posted or my own opinion, rather than vacuous commentary?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

So if i mind Dakar's commentary, I should mind turtle's as well right. Ok, fair enough. Can you point me to Dakar's commentary?

Dakar's commentary is pretty clear, I think, by his choice of pictures.

So why do business, unions, and congress need to be exempt? What is the justification? If nothing will change, why are they exempt and why did they fight so hard to become exempt?

If all things are equal, lets make all things equal right?

It doesn't look like members of congress are exempt:

Fact Check: Did President Obama exempt members of Congress from Obamacare? – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

I don't understand what you are getting at with businesses. The ACA is an *individual* mandate, not a business mandate. Businesses can continue to provide whatever insurance they want.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

And usually, bess, turtle just does that to you which I really don't have an issue with. No offense man, but I can't remember a time I've seen you honestly debate something without ignoring the questions and responses posed to you. For instance, you still haven't pointed me to Dakar's commentary (which you've equated to turtle's). Maybe we can come to terms and get some understanding of each other, but I don't want to exert that effort when it becomes obvious I'm the only one making that effort.

Turtle often does it to me, but that is happenstance. The bottom line is that he is unwilling to control his emotions to come up with less trolly responses, because if he could it would be rational to believe that he would, because a more ebuddy-like response would be far more effective than the effectiveness of these sorts of responses to me, which basically come across as "okay, this guy has a weird problem in wanting to pick a fight with me - moving on". He would most likely do this to anybody that impacts his emotions the way I do, and I'm sure he's done this to other left wing posters anyway, although I'm admittedly lousy about mentally documenting MacNN stuff.

As far as ignoring questions/responses, we all do this to some extent, for various reasons. Right now you are ignoring having your argument that the Senate was responsible for the shutdown being called out, but that's okay. I don't think I do this to Abe levels.

As far as Dakar's commentary goes, I honestly don't understand why you don't think that his choice of pictures is his commentary?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

That's a good reminder. I'll have to keep an eye I don't fall too far down the hole and become a parody of a poster. That said, wasn't my previous usage in the thread addendums to news I posted or my own opinion, rather than vacuous commentary?

I'm not sure what usage you are referring to, but if we want to go after vacuous commentary, it comes in many forms that we see from a wide range of posters, including a number of my own.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

This thread was primarily about the shutdown and then it sort of evolved into the debt ceiling too, since they started to combine. Then it evolved into talk about the debt ceiling and whether it should be raised ever again.

I figured it was time to try to put the debate back on track. At the end of my post i even whited out /rerail. Considering one of the main points of contention was the ACA, I figured this would be appropriate. I'll start a new thread to address my conern.

Then badkosh said Africans deserved to die from unclean water so I graphically rolled my eyes. Somehow I crossed the line here.

Apologies, Dakar. I took your post as a response to mine. No, I don't have a problem with that in response to that. Sorry for the confusion.

I knew one more was coming.

Any animated gif is now considered a lolcat? Are you 70 years old?

I don't really put much into differences between the two.

That's a good reminder. I'll have to keep an eye I don't fall too far down the hole and become a parody of a poster. That said, wasn't my previous usage in the thread addendums to news I posted or my own opinion, rather than vacuous commentary?

Considering how you intended it's use and how I erroneously perceived it's use to be a direct response to me asking what I feel are important questions, I withdraw my complaint .

[besson3c]

Snow-i: hug Dakar.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I figured it was time to try to put the debate back on track. At the end of my post i even whited out /rerail. Considering one of the main points of contention was the ACA, I figured this would be appropriate. I'll start a new thread to address my concern.

The ACA was always tangential to the discussion. This thread was whether the shut down would happen and from there whether you agreed with it or what would happen, etc.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Apologies, Dakar. I took your post as a response to mine. No, I don't have a problem with that in response to that. Sorry for the confusion.

Things can get hairy in the forum format, but usually an unquoted response will either apply to the OP or the post directly before it.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I knew one more was coming.

Considering you asked, yeah.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Turtle often does it to me, but that is happenstance. The bottom line is that he is unwilling to control his emotions to come up with less trolly responses, because if he could it would be rational to believe that he would, because a more ebuddy-like response would be far more effective than the effectiveness of these sorts of responses to me, which basically come across as "okay, this guy has a weird problem in wanting to pick a fight with me - moving on". He would most likely do this to anybody that impacts his emotions the way I do, and I'm sure he's done this to other left wing posters anyway, although I'm admittedly lousy about mentally documenting MacNN stuff.

All good man. But just remember, for every turtle post you have to deal with I have to deal with ironknee, hyteckit, and Shortcut. I feel your pain but unfortunately it's one we all must deal with.

As far as ignoring questions/responses, we all do this to some extent, for various reasons. Right now you are ignoring having your argument that the Senate was responsible for the shutdown being called out, but that's okay. I don't think I do this to Abe levels.

No, I don't think so either. But i didn't feel like arguing something that ebuddy covered quite well with how the government actually gets shut down. I guess I just reject the premise the House should take the fall for administration failures (including the failure to submit a budget for almost half a decade). The House forced a shutdown by doing something Obama already should have done, years ago. The Senate did not like the House's replacement for Obama's failure, and we have a shutdown. I doubt we're going to come to terms with it so I left it alone. The difference here though, is that debate topic subsided. My frustration comes with responses to posts that omit key questions, points, or logical statements for topics still actively being discussed. For instance, when I asked you to point out Dakar's commentary, I was looking for A) A post I missed somehow, B) further explanation for why my questions illicited a trollish response (this didn't actually happen) or C) Some other explanation of Dakar's supposed "commentary." Before even acknowledging my position, you were on about turtle doing the same thing. My questions, which I'd still like to discuss, go unanswered and my gut response is to think "I didn't get a response, because they don't have one or aren't interested in formulating one and thus aren't going to give anyone else an opportunity to respond by filling the page with pictures" and that's what frustrated me. It was a misunderstanding, so no harm no foul.

As far as Dakar's commentary goes, I honestly don't understand why you don't think that his choice of pictures is his commentary?

I just don't want to see this place degrade anymore by becoming a hotbed for picture based trolling, which is what I interpreted Dakar's post as. He's clarified who it was meant for, and it was not for my post asking several questions.


But no, I did not think that would be an appropriate response to my post. It wasn't response to my post, however, so consider me satisfied.

dakar, Here's your pass to use that gif one time on me without me saying a word

[subego]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Apologies, Dakar. I took your post as a response to mine. No, I don't have a problem with that in response to that. Sorry for the confusion.

I withdraw my cranky accusation.

[andi*pandi]

I'm so glad you all worked this out.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I'm so glad you all worked this out.

Healthcare for everyone!

[laughingbunny]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I just find it extremely disturbing to encounter such a lack of interest in honest debate about something that will likely determine the shape and ultimately the length of the rest of our lives.

Me? I'm concerned, and I come to the PWL (among other places) to express my views and see other's take on it. I don't know....Can't seem to find a lolcat to express my views.

hum...I don't mean to be out of place, but what does PWL mean? (don't tell me it means "this forum", "internet" )

[subego]

It actually is this forum (subforum). The Politcal/War Lounge.

The "War" part goes back to the (now over) wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, so it doesn't make a whole lot of sense any more.

[laughingbunny]

.................................................I see......................orz

[subego]

The main idea is we keep the more contentious subjects in here. All the arguing and yelling about politics, religion, etc., used to be in the regular Lounge, and people got sick of it.

[laughingbunny]

I see, I like the political lounge the most, there's a lot of content, even though I don't understand all, but it explains things

(I'll try to post less and not degrade here with too many questions =) )

[subego]

No need. Questions are good. Even seemingly simple ones.

[laughingbunny]

So is this the whole story:

first there's obama care, then the other party republican don't want to support it, then the government shut down, then it's not good for the economics, people asks obama the negotiate, but he says no. In the end if the government don't stop shutting down there will be a economic break down. so republican says ok.

am I getting it right?

[subego]

That's not a bad way to put it.

[laughingbunny]

and this:

For whatever reason they seem to think declaring World War III on the country's credit rating won't help the middle and lower class.

Why would credit rating help middle and lower class, isn't is not a good thing?

Please correct me if I interpret things wrong

[subego]

I'm not 100% sure I understand you.

The US government having a good credit rating basically helps everybody who's a US citizen, regardless of how much (or how little) money they have. Pretty much anyone who likes the US wants it to have a good credit rating.

If the shutdown had continued a little longer, we'd no longer be able to make payments on our debt. This would sink the country's credit rating, just like your own credit rating gets sunk if you stop paying off your credit cards or mortgage. The same way a good credit rating for the country helps everyone, a bad credit rating hurts everyone in the US. Rich and poor alike.

As is shown by the Republicans backing down, they felt it was more important to maintain our credit rating rather than have their demands met.

Their demands go back to that debt we're paying off. They (correctly) say we're spending too much, and that it's the middle and lower class who's getting stuck with all this debt. Regardless of how much the upper class are able to pay, most of the country are people who are not upper class. Which means those middle and lower class people are on the hook for a lot. Unless something changes, they won't ever be able to pay it off, we stop paying off our "credit cards" as it were, and our credit rating sinks anyway. That's why the Republicans felt the need to resort to such extreme measures.

The issue is there aren't enough people in government who agree, and they (correctly IMO) didn't think it was worth it to follow through on their threats.

Does that clear things up any?

[laughingbunny]

Why spend when they don't have enough money, if people only spent what they earn then there won't be debt, the republicans would have no demands.

[Shaddim]

Out of the mouths of bunnies...

[laughingbunny]

Ok, I just got more in depth knowledge of it, I think the Republicans are not thinking enough about the society. If the lower class doesn't have enough to spend, even health care can't be taken care of, and the rich have too much, too much difference between the two class, then the society will become very unstable. Because rich people don't like to change, but if people are too poor then they want change, in the end it might cause civilization.

[laughingbunny]

But if the benefits are too good, people will become very lazy, I live in Canada now, we have very good health care and every benefit people should get, in some parts the economy is so slow, because no one wants to work and they don't need to work too hard.

so the balance between the two is very important, is Obama right or wrong can't be measured today, it can only show in about 5 to 10 years.

[laughingbunny]

Not civilization, revolution( typo)

[Shaddim]

The problem is, the rich don't have enough money to improve everyone's quality of life. Sure, you could strip all the resources of the wealthiest 5% of people, but it wouldn't make an appreciable difference over time.

Also, you run into the problem of "the poor" generally not being able to handle finances very well, as evidenced by people who inherit or win large sums of cash and their eventual bankruptcies. Those "lucky few" will return back to their original state, being broke. Self-made millionaires think differently than regular people, much like folks who are gifted with the ability to lose weight and build muscle as easily as most people breathe, it's a specific mental state dealing with self-discipline. This isn't about luck or chance, it's about habits and focus. Wealth migrates towards those with the ability to acquire it.

Revolution doesn't change the game, it never has, it only resets the board temporarily. Over a relatively short period of time the resources in question will gravitate back to where they were before.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Also, you run into the problem of "the poor" generally not being able to handle finances very well, as evidenced by people who inherit or win large sums of cash and their eventual bankruptcies.

Those people are the extreme dumbasses though. Everybody here and everybody else with a semblance of intellect would avoid bankruptcy.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Those people are the extreme dumbasses though. Everybody here and everybody else with a semblance of intellect would avoid bankruptcy.

The data does not support that.

Similar research from the National Endowment for Financial Education estimates that 70 percent of people who had unexpectedly come into large sums of money ended up broke within seven years.

People become accustomed to living in a particular way and no amount of money will change who they are or their bad habits. Typically, the money gives out or they do. My parents, bless their hearts, burn through money like few others I've ever seen, they simply can't manage it. I had to work out a budget for them and essentially work it out as an allowance, but in the end they're happier after I imposed limitations and boundaries.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by laughingbunny 

For whatever reason they seem to think declaring World War III on the country's credit rating won't help the middle and lower class.

Why would credit rating help middle and lower class, isn't is not a good thing?

Please correct me if I interpret things wrong

There was no World War 3 being declared on the credit rating. Basically the US was about to stop making payments on it's loans for a short time. And some company was about to say "hey we are going to lower your credit rating hahaha". That would have meant that in order to borrow money in the future they would have had to pay higher interest. The thing is they are the number one financier of their loans; which means they would have to pay higher interest to themselves... Doesn't make any sense does it? Thats OK it's not suppose to. Ok it's a little more complicated than that, but the jist is it's all make-believe and it only matters as much as they make it matter; the house controls the game and always wins no matter the outcome.

You see it's all just part of the exhaustive political theater staged by the government and their little passionate yet friendly chess game (as exampled here) with the worlds billionaires to terrorize the citizenry. You see the US government is what we call a 'Terrorist Organization'. A terrorist organization is defined as a group who uses fear mongering, and terror, to terrorize and coerce people into supporting its objective at the expense of the people. Being the largest most powerful crime syndicate the world has ever seen, the US government realizes that modern forms of psychological terrorism are more productive than using means of physical violence, which would be just too obvious.

And this, is why you saw people running around screaming like the end of the world that the government was shut down and we were about to default... and it's all "soooo craaazy !" to grid lock congress, and "Oh the gov employees aren't getting paid!". And yet if you hadn't followed the media during that time you nor anybody would have ever noticed the government not shutting down and the world about to end... Except the large group of government employees who went to, Ill just say the Caribbean, for paid vacation.

[subego]

I have to challenge you right off the bat.

How are you assured we would default "for a short time"?

[Shaddim]

As I've said many times, it's all theater and misdirection. The only thing that truly matters is what you choose to do. That's it. Nothing else will change your position or your perception.

[subego]

To whom are you responding?

[Shaddim]

chup

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It doesn't look like members of congress are exempt:

Fact Check: Did President Obama exempt members of Congress from Obamacare? – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Your CNN Fact Check says the claim is "in dispute", not that it doesn't look like members of Congress are exempt. Now for why there's absolutely nothing disputable about the claim;

Per Section 1312 of the ACA, as part of Senator Chuck Grassley's "good enough for thee, good enough for me" amendment -- all of Congress and staffers must either get their health care coverage from a health plan created by Obamacare or through an Obamacare exchange. The problem is, Obamacare exchanges do not allow tax-exempt employer contributions to health care premiums. The only subsidies available to individuals on Obamacare are the premium tax credits for individuals who are under 400% of the federal poverty line. The concern of Congresspeople regarding "brain drain" among staffers subjected to the same law as you and me is that the overwhelming majority of these staffers are over 400% of the federal poverty line. ($46k for an individual) Modifications made to Grassley's amendment means Congress and aides can receive tax-exempt contributions from their employer regardless of income. How big is this contribution? Congress and staff receive no less than 75% of their insurance subsidized by their employer. You can "fact-check" all you want, that's an exemption plain and simple. It is one set of rules for you and a different set of rules for them.

[BadKosh]

A lawsuit concerning this has been given a go ahead.

Bombshell: Federal judge suddenly green-lights lawsuit that could stop Obamacare in its tracks | Mail Online

[laughingbunny]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

The problem is, the rich don't have enough money to improve everyone's quality of life. Sure, you could strip all the resources of the wealthiest 5% of people, but it wouldn't make an appreciable difference over time.

Also, you run into the problem of "the poor" generally not being able to handle finances very well, as evidenced by people who inherit or win large sums of cash and their eventual bankruptcies. Those "lucky few" will return back to their original state, being broke. Self-made millionaires think differently than regular people, much like folks who are gifted with the ability to lose weight and build muscle as easily as most people breathe, it's a specific mental state dealing with self-discipline. This isn't about luck or chance, it's about habits and focus. Wealth migrates towards those with the ability to acquire it.

Revolution doesn't change the game, it never has, it only resets the board temporarily. Over a relatively short period of time the resources in question will gravitate back to where they were before.

True, the bad financial state of the poor is not the responsibility of wealthy people, I guess the world will always stay the same in the core even though the surface might change for a short while

[laughingbunny]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

There was no World War 3 being declared on the credit rating. Basically the US was about to stop making payments on it's loans for a short time. And some company was about to say "hey we are going to lower your credit rating hahaha". That would have meant that in order to borrow money in the future they would have had to pay higher interest. The thing is they are the number one financier of their loans; which means they would have to pay higher interest to themselves... Doesn't make any sense does it? Thats OK it's not suppose to. Ok it's a little more complicated than that, but the jist is it's all make-believe and it only matters as much as they make it matter; the house controls the game and always wins no matter the outcome.

You see it's all just part of the exhaustive political theater staged by the government and their little passionate yet friendly chess game (as exampled here) with the worlds billionaires to terrorize the citizenry. You see the US government is what we call a 'Terrorist Organization'. A terrorist organization is defined as a group who uses fear mongering, and terror, to terrorize and coerce people into supporting its objective at the expense of the people. Being the largest most powerful crime syndicate the world has ever seen, the US government realizes that modern forms of psychological terrorism are more productive than using means of physical violence, which would be just too obvious.

And this, is why you saw people running around screaming like the end of the world that the government was shut down and we were about to default... and it's all "soooo craaazy !" to grid lock congress, and "Oh the gov employees aren't getting paid!". And yet if you hadn't followed the media during that time you nor anybody would have ever noticed the government not shutting down and the world about to end... Except the large group of government employees who went to, Ill just say the Caribbean, for paid vacation.

Hahaha............hahahahahahahahahahahaha, the way you said it is so funny!!!
Ok, so the whole thing is just exaggerated? I thought Obama and the republicans are really beating each other up, especially from other country's view, it look like something serious is going on. An upgrade and serious version of high school drama

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

The problem is, the rich don't have enough money to improve everyone's quality of life.

Define "improve"