nts to pay off unins to stop whining about Obamacare

[Jim in CT]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...for-obamacare/

Obama said Obamacare would lower healthcare costs.

Even his most staunch supporters, big labor, know that's not what's happening, so they complain.

Reports are that the White House is looking at a proposal that would offer subsidies of $20 billion a year, to help union members, and only union members, pay for Obamacare premiums.

This, from the guy who said that his election would end politics as usual?

Spence, Paul S, any liberal here...please tell me why union members deserve this subsidy, and everyone else does not? If this isn't a classic Chicago-style payoff, what the heck is it?

How long, O Lord?

[basswipe]

Its not just unions that will receive subsidies.Welfare recipients and immigrants will get up to 70%,yes I said 70%,of their healthcare paid for by the gov.Take a guess as to where that money will come from.Affordable care act my ass.

[Fishpart]

http://pages.townhall.com/campaign/t...turn-obamacare

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, Paul S, any liberal here...please tell me why union members deserve this subsidy, and everyone else does not? If this isn't a classic Chicago-style payoff, what the heck is it?

How long, O Lord?

You need to reach out a little, there is no story here.

Unions claimed their members should be exempt, the White House said no.

Your story isn't about reality, it's about a Republican lawmaker's stunt to pass a bill for a problem that doesn't exist.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...ion-96793.html

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You need to reach out a little, there is no story here.

Unions claimed their members should be exempt, the White House said no.

Your story isn't about reality, it's about a Republican lawmaker's stunt to pass a bill for a problem that doesn't exist.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...ion-96793.html

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, from your very own post...

"the White House looked at several ways to make the union plans eligible for subsidies "

In other words, the White House wanted to pay off the unions for political suport, but try as they might, they couldn't come up with a way to do it.

Spence, what does it say to you, that Obama wanted to give the unions this kickback. Why does Obama want to give $$ to those who work in a union, but not give $$ to someone doing the same job, for the same pay, with the same healthcare, but in a non-unionized capacity? Spence, what does it say to you, that if Obama had his way, everyone who voted for Romney would subsidize those who voted for him? You're OK with that?

Obama sincerely wanted to pay them off, his advisors told him that it wouldn't fly. And Spence sees this as something we should praise Obama for.

Now, that is an apologist...

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

In other words, the White House wanted to pay off the unions for political suport, but try as they might, they couldn't come up with a way to do it.

No, you still have it backwards. The unions came to the Administration asking for easement. The Treasury department looked at their claim and denied it.

Your subconscious bias is so strong you don't even know when it's happening.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

No, you still have it backwards. The unions came to the Administration asking for easement. The Treasury department looked at their claim and denied it.

Your subconscious bias is so strong you don't even know when it's happening.

-spence

From the article you posted, Spence...

""the White House looked at several ways to make the union plans eligible for subsidies "

Spence, maybe it was the Treasury Dept who told the unions "no". That was after the White House attempted to find a way to give the unions what they wanted.

You are acting as if the immediate answer was "no, that wouldn't be fair". If that were the case, I would commend the President for that. But according to you own source, the White House wanted to give the unions a kickback. And it's that fact, which clearly shows that Obama, despite his campaign promises, wants to give kickbacks to his political allies.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

From the article you posted, Spence...

""the White House looked at several ways to make the union plans eligible for subsidies "

Spence, maybe it was the Treasury Dept who told the unions "no". That was after the White House attempted to find a way to give the unions what they wanted.

You are acting as if the immediate answer was "no, that wouldn't be fair". If that were the case, I would commend the President for that. But according to you own source, the White House wanted to give the unions a kickback. And it's that fact, which clearly shows that Obama, despite his campaign promises, wants to give kickbacks to his political allies.

Now you're just making things up.

