With the sequestration, apparently there will be some lay offs,, well now, why not take that money away form entitlements and welfare,, why do the hard working folks in america have to take the hit,, take it away from the non-working folks,, so what, they will not be able to go to the movies,. big fkin deal,, I don't want my tax money spent by welfare people to go to the dam movies,, take that money and transfer it to the worker that has pride in his or her job,, the working folks dont need to feel the pain,,
Now you tell me what the hell is wrong with this picture and why can't that be done,, sure the welfare folks will be pi*s*sed but who gives a shiet about them,, I got a novel idea,, they could get a job,,
They'd be able to get a lot more if they stopped giving big OIL subsidies and corporate welfare and millionaire welfare THEY DON'T NEED. Your ignorance is only exceeded by your ability to puke up FAUX News talking points. How about those wars your man BUSH started huh? You don't want to pay for them now? Bush's tax cuts to the rich damn near killed our economy, millionaire welfare needs to GO. Haven't you CONS tried all these lies before, and didn't you LOSE big time? Face it, your party is bitter and full of losers who only want to rob middle class taxpayers while the corporations and rich skate away tax free. What losers.
Lie detector testing is probably the only practical way to drastically reduce cheating and fraud in these welfare oriented, and government medical programs. Although imperfect, lie detector testing can flag a lot of the cheating and fraud for further investigation. It is routinely used in banking, and secret service organizations as one of the safeguards. It can flag able people applying for disability support, and other cheats.
PENTAGON: SEQUESTRATION CUTS COULD HAMPER ABILITY TO INVADE COUNTRIES FOR NO REASON
Posted by Andy Borowitz, March 3, 2013, The New Yorker
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—The spending cuts mandated by the sequester may hamper the United States’s ability to invade countries for absolutely no reason, a Pentagon spokesman warned today.
The Pentagon made this gloomy assessment amid widespread fears that the nation’s ability to wage totally optional wars based on bogus pretexts may be in peril.
“Historically, the United States has stood ready and able to throw billions of dollars at a military campaign with no clear rationale or well-defined objective,” said spokesman Harland Dorrinson. “Our capacity to wage war willy-nilly is now in jeopardy.”
In the past, Mr. Dorrinson said, the Pentagon has had the resources to fight three meaningless and completely random wars at any given time, “but now in our planning meetings we are cutting that number back to two.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R—S.C.) agreed about the catastrophic effects of the Pentagon cuts, telling reporters, “The ability of the United States to project its military power in an arbitrary and totally capricious way must never be compromised.”
The cuts are already being felt in a tangible way at the Pentagon, which today cancelled an order for a nine-thousand-dollar pen.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
MOOCHING OFF MEDICAID
By PAUL KRUGMAN, March 3, 2013 , NY Times
Conservatives like to say that their position is all about economic freedom, and hence making government’s role in general, and government spending in particular, as small as possible. And no doubt there are individual conservatives who really have such idealistic motives.
When it comes to conservatives with actual power, however, there’s an alternative, more cynical view of their motivations — namely, that it’s all about comforting the comfortable and afflicting the afflicted, about giving more to those who already have a lot. And if you want a strong piece of evidence in favor of that cynical view, look at the current state of play over Medicaid.
Some background: Medicaid, which provides health insurance to lower-income Americans, is a highly successful program that’s about to get bigger, because an expansion of Medicaid is one key piece of the Affordable Care Act, a k a Obamacare.
There is, however, a catch. Last year’s Supreme Court decision upholding Obamacare also opened a loophole that lets states turn down the Medicaid expansion if they choose. And there has been a lot of tough talk from Republican governors about standing firm against the terrible, tyrannical notion of helping the uninsured.
Now, in the end most states will probably go along with the expansion because of the huge financial incentives: the federal government will pay the full cost of the expansion for the first three years, and the additional spending will benefit hospitals and doctors as well as patients. Still, some of the states grudgingly allowing the federal government to help their neediest citizens are placing a condition on this aid, insisting that it must be run through private insurance companies. And that tells you a lot about what conservative politicians really want.
