jerome scuggs' weekly "bail out? more like FAIL-out!" politix thread

[Jerome Scuggs]

I know how to solve that Jerome.

Stop giving free education to illegals, giving free health care to illegals, and letting illegal immigrants sit in our jail cells. Kick em all out.

That's just a re-application of the same inherently flawed system to a different issue

[Vehicle]

Well Jerome, the public hearing is for specifically this law that I was mentioning, so no, it won't be hard.

And every state relies on federal money, so really, that's just a stupid thing to say.

And on top of this, funding healthcare with money from cigarettes actually follows a path of logic (although I'm not in favor of paying more money for my cigarettes ever.) Person buys cigs -> person gets cancer -> person uses healthcare to pay for treatment. Sensible enough in my opinion.

And this measure doesn't benefit the government in any way, it's simply a political move in light of upcoming elections.

This is going to be taken as inflamatory and it isn't meant to be but: if you don't live in Mass, don't talk about our local politics as if you do.

Oh, and just as a checking point, Senator Kennedy secured the money we needed for healthcare thanks to his political connections. Yes, this is fucked up, but it's how government works these days and the dudes dying of brain cancer so throw him a bone.

[Jerome Scuggs]

And every state relies on federal money, so really, that's just a stupid thing to say.

Perhaps the stupid thing is states relying on Federal money. It's nice that Kennedy could beg some money out of the government - one of the reasons this crisis is causing so much fear is because there is a very real potential that one day, the Federal government won't have money - or, should I say: they won't be able to go into any more debt than the trillions they've racked up. Where will Kennedy go then? People blame people for "free-spending" and "easy credit" but why not the government, who's 11 trillion in the hole? Do you have a viable solution for making 11 trillion dollars go away - and can you implement it fast enough to beat the ticking clock on your healthcare payments?

I understand if you can't provide an answer to that - because neither can anyone who's running the government. The world's leaders are scrambling for a viable solution and they're coming up short. Perhaps we should start considering things we've since taken for granted - like the idea that the current system is somehow practical.

Edit: and the "if you don't live here, don't judge" comment - can you show that Massachusetts' government is somehow uniquely different than other governments, or economic laws somehow do not apply. If you show the former, though, you make a case for why the entire Massachusetts government is unconstitutional - if the latter, doomed to fail regardless.

[Epinephrine]

Perhaps the stupid thing is states relying on Federal money. It's nice that Kennedy could beg some money out of the government - one of the reasons this crisis is causing so much fear is because there is a very real potential that one day, the Federal government won't have money - or, should I say: they won't be able to go into any more debt than the trillions they've racked up. Where will Kennedy go then? People blame people for "free-spending" and "easy credit" but why not the government, who's 11 trillion in the hole? Do you have a viable solution for making 11 trillion dollars go away - and can you implement it fast enough to beat the ticking clock on your healthcare payments?

I understand if you can't provide an answer to that - because neither can anyone who's running the government. The world's leaders are scrambling for a viable solution and they're coming up short. Perhaps we should start considering things we've since taken for granted - like the idea that the current system is somehow practical.

Edit: and the "if you don't live here, don't judge" comment - can you show that Massachusetts' government is somehow uniquely different than other governments, or economic laws somehow do not apply. If you show the former, though, you make a case for why the entire Massachusetts government is unconstitutional - if the latter, doomed to fail regardless.

Well it's pretty simple really Jerome. Bill Clinton left the government in surplus. If things were kept the way they were, and no Iraq war was fought, even with Afghanistan, the US would be in significantly less debt now 8 years after Clinton left office. The system now doesn't work because the Republicans had an agenda to make sure that government fails by both increasing spending and cutting taxes.

[Jerome Scuggs]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

The "banker's bank" is now just "the bank"

who is "the banker's bank's banker"?

[Zerzera]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

The "banker's bank" is now just "the bank"

who is "the banker's bank's banker"?

People, at least they used to be in the times people actually saved money they earned instead of spending money they didn't earn.

[DankNuggets]

It's total bullshit, and I plan on going to city hall to bitch them out about it. On the off chance that someone else is from MA and is equally angry, the public hearing is this Wednesday at 5 PM on 35 Northhampton St, which I believe is by Government Center but don't hold me to that because I haven't hopstopped it yet.

you're gonna have a hard time since you're a smoker. smoker's are considered to be on moral low ground, and even if people on the council smoke, they'll bend to the moral high ground. same philosophy applies to marijuana really, it's demonized, so you're automatically the 'bad guy' if you defend it. I wonder how alcohol's managed to not be banned from bars by now, since cigarettes are.

And taxing cigarettes for health insurance is about as far from fair as possible. That is, unless that tax money ONLY goes towards funding health insurance for smokers.

First of all, while I agree that smoking cigarettes is bad for you, I don't agree that it will realibly give you cancer, to the point where you, as a smoker, are more of a burden than someone who sits in a tanning bed for too long. The most immediate and deadly effects of smoking are cardiovasuclar, not pulmonary (go figure). The costs for hypertension, heart disease, and other 'peripherial' problems from smoking are real, but so are those from obesity, diabetes and other, more common afflictions.

Well, you might say people choose to smoke, and they don't choose their genetics. Well you'd have to prove they choose to 'burden' health care financiers by seeking treatment, and then not being able to afford it. Also would have to prove that their ailments (which usually aren't lung cancer) are directly related to smoking and not genetics or other factors.

Also, it's like social security now: they're paying into a system that they'll never see the benefits from. If it's to offset costs from smoking, it'll take decades for the 20 yr olds buying cigarettes to need that money, and by that time, who knows what kind of health care system we'll have. And for the opposite: those who'll get those offset costs within the next few years haven't really paid for it with and extra 1,000 dollars from 3 years of cigarette taxes.