-spence

[Nebe]

The core problem here is the fatal flaw with capitalism. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.. This is ever so evident if we look at the last decade and the shrinking middle class. So when the poor get poorer, and I'm talking the working poor here.. The ones who bust their asses every day just to make ends meet.. These are the people who will be helped by obamacare. I don't hae time to get into it more, but I feel that we are at the peak of sustainable capitalism. Houses are expensive, food is expensive.. Everything is.. All due to the falling value of the dollar.
Am I for this idealistically? No... But realistically, the average American working an average job has been priced out of the American dream. This can help so many. And who's to say that the money they save won't be spent on other goods and boost the economy somehow.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

The core problem here is the fatal flaw with capitalism. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.. This is ever so evident if we look at the last decade and the shrinking middle class. So when the poor get poorer, and I'm talking the working poor here.. The ones who bust their asses every day just to make ends meet.. These are the people who will be helped by obamacare. I don't hae time to get into it more, but I feel that we are at the peak of sustainable capitalism. Houses are expensive, food is expensive.. Everything is.. All due to the falling value of the dollar.
Am I for this idealistically? No... But realistically, the average American working an average job has been priced out of the American dream. This can help so many. And who's to say that the money they save won't be spent on other goods and boost the economy somehow.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that was funny

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by scottw

that was funny

You disagree that the dollars value has dumped? That the middle class is shrinking and that people can't afford to live Ina home that they used to be able to afford 10 years ago and that affordable healthcare won't help people? That's even funnier.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Nebe

You disagree that the dollars value has dumped? That the middle class is shrinking and that people can't afford to live Ina home that they used to be able to afford 10 years ago and that affordable healthcare won't help people? That's even funnier.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The poor are poor because we take too much from the rich and give it to the poor.

That is why wealth is being consolidated at the top.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Raider Ronnie]

The poor are poor because they are either lazy or stupid (or a combination of the 2)
The rich (self made rich) didn't get rich being lazy, stupid or a combination of the 2.
Always the #^&#^&#^&#^&ing apologist Spence !

Originally Posted by spence

The poor are poor because we take too much from the rich and give it to the poor.

That is why wealth is being consolidated at the top.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

You disagree that the dollars value has dumped? That the middle class is shrinking and that people can't afford to live Ina home that they used to be able to afford 10 years ago and that affordable healthcare won't help people? That's even funnier.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

can't possibly be happening in the age of Obama, it was declared early in his presidency that we are all socialists now, we've not been practicing "capitalism" for quite some time, we've been slouching toward progressive socialism which is built on lies as is becoming quite obvious....you can blame it on some "fatal flaw" with capitalism , it's convenient but nonsensical...I think a lot of Americans would like a whole lot more capitalism right now...

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

I don't have time to get into it more, but I feel that we are at the peak of sustainable capitalism. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh, good....so without more capitalism, now that it has peaked and is clearly unsustainable probably due to that "fatal flaw", how do you plan to pay for peak sustainable government dependency? and peak sustainable government debt? which if we are not currently at, is frightening to think of the possibilities if we continue on this path (with less capitalism)?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

The core problem here is the fatal flaw with capitalism. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer..

Under what "system" do the rich not get rich and the poor do not get poorer? What is it about "capitalism" and only capitalism that causes this phenomenon? And why is that necessarily fatal? Is there some ideal "system" in which the rich and the poor constantly stay at the same level of economic separation? Perhaps, the only "solution" to the discrepancy is to eliminate it. Perhaps, some new form of "socialism" not yet invented will make everyone "equal."

And what do you mean by "capitalism"? Is there some intrinsic mechanism peculiar to it that necessarily exacerbates the effects of poverty and enhances those of wealth? I constantly hear references to "capitalism" which cast it as various causes of social evils, many of which have nothing to do with the capitalistic process as much as they have to do with human nature, greed, stupidity, politics--as witnessed by the oppressions of people under monarchies, dictatorships, and, yes, those blessed socialist societies in general. Perhaps, one big strike against "capitalism" is its invention by Marx, Until him, it was an age old process of market economics. He cast it as a stepping stone, with a "fatal flaw," toward a more egalitarian society. And it has suffered under that stigma ever since, especially in academic circles which in turn inform the greater outlets of information such as the "media."

