Mad Mike Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Well, now, there have been times when one source or another actually have changed quotes. I've frequently linked to a write-up on how Michael Moore, in I think it was Fahrenheit, took several speeches by Charlton Heston, pulled a sentence from here and a sentence from there, and even two partial sentences to create a sentence Heston never said, and presented it as though it were one speech. And in another case, fabricated a "Bush campaign commercial" that wasn't. So, yes, it HAS happened. And there are vastly more examples of quotes being cherry picked out of context to try to claim something was said when it wasn't. (And numerous cases of people claiming that their statement was "taken out of context", when what's really going on is "please pretend that I made that comment in this context, over here, even though that wasn't the context I was talking in, at the time".) Now, has HuffPo been caught actually doing that? I confess I'm not sure they've been caught at it. But I wouldn't be shocked, either. I don't think anybody would consider them "neutral". So you are just asking questions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 The source of the story made up a headline that had nothing to do with what Blount said. It's a typical left wing exaggeration that gets lapped up on this board Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 So you are just asking questions? Uh, you seem to have seriously misread what I was saying. Yes, there is a slim chance that, when you read a quote, somewhere, that the quote actually HAS been fabricated. (There's a reason why I have never, and will never, watch a Michael Moore film. Why should I go see a "documentary", if I can't even trust that the video they're showing me, of some event which was recorded on video, isn't an intentional fabrication?) No, I have never heard of HuffPo doing this. However, when I read things from them, I DO read with my magnifying glass on. Because, yes, they absolutely will spin things. (Or, print statements from other people, who are spinning things.) No, it doesn't automatically make the quote untrue. Even people who've been caught doing that, are accurate, most of the time. And no, it doesn't make "attack the source" a valid tactic, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Huffpo *is* a biased source but as biased sources go they aren't bad. I've seen them expose stupid Dems too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Huffpo *is* a biased source but as biased sources go they aren't bad. I've seen them expose stupid Dems too. Typically when a biased source slants your way, they aren't bad. Try branching out of your comfort zone and reading some sources a little less biased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goskins10 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Typically when a biased source slants your way, they aren't bad. Try branching out of your comfort zone and reading some sources a little less biased. Name the publications that are not biased? In today's media, I have seen very very few that would be considered unbiased. The closest that I know of is "The Week." Also "The Economist" is not awful. I mean this sincerely, if you know of some publications that just report the news and let people make up their own minds, please let me know. USN&WR, Time, Newsweek, Wall Street Journal, Atlantic Monthly, The New Yorker, etc. are not among them. None of the daily national papers are unbiased. We can argue which way each of them lean but they lean none the less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Huff Post and many others = biased Fox News = totally and completely full of **** To equate the two is to show quite a bit of bias, oneself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Typically when a biased source slants your way, they aren't bad. Try branching out of your comfort zone and reading some sources a little less biased. And typically when someone doesn't want to confront the facts or issues raised in an article, they attack the source. Got anything to say about the quote? And BTW The day you fact check the way I do is the day you can accuse me of needing to read other sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Let's not turn this thread into yet another "Yes, but are they AS dishonest as Fox News?" thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I'll gladly address the quote. He's absolutely right. We shouldnt have govt programs that encourage people not to contribute, but rather live off the hard work of others. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 The GOP Thinks Obamacare Is Making You Lazy Excuse me? WTF do you think we are? Slave labor? The greatness of capitalism as I understood growing up was the motivation to achieve something better for yourself, NOT to be forced to work as long as possible to afford a basic need such as health care. I think that there is a difference between working your whole life and working for as long as you can contribute. What you seem to be discribing above is unsustainable. Eventually, you will get the same kind of situation as you see in European Countries. People retiring at 50 or what have you. It is unsustainable there and it would be the same here. You simply can't base the future on that IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 (edited) I think that there is a difference between working your whole life and working for as long as you can contribute. What you seem to be discribing above is unsustainable. Eventually, you will get the same kind of situation as you see in European Countries. People retiring at 50 or what have you. It is unsustainable there and it would be the same here. You simply can't base the future on that IMO. Show me your examples and why you feel they are unsustainable. Most Efficient Health Care: Countries - Bloomberg Best (and Worst) Out of 48 countries guess where Bloomberg ranks us.... 46 With the highest cost. Edited February 10, 2014 by Mad Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I'll gladly address the quote. He's absolutely right. We shouldnt have govt programs that encourage people not to contribute, but rather live off the hard work of others. How do you feel about Social Security? