WSJ Chief Economist: 75% of Obamacare Costs Will Fall on Backs of Those Making Less Than $120K a Year

[Ducbutter]

Originally Posted by Sexyeccentric1

LovingK,

The food snaps cut backs are not being affected by the new passed health care law. Our wonderful Rick Perry and some other Texas members of congress voted to cut SNAP by $33 billion back in April. See Link to SNAP benefit cuts

Just like all the other wonderful things Repubs are doing to people of low income

Quote: Texas' poor performance, which is lower than the national average of 1 in 7, means missed meals for children and missed dollars for the state. Texas families can find nearby summer meal sites and more information by calling 2-1-1 or through the Texas Department of Agriculture's

See also: http://www.cppp.org/subcategory.php?cid=3&scid=5

See also Ryan Budget Republicans Would Slash SNAP Funding

This is not even closely related to the new health care law and most of these cuts were implemented last year and also this year.

And.. as a matter of fact I do have an idea, being that I have family that are disabled and on SS and medicare, medicaid and also those who are on the SNAP food benefits program.

A pretty cursory glance at the second of those links demonstrates that participation in SNAP and it's projected cost as a % of GDP are both trending downwards in fairly strong fashion. In light of that are you asserting that it's funding should either remain at current levels or increase? That makes no sense.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by Ducbutter

Dude, you trash Fox News and then you reference CNN and the Wash. Post as unbiased sources?
That's hilarious.
Couldn't find any Chris Mathews?

I again call bullshit on your claim that you're not a right-winger.

Originally Posted by Ducbutter

A pretty cursory glance at the second of those links demonstrates that participation in SNAP and it's projected cost as a % of GDP are both trending downwards in fairly strong fashion. In light of that are you asserting that it's funding should either remain at current levels or increase? That makes no sense.

The graphs indicate nothing relative to the status in Texas - which is where SE's comment was centered. I find your interpretation of the graphs totally misleading. Crap, if you will.

[Ducbutter]

Originally Posted by Doove

I again call bullshit on your claim that you're not a right-winger.

Ahh, that's what that cryptic response meant.
I'll cop to fiscal conservative, but I'd say being pro gay marriage, anti death penalty, being in favor of a well run safety net and pro drug legalization puts me pretty squarely in the middle. Certainly not right wing. But I guess when your as far to the left as you are, everything looks right wing. So be it. In the words of Tom Petty, "You believe what you wanna believe"
I'm assuming that since I mentioned Fox you think I'm defending them and that I am branded a right winger, but if you look closely I did no such thing. I only noted that the poster implied that Fox was biased (they are) and held up CNN and the Wash. Post as unbiased sources (they're not).


The graphs indicate nothing relative to the status in Texas - which is where SE's comment was centered. I find your interpretation of the graphs totally misleading. Crap, if you will.

That's cute, but not clever. The linked article was titled Ryan budget would slash SNAP budget by 134 billion over 10 years. Last I checked, Ryan doesn't draw up budgets for Texas. If the discussion was solely about the issue as it relates to Texas, why include an article about national federal budget proposal?
Besides, I said it was a cursory look.

[chefnerd]

Originally Posted by Ducbutter

Dude, you trash Fox News and then you reference CNN and the Wash. Post as unbiased sources?
That's hilarious.
Couldn't find any Chris Mathews?

Well, let's see. First I did not post CNN as an unbiased source. I posted it as an example, if you actually read and comprehend the sentence prior to the link, of an opposing opinion that one can find on the web if one searches. As far as the Fox comment, most EMPLOYEES are not going to go against the opinion of their EMPLOYER if they wish to keep their job. The point of the comment was that FOX's source was questionable and since he is an EMPLOYEE his opinion is not exactly UNBIASED. Also, I take it that you did not bother to read the Post article to find the data source from which they based their opinion. If you think you can comprehend the data in it, here is the link to the report from Kaiser Healthcare that they got the data from.
http://ehbs.kff.org/pdf/2011/8225.pdf
And BTW, I put Chris Mathews in the same category as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Rachel Maddow, and the extremely pompous and arrogant Keith Olberman who was just as incompetent and arrogant when he did sports news in Los Angeles.
And oh yeah, I will take the Post over a news company that got the court to agree they had the constitutional right of free speech to post anything they wanted and label it as news -- EVEN IF IT IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE!

[Ducbutter]

True that Moore is essentially an employee of Murdoch but I know there are other employees of his on Fox who I'm sure go against Murdoch's opinions consistently and they still have their jobs, ie Alan Colmes, Juan Williams, Geraldo. Seems plausible to me that Moore would have the lattitude to say what he thinks based on that. To me it reads like an indictment of Fox, but if that's not what your saying, mea culpa.
As for the Post I believe they're the paper that an operative for Media Matters claimed he fed stories and talking points to and they lap it up like milk. But you're right, I made an assumption based on my past experiences with they're reporting. No excuses. I jumped the gun.
I'm sure I can comprehend and digest the data in the Kaiser report even if you're not. I doubt I'm gonna enjoy it though. I'll get back to you.
I'm with you on those "journalists" however, but I confess to only hearing clips of Limbaugh and Beck. That was enough.

[CuteOldGuy]

Kayla, it's simple. The libs think that government should be taking care of everyone. Private charities simply get in the government's way. Helping a friend is doing the job government should do.

Of course, they believe that if something is worth doing, the government should do it. That's why end of life counseling will be monitored by the IRS.

So don't worry about your friend. It's just a short time until the government has complete control. Then it will all be good, we'll all be prosperous and happy. It will be a beautiful world. Thank you, government!

[cptjohnstone]

Originally Posted by Doove

Do you have any idea how self contradictory your whole post is?

I mean, really. What a load of crap.

speaking of crap

[Doove]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Kayla, it's simple. The libs think that government should be taking care of everyone. Private charities simply get in the government's way. Helping a friend is doing the job government should do.

I think you need to re-read her comment. She was bitching because government wasn't doing enough. As she was ranting about how it's not the government's job.

Stunning, i know.

That's why end of life counseling will be monitored by the IRS.

[Whirlaway]

Under ObamacareTax the wealthy will still have their platinum HealthCare plans with access to the best. Doctors and treatments. The poor will get more access and more free HealthCare, paid for by tax credits. But under ObamacareTax, the middle class will see their access limited, their choices limited, rationing, and an overall decline. The middleclass will pay for the freebies passed on to others.

Again Obama and the Democrats fuck working class Americans