Consider the case of Florida, whose governor, Rick Scott, made his personal fortune in the health industry. At one point, by the way, the company he built pleaded guilty to criminal charges, and paid $1.7 billion in fines related to Medicare fraud. Anyway, Mr. Scott got elected as a fierce opponent of Obamacare, and Florida participated in the suit asking the Supreme Court to declare the whole plan unconstitutional. Nonetheless, Mr. Scott recently shocked Tea Party activists by announcing his support for the Medicaid expansion.
But his support came with a condition: he was willing to cover more of the uninsured only after receiving a waiver that would let him run Medicaid through private insurance companies. Now, why would he want to do that?
Don’t tell me about free markets. This is all about spending taxpayer money, and the question is whether that money should be spent directly to help people or run through a set of private middlemen.
And despite some feeble claims to the contrary, privatizing Medicaid will end up requiring more, not less, government spending, because there’s overwhelming evidence that Medicaid is much cheaper than private insurance. Partly this reflects lower administrative costs, because Medicaid neither advertises nor spends money trying to avoid covering people. But a lot of it reflects the government’s bargaining power, its ability to prevent price gouging by hospitals, drug companies and other parts of the medical-industrial complex.
For there is a lot of price-gouging in health care — a fact long known to health care economists but documented especially graphically in a recent article in Time magazine. As Steven Brill, the article’s author, points out, individuals seeking health care can face incredible costs, and even large private insurance companies have limited ability to control profiteering by providers. Medicare does much better, and although Mr. Brill doesn’t point this out, Medicaid — which has greater ability to say no — seems to do better still.
You might ask why, in that case, much of Obamacare will run through private insurers. The answer is, raw political power. Letting the medical-industrial complex continue to get away with a lot of overcharging was, in effect, a price President Obama had to pay to get health reform passed. And since the reward was that tens of millions more Americans would gain insurance, it was a price worth paying.
But why would you insist on privatizing a health program that is already public, and that does a much better job than the private sector of controlling costs? The answer is pretty obvious: the flip side of higher taxpayer costs is higher medical-industry profits.
So ignore all the talk about too much government spending and too much aid to moochers who don’t deserve it. As long as the spending ends up lining the right pockets, and the undeserving beneficiaries of public largess are politically connected corporations, conservatives with actual power seem to like Big Government just fine.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
To be clear, few if any on the right don't believe in social safety nets for the truly disadvantaged, disabled etc or temporary assistance for those who are capable but have had temporary set backs. What we don't believe in is an entitlement society that creates and rewards a permanent underclass - that is the cruelest part of liberalism where you make people believe that they can't succeed. Fortunately, there are just too many examples that prove otherwise, such a Dr Carson.
The other thing that the right believes in is equal opportunity. No one who works hard, has ability should be denied the opportunity to succeed. What we disagree with is trying to equalize outcomes where wealth is transferred to those who are not deserving. Its rarely appreciated,usually squandered and creates the kind of chronic underclass that is not only dependent on hand outs but believe it is a just entitlement.
Let the thumbs down begin.
"...the working folks dont need to feel the pain,,"
The LIAR need to feel the shame. The "glorified handout zombies" are being spared the pain for now because they are being "cultivated" for the "mission". Get them comfortable and used to the lifestyle.
Just when they are comfortable, shutdown the gravy train, then point the angry hoard to the direction of your beautiful home doc, because you, the rich doctor, is responsible for the gravy train shut down, for refusing to pay your fair share, and you let the "sequester" take place....remember the HSA 1.6 billion rounds? Get ya judge ready.
Our lying leaders hope the hungry "welfare people" will eat you, but just in case you somehow make it, there's 1.6 billion rounds to spread the wealth around....bwahahahahahahaha