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I don't like it. But I understand that it's here until it runs out of money. And also pointing out that you don't get it unless you've contributed to it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 (edited) I'll gladly address the quote. He's absolutely right. We shouldnt have govt programs that encourage people not to contribute, but rather live off the hard work of others. Who the hell are you to judge everyone else? Prove to me that those people have not worked hard all of their lives. Prove to me that they aren't going back to school to earn a degree or they are not dropping that second job so they can take care of their children. God I am sick of judgmental people like you accusing people of being lazy. What's the matter? Don't you believe in the power of capitalism as a motivator to achieve a better life? Do you actually believe we must hold basic needs such as health care a hostage to force people to work more? Is that what you consider "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness"? How evil can you get? Edited February 10, 2014 by Mad Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Mike, that last one seems even more confrontational, and even more devoid of reasoning, than what you've been demonstrating, lately, in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Mike, that last one seems even more confrontational, and even more devoid of reasoning, than what you've been demonstrating, lately, in this thread. Confrontational? Hell yes. Devoid of reasoning? Bull****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 The greatness of capitalism as I understood growing up was the motivation to achieve something better for yourself, NOT to be forced to work as long as possible to afford a basic need such as health care. Part 1: You are articulating my fundamental problem with liberalism. In my utopia, people who can take care of themselves should, and collectively we should help those who cannot take care of themselves. Specifically, that means we help the elderly, disabled and children in bad homes. Unfortunately, liberalism doesn't have the same limitations. This is why they want longer unemployment benefits, food stamps and fought against welfare reform (please don't even try revisionist history on that one). The fact is that incentives matter. If you open-ended benefits, that will incent people who can otherwise take care of themselves to let other people take care of them. That's what the CBO is saying. The incentives in the ACA will let 2.3 million people who could otherwise have a job rely on the rest of us to pay their bills. I might care less if we weren't all human. This isn't a one-time 2.3 million person issue. It's like compound interest. If the bill isn't changed, the problem grows, and grows, and grows. Then, some mean conservative comes along, wants the country to be able to pay its bills, and ends up being accused of pushing grandmom off the cliff. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Part 2: So one simple change to the ACA could make a big difference in the long term economic and fiscal health of this country. We should time-limit benefits for able-bodied people who aren't working absent a catostrophic event. This is the same concept as welfare reform. It's a work incentive. With this incentive, if you get laid off, you get the subsidy just like you'd qualify for food stamps, unemployment, etc. This would allow you to keep your insurance or otherwise afford insurance if you wanted to change in the next calendar year. However, those benefits would phase out. Ultimately, you wouldn't receive any benefit unless you had a catostrophic of some dollar value. The simple bottom line here is America's debt. You like Medicare? Great, but don't get used to it. It'll have to be cut in big ways to exist in 30 years. You like Medicaid expansion? Awesome, but you better figure out how states will pay for it as their pension systems go bust. Like low taxes? Good luck with that over the next 20-30 years. The real budget forecasts matter. Good intentions pave the road to bankruptcy. Good fiscal exection of a compassionate society helping the truly needy is what this country needs. Not more sob stories about the poor 55 year old who doesn't like their job and thus thinks it's ok to let the rest of us pay their way. Even if I wanted to help that person, we can't afford it. The ACA's incentives clearly have made our long term budget problem worse than is needed to ensure access to coverage in America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 The fact is that incentives matter. If you open-ended benefits, that will incent people who can otherwise take care of themselves to let other people take care of them. That's what the CBO is saying. The incentives in the ACA will let 2.3 million people who could otherwise have a job rely on the rest of us to pay their bills. Pointing out that this isn't a "quit your job and live off of welfare" bill. It's a "if you used to work one job to pay your rent, and a second job to pay your health insurance, then you don't need the second job, any more" bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Out of 48 countries guess where Bloomberg ranks us.... 46 With the highest cost. You do understand that government paid over $1 trillion a year in health care before the ACA, right? It's not like this inefficient system is an example of private sector capabilities. It's layered with massive regulations, cost shifting and avoidance of exposure to the real cost of care. God I am sick of judgmental people like you accusing people of being lazy. Humans react to incentives. There's ample evidence in this country and Europe