Rather than a fatal flaw in capitalism, which process allows greater numbers of people to rise from poverty, there is a fatal flaw in socialistic systems(which includes all forms of government control and ownership, dictatorships, monarchies, fascism, etc.) which does not have a means to rise above a prescribed level. Rather than as fatal flaw in capitalism, its process is a marketplace for progress and freedom unknown to purely socialistic societies. Keep in mind that even socialistic societies use capitalistic methods to improve their lot.

This is ever so evident if we look at the last decade and the shrinking middle class. So when the poor get poorer, and I'm talking the working poor here.. The ones who bust their asses every day just to make ends meet.. These are the people who will be helped by obamacare.

They are already being "helped." The supposed reason for Obamacare is to give them all some form of "insurance." And, supposedly, to lower the cost of healthcare. But for that to happen in the way Obamacare prescribes, healthcare will be more expensive, and the cost will be born by the beloved "middle class."

I don't hae time to get into it more, but I feel that we are at the peak of sustainable capitalism. Houses are expensive, food is expensive.. Everything is.. All due to the falling value of the dollar.
Am I for this idealistically? No... But realistically, the average American working an average job has been priced out of the American dream. This can help so many. And who's to say that the money they save won't be spent on other goods and boost the economy somehow.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The value of the dollar is not dictated by capitalism. A shrinking dollar is no friend of capitalism. The value of the dollar is more directly contrived by government manipulation. For capitalism, the dollar is a medium of exchange. For political purposes it is a medium of control. Government printing of more dollars than necessary for given volumes of business is a means to pay for its pet projects and means of control. It is also a means, by lowering the value, to a bit more easily pay off debt which was borrowed at a higher value. Inflationary prices have to do with too much money, which the government controls. Those who have saved a little bundle find it harder to use it for what they once thought they could. That does not help capitalism, as a whole, but it does prop up, momentarily, government.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

The core problem here is the fatal flaw with capitalism. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nebe, all of us hate the fact that poverty exists. But can you name an economic system that provides more upward economic mobility than capitalism?

It's harder to avoid poverty than it used to be...used to be you could get C's in high school, get your diploma, and walk into a manufacturing plant and be middle class. Not so anymore.

So what's a poor person to do?
[LIST]
Get good grades.
Go to college, major in engineering, accounting, or anything related to healthcare (pharmacy, physical therapy, physicians assistant, etc)
Not college material? Learn a specialized trade, or join the military.
Don't make babies until you are self-sufficient.

How hard is that? Harder than it used to be, but for the vast majority of us, it's within reach. And we owe it to those few who don't have the necessary tools, to take care of them.

Drive through a big city, and the poverty I see isn't huge numbers of people who are biologically precluded from going to college. I see huge numbers of people who made Godawful choices - like voting for liberal Democrats who are hellbent on guaranteeing the continuation of poverty, by making poor people addicted to a sense of welfare and entitlement...

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

any liberal here...please tell me why union members deserve this subsidy, and everyone else does not?

How long, O Lord?

And their answer is ? They have no answer.
Where are the Libs hiding on this forum anyway?

[spence]

Before you guys get too far off topic, can I just remind everyone again that Jim got this story completely wrong. Hell if anything he should be praising the POTUS.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Before you guys get too far off topic, can I just remind everyone again that Jim got this story completely wrong. Hell if anything he should be praising the POTUS.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Obama said Obamacare would lower healthcare costs. true


Even his most staunch supporters, big labor, know that's not what's happening, so they complain. true

Reports are that the White House is looking at a proposal that would offer subsidies of $20 billion a year, to help union members, and only union members, pay for Obamacare premiums. true

This, from the guy who said that his election would end politics as usual? true

Spence, Paul S, any liberal here...please tell me why union members deserve this subsidy, and everyone else does not? If this isn't a classic Chicago-style payoff, what the heck is it? good question maybe Jim didn't know that the administration declined the request regretfully "A senior administration official said the White House looked at several ways to make the union plans eligible for subsidies but couldn’t find one." but they tried real hard

Labor officials met privately with President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Labor Secretary Tom Perez on Friday afternoon to press their case that the Affordable Care Act will have consequences for the benefits of union employees. wow...a private audience, they must be special!

