Obama Care vs Republicans

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Adak

<snip>
Frankly, I don't believe there's a ghost of a chance of working with the likes
of Nancy "food stamps are a great stimulus to the economy" Pelosi, ...<snip>

I realize Pelosi drives some people nuts... maybe that's just her job
... or maybe she's the scorpion ... it's her nature, and she just cain't hep it.

In any case, Adak, you've used the epithet several times now,
so I assume you believe Pelosi's remark is not true.
But before getting too gleeful in your assumptions, there is this:

Wikipedia:

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),[1] formerly and still popularly known as
the Food Stamp program, provides financial assistance for purchasing food
to low- and no-income people living in the U.S.<snip>

According to Keynesian economic theory, like other forms of government spending,
SNAP, by putting money into people's hands, increases aggregate demand and stimulates the economy.
In congressional testimony given in July 2008, Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody's Economy.com,
provided estimates of the one-year fiscal multiplier effect for several fiscal policy options, and found that
a temporary increase in SNAP was the most effective, with an estimated multiplier of 1.73.[39]

In 2011, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack gave a slightly higher estimate:
"Every dollar of SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in the economy in terms of economic activity."[40]

Vilsack's estimate was based on a 2002 George W. Bush-era USDA study which found that
"Ultimately, the additional $5 billion of FSP (Food Stamp Program) expenditures triggered
an increase in total economic activity (production, sales, and value of shipments)
of $9.2 billion and an increase in jobs of 82,100," or $1.84 stimulus for every dollar spent.[41]
>snip>

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

I realize Pelosi drives some people nuts... maybe that's just her job
... or maybe she's the scorpion ... it's her nature, and she just cain't hep it.

In any case, Adak, you've used the epithet several times now,
so I assume you believe Pelosi's remark is not true.
But before getting too gleeful in your assumptions, there is this:

Wikipedia:

Fortunately, you know the Keynesian model of economics, has been roundly put into the trash bin, as bunk.

Wealth comes from adding something to our economy, that we didn't have before. Maybe a company builds a better surgical robot, maybe it's a more desirable "smart" phone. Maybe it's a better elevator.

The goal should be that people should find their way in our economy, so they don't need to rely on welfare. The gov't can assist in that endeavor! Relying on welfare is just riding on the backs of those who have been working.

Your numbers make it sound like we're getting some real benefit, but consider that for every dollar the private sector is taxed for welfare, only 60 cents or so, actually goes back out to welfare. The system is a bureaucracy, not a volunteer charity. All those social welfare workers, the people who make the stamps/cards, etc., all have to be paid.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Adak

<snip>
Your numbers make it sound like we're getting some real benefit,...

Adak, once again you have diverted off to talking about "wealth", "goal", "taxes" etc.
That's either a debating tactic, denial, habit, O/C, or whatever ?

We started with Pelosi's comment about food stamps being a stimulus to the economy.

It's very simple...
When $ is spent on food in a local food store, it is income to the store.
When the store has income, it spends $ on employees, supplies, advertising, maintenance, and profit to the owners.
When people don't have $ to spend in the local food store, the store goes out of business.
That is the local economy.

When the government gives low income people $ 1.00, they spend it in the food store,
and it's employees and suppliers and advertising firms and contractors
and investors, each in turn spends portions of that $1 generating the $ 1.84 in the other expenditures.
That is the stimulus to both the (local and national)economy.

So, Pelosi was right... Right ?

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Adak

Fortunately, you know the Keynesian model of economics, has been roundly put into the trash bin, as bunk.

By the particular school of economic thought which stood and stands in opposition to it and which created the phantom economics of the global crash.

There are many economists who still consider Keynesian economics to have value.

[BigV]

Good grief.

Check this one out.

[Adak]

Gerrymandering is a very old tradition in America. Each party does it. In CA, the Democrats are the big gerrymanders, virtually ensuring a victory in every state election, goes to the Democratic candidate.

Gerrymandering was used long before there even was a Republican party.

[Adak]

Other than history, there’s no great reason employers are part
of the health-care system at all, and the law doesn’t need to keep them in it.<snip>

THAT is true!!

I'm in shock.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Bill Is A Fucking Jackass - An Analogy

Unfortunately this scenario is all too familiar to many Americans. I wouldn't want Bill in my workplace sabotaging things when he doesn't get his way. Would you?