that if you pay people not to work, they won't work. Most people don't work when they're 25 because they have a labor of love. They work to be able to afford a house, a car, health care, child care, food, vacations, etc. If the government paid for all of that stuff, people wouldn't work and they wouldn't work as hard. It's because we're human. I'm not saying this as a point about people being lazy. I say this knowing full well who I see when I look in the mirror. I'm currently in a great and meaningful job, but if I won the lottery tomorrow, my life choices would change. That doesn't make me lazy in a derogatory manner. It makes me human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Who the hell are you to judge everyone else? Prove to me that those people have not worked hard all of their lives. Prove to me that they aren't going back to school to earn a degree or they are not dropping that second job so they can take care of their children. God I am sick of judgmental people like you accusing people of being lazy. What's the matter? Don't you believe in the power of capitalism as a motivator to achieve a better life? Do you actually believe we must hold basic needs such as health care a hostage to force people to work more? Is that what you consider "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness"? How evil can you get? Calm down. You're doing exactly what the Huffington Post did. Claiming I have said something that I have not and then gone over the leftwing edge in a rabid response. You can find my use of the term "lazy" right next to Blounts. It exists only in the Liberal fantasy world. If you want to have a rational discussion about why it's better for Govt programs to provide INCENTIVE to work, rather than the opposite, Im here. If you simply want to build up straw men to beat up, you should PM TSF and have your own thread. Also, the key to the phrase "Life, Libery and pursuit of Happiness" is the word PURSUIT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 10, 2014 Author Share Posted February 10, 2014 (edited) I'll gladly address the quote. He's absolutely right. We shouldnt have govt programs that encourage people not to contribute, but rather live off the hard work of others. The CBO report didn't say Obamacare would reduce jobs or even that fewer Americans would be employed in 2017 because of Obamacare. The CBO report rather said that because Obamacare is going to ensure many Americans can get insurance at a reasonable rate, some Americans will choose to work fewer hours... So that father of 4 working two jobs to make ends meet may choose to work only a 60 hour work week rather than a 70-80 hour work week. The CBO report specifically said more americans would be employed and that Obamacare is a net positive for both consumers and the federal government. Nothing in this CBO report contradicts previous CBO reports on Obamacare... According to the CBO's report these hours will amount to the equivelent of 2 million full time workers.... Or about 2% of the hours worked by the entire US workforce...... So in my example... that guy working an 80 hour work week to make ends meet may choose to work only 78.4 hours by 2017.... 2% fewer hours... So in that context do you still believe the Government shouldn't have programs to ensure costs of benifits such as healthcare are provided to the consumer at a reasonable rate... Or do you just believe that the government programs for healthcare should be to styfle competition Like our anti trust exemption for the health insurance industry which allows them to collude on price and eliminate competition.( McCarran–Ferguson Act in place since 1944)? You don't see the government having a role to play in Health insurance market on the side of consumer... Just act as a giant syphone and pass along to the health industry hundreds of billions of dollars with no hard requiremnts such as the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003; cost $400 Billion... Hell even Ronald Reagan disagrees with you... He's the one who signed COBRA, which allowed individuals to continue to recieve healthcare even after they stopped working for their company. And as for the General topic that the Government shouldn't be ensuring people don't have to work themselves to death in order to put food on the table... Anybody who makes a statement like that is just beyond the relms of reality... The US has had a 40 hour work week for nearly 100 years.. Most of our economy is still governed by this legislature. The fact that there is a large and growing number of people in our economy which have to go out and get a second or third job is a new thing... That our government actually implements a little legislation which takes some of the heat off these folks is an excellent thing... and then that these people would use such a program to actually reward themselves with 2 hours off a week extra is by any measure a very conservative positive accomplishemnt.... Complaining about this is really defying logic. Edited February 10, 2014 by JMS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 According to the CBO's report these hours will amount to the equivelent of 2 million full time workers.... Or about 2% of the hours worked by the entire US workforce...... So in my example... that guy working an 80 hour work week to make ends meet may choose to work only 78.4 hours by 2017.... 2% fewer hours... Pointing out that there is a huge difference between 1) Total hours worked by the entire work force will go down by 2%. And 2) The one person in a thousand who's working 80 hours, right now, will have his hours go down by 2%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Cobra is a great program because it has an ending time. And I'd like the Govt out of the health industry entirely. Including the exemptions for corps. But if they are going to be involved, the only answer (pointing out that I have said this over and over on this board) is Single Payor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now