How long, O Lord? true

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Before you guys get too far off topic, can I just remind everyone again that Jim got this story completely wrong. Hell if anything he should be praising the POTUS.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, according to what I posted (which may not have been true, I'm sure you know more than those folks) the White House was considering a bill which would offer subsidies to those in labor unions.

And Spence, let's not forget...when Obamacare was first passed, Obama said the bill would tax cadillac health plans, EXCEPT for those in unions . The country went berserk, and Obama backed off. But his initial thought was to tax all cadillac health plans, except those for union members. He thought that was, somehow, fair.

Try making that wrong, comrade.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Before you guys get too far off topic, can I just remind everyone again that Jim got this story completely wrong. Hell if anything he should be praising the POTUS.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Instead of lobbing insults, please tell us with specificity, how I got this all wrong. Is it incorrect to say that the White House was considering subsidies for unions, Spence?

As I said, Obama tried to give subsidies to the unions, right off the bat with Obamacare, in the form of a tax loophole for cadillac plans that were for unions. Do you deny that? Want me to dredge that up for you?

[spence]

Ok, so you've both got it wrong. I can live with that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

One of the best rants I've seen in a while...watch the whole thing.

http://www.upworthy.com/his-first-4-...k-2?g=2&c=ufb1

-spence

[spence]

Why would the Whitehouse give an immediate answer? If the unions made a reasonable and potentially legal claim shouldn't that be investigated? I haven't read anywhere that the Whitehouse was leading any effort to placate the unions...and the Treasury reports to the Executive Branch just in case you forgot.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Why would the Whitehouse give an immediate answer? If the unions made a reasonable and potentially legal claim shouldn't that be investigated? I haven't read anywhere that the Whitehouse was leading any effort to placate the unions...and the Treasury reports to the Executive Branch just in case you forgot.

-spence

Spence, what legal (or moral) basis could there be, to give subsidies to unionized workers, but not to an otherwise-identical non-unionized worker?

I brought this up before, and you ignored it, so I'll do it again for laughs...

Whan Obamacare first came out, one feature was that it taxed the so-called 'cadillac healthcare plans', unless the insured was in a union. You tell me, Spence, how is that proper legislative practice, and not a payoff?

We are all ears...

And I have a question for you in the other post I started yesterday, regarding Obama's flip-flop on raising the debt ceiling, which Obama described as "un-patriotic" when a Republican was president...when Bush proposed it, it was un-patriotic. Now that Obama is proposing it, it seems unpatriotic to oppose it. Why is that, Spence? Maybe now, Obama is hoping that the US will be the one-millionth customer of the Bank Of China, and that we get a prize for that?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Why would the Whitehouse give an immediate answer? If the unions made a reasonable and potentially legal claim shouldn't that be investigated? I haven't read anywhere that the Whitehouse was leading any effort to placate the unions...and the Treasury reports to the Executive Branch just in case you forgot.

-spence

"I haven't read anywhere that the Whitehouse was leading any effort to placate the unions"

No? For the 3rd time, from your link...

"the White House looked at several ways to make the union plans eligible for subsidies "

Now you have read somewhere that the White House was leading such an effort. In stupifying fashion, that smoking gun was provided by you.

[spence]

That doesn't mean they're trying to pay them off, it's called due diligence.

So biased.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

That doesn't mean they're trying to pay them off, it's called due diligence.

So biased.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, I'll ask again...what conceivable legal or moral obligation could the White House possibly have, to reward a subsidy only to those in a union, which would not apply to an identical citizen not in a union?

You repeatedly dodged the cadillac health plan tax exemption, which was proposedf to only be rewarded to unions. More 'due diligence'?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, I'll ask again...what conceivable legal or moral obligation could the White House possibly have, to reward a subsidy only to those in a union, which would not apply to an identical citizen not in a union?

It has nothing to do with the group being singled out, it has everything to do with the legal considerations given the existing members insurance plans. If it was approved I'm sure you'd have other groups coming out of the wood work claiming similar legal exemptions.

-spence