So, imagine that the company you work for held a poll, and asked everyone if they thought it would be a good idea to put a soda machine in the break room. The poll came back, and the majority of your colleagues said “Yes”, indicating that they would like a soda machine.

Some said no, but the majority said yes. So, a week later, there’s a soda machine.

Now imagine that Bill in accounting voted against the soda machine. He has a strong hatred for caffeinated soft drinks, thinks they are bad you you, whatever. He campaigns throughout the office to get the machine removed. Well, management decides “OK, we’ll ask again” and again, the majority of people say “Yes, lets keep the soda machine.”

Bill continues to campaign, and management continues to ask the employees, and every time, the answer is in favor of the soda machine. This happens, lets say… 35 times.

Eventually, Bill says “OK, I’M NOT PROCESSING PAYROLL ANYMORE UNTIL THE SODA MACHINE IS REMOVED”, so nobody will get paid unless management removes the machine.

What should we do???

Answer: Fire Bill and get someone who will do the fucking job.
Bonus: Bill tells everyone that he was willing to “Negotiate”, to come to a solution where everyone got their payroll checks, but only so long as that negotiation capitulated to his demand to remove the soda machine.

Bill is a fucking jackass.

-Anonymous

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Bonus: Bill tells everyone that he was willing to “Negotiate”, to come to a solution where everyone got their payroll checks, but only so long as that negotiation capitulated to his demand to remove the soda machine.

Now, now. Don't make him seem so unreasonable. He's also willing to unplug the soda machine, or remove the sodas from it.

And then remove it.

[DanaC]

Excellent.

[Lamplighter]

The horrors... think of all the little soda bottles with their tops torn off,
empty and waiting to be returned to the supermarket.

[orthodoc]

This is excellent, I agree. Too bad we don't have a Queen who can and would (through her Governor-General) fire all of Congress and force a snap election, like she did in Australia. And behold, a government shutdown has never happened there again.

The 2014 elections will be interesting. Every single Republican needs to be fired.

[Happy Monkey]

The $0.84 in the $1.84 is wealth added to the economy.

And the $1.00 is food for the hungry.

If you're looking for places we've overdone it, don't look to food stamps.

[Lamplighter]

Oregon is considered a "blue state" but this is primarily because
there are 2 "ultrablue" voting areas (Portland and Eugene)
that essentially control national elections.
But the rest of the state is intensely "red",
and the GOP is well represented in the State legislature.

But poverty is spread across the state, and 15% of the 3.9 million
population fall in the legal definitions of qualifying for assistance.

This article is about sign-ups during the first 2 weeks of Obamacare:


The Oregonian
Nick Budnck
10/17/13

Oregon cuts tally of people lacking health insurance by 10 percent in two weeks

Though Oregon's health insurance exchange is not yet up and running,
the number of uninsured is already dropping thanks to new fast-track enrollment for the Oregon Health Plan.

The low-income, Medicaid-funded program has already signed up 56,000 new people,
cutting the state's number of uninsured by 10 percent, according to Oregon Health Authority officials.

Since late September the Oregon Health Authority sent out notices to 260,000 people
already enrolled in the state's food stamps program since late October.
Under the new Oregon Health Plan income eligibility rules, in 2014 individuals
must earn 138 percent of the federal poverty level or less to qualify,
as compared to the 100 percent cutoff this year.
The new cap means monthly income of $1,322 for an individual,
$1,784 for a household of two, $2,247 for a household of three, and $2,704 for a family of four.

Many of the new enrollees are likely to have pent-up health needs.
A survey of 38,000 people on the Oregon Health Plan waiting list
in 2012 found 11 percent had diabetes, 8 percent heart problems,
30 percent high blood pressure, 22 percent high cholesterol and 5 percent cancer.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Kentucky leads the way.

Beshear doesn't name names or call people out directly, but this is a brilliant implicit condemnation of the behavior of most of the Republican governors around the country.

The attitude they've taken is that since no Obamacare is better than even the best possible version of Obamacare, they should try to engineer the worst possible version of Obamacare in order to hasten its demise. As Chernyshevsky and Lenin said, "The worse, the better."

And that attitude, really, has always been one of the worst sins of political radicals of different stripes. A callous willingness to sacrifice concrete human interests in the here and now in pursuit of long-term ideological ends is a great way to make sure people end up worse off than they otherwise could be.

Beshear is trying to act like a proper public official and make things go well for people in Kentucky. Too many governors are hoping to make things go poorly and then point fingers.