The 119th United States Congress

[gehringer_2]

6 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Primary this clown. 

 

now, can they still pass it whenever it finally comes to the vote or will Trump bludgeon a couple of them into submission before then?

Edited 23 hours ago by gehringer_2

[Motown Bombers]

Just now, gehringer_2 said:

now, can they pass it whenever it finally comes to the vote?

I doubt it. It would still need 60 votes in the senate and Trump would veto it anyways. 

[chasfh]

Can anyone tell me what the intellectual argument against healthcare subsidies is? Why is it a bad thing? Serious question.  

[Motown Bombers]

15 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Can anyone tell me what the intellectual argument against healthcare subsidies is? Why is it a bad thing? Serious question.  

I don't have one, but I'm sure Naziholic will be around soon with a meme about transgender surgery. 

[Mr.TaterSalad]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

Can anyone tell me what the intellectual argument against healthcare subsidies is? Why is it a bad thing? Serious question.  

There is no intellectual argument for almost anything MAGA and the Republican Party supports. Not on healthcare most especially. 

[Tigerbomb13]

Their only real objective is cruelty and to keep that money in the hands of the billionaires. 

[gehringer_2]

3