Applying "truth in advertising" to obamacare

[Mark@Sea]

>>>The moderator has said we can't use the R word.

I can only say, I grew up with them, I used to be one, I know the mindset. In the absence of any other rational, fact-based reasons to hate the President as so many do, I have to assume that plays a part. The big flaw in your equation above is Obama is a hardly a socialist despite what Faux tells you. He's even a disappointment to a lot of liberals. "Socialist" has become a euphemism to some people it seems....

"In the absence of any other rational, fact-based reasons to hate the President as so many do"

Ah, okay. Lets' ignore or debase the polls because they don't support our conclusions. Lets' ignore the well-over half the country that are against a socialist making fundamental changes to our system of government because we really don't have a response to their criticisms. In fact, lets' ignore the fact that Obama got his start in the socialist party, and has appointed a bunch of socialists to positions of power.

Ralph, if thats' the best you've got, maybe instead of getting all emo on us you might re-examine your core beliefs. We can still debate, we just have to agree that facts that don't support our positions don't get "thrown under the bus". I realize that you don't have a great role model in that regard, but if you can get past that, we might make progress.

(Got one word for ya, Ralph. GOOGLE. Try googling 'debunk michael moore sicko'.)

Edited September 9, 2009 by Mark@Sea

[Guest SUNTZU]

From the Patriot Post...

[Guest H0TSH0T]

From the Patriot Post...

that's fantastic!!!!!!!

[USMCJG]

Ah, okay. Lets' ignore or debase the polls because they don't support our conclusions. Lets' ignore the well-over half the country that are against a socialist making fundamental changes to our system of government because we really don't have a response to their criticisms.

Also, I guess we should just ignore the fact that the president's approval rating was 65% when he first took office. The only explanation for his continually plummeting approval must be that more Americans have become the "R" word.

[Mark@Sea]

[Guest 3pugguy]

Here's a thought; How about we stop financially rewarding women for being unwed mothers?

It has been noted that if you pay for something, you tend to get more of it. Until the gov't, in its' infinite wisdom, decided to pay young girls for having children out of wedlock (and continuing said payments for only as long as the mother remained unwed, and the 'father' refrained from joining the household), unwed mothers were a) frowned upon by society and rare.

When the system changed their status from pariah to paycheck, the practice of having children out (way, way out) of wedlock bloomed. Nowadays hearing of very, very young girls having children in order to get that government bounty is rather common.

Fancy that...

Here is a true story: some folks I new in Texas were oil field workers. These guys made big bucks - this was in the 80s and they were taking home, on average, a grand a week.

At a party one weekend, we were talking to one of the guys and it came up the woman we thought was his wife was his girlfriend, even though they had three kids.

He said they did not get married, because she got money from the government and if they married, she would lose it! With each kid, she got an extra few hundred bucks a month - and this guy was TAKING HOME 52K plus a year!!!! In 1983/4 timeframe.

I could not believe it then, nor do I believe it now, from the perspective that someone could be so dishonest, but they knew how to work the system and did so without batting an eye.

So I agree with you - currently, there is not a downside to the behavior of having kids as a seeming method to make money.

But, I would say couple cutting the benefits along with education - cause one way or the other, we are paying it for these people's bad behaviors and see it every pay day thru taxes and then I along with many others pay a little more each April.

Edited September 9, 2009 by 3pugguy

[Guest 3pugguy]

SUNTZU - too good!

Our "Cheer Leader in Chief" will try, by doing the only thing he is good at - talking - to again gain success for his agenda on Wednesday night. Good luck, Mr President; I think you will need it, especially in 2012 at the pace you are on now.

[Guest Ralph G. Briscoe]

Here is a true story: some folks I new in Texas were oil field workers. These guys made big bucks - this was in the 80s and they were taking home, on average, a grand a week.

At a party one weekend, we were talking to one of the guys and it came up the woman we thought was his wife was his girlfriend, even though they had three kids.

He said they did not get married, because she got money from the government and if they married, she would lose it! With each kid, she got an extra few hundred bucks a month - and this guy was TAKING HOME 52K plus a year!!!! In 1983/4 timeframe.

I could not believe it then, nor do I believe it now, from the perspective that someone could be so dishonest, but they knew how to work the system and did so without batting an eye.

So I agree with you - currently, there is not a downside to the behavior of having kids as a seeming method to make money.

But, I would say couple cutting the benefits along with education - cause one way or the other, we are paying it for these people's bad behaviors and see it every pay day thru taxes and then I along with many others pay a little more each April.

Heinous allright, but Welfare was revamped in the early 90's with the intention of ending such abuses. I don't know what someone could get away with now...I'll have to research.

Best,

[Guest 3pugguy]

Heinous allright, but Welfare was revamped in the early 90's with the intention of ending such abuses. I don't know what someone could get away with now...I'll have to research.

Best,

yes, I know there were reforms, but the point was not so much details, i.e. amount of monies, but the attitude of those who would abuse a system designed as a safety net. And I think (not to speak for him) that Mark@Sea has the view, with which I agree, that if we continue to reward bad behavior, it will continue (my condensed version); again, not speaking for him- he is very good at making some points, again, with which I agree.

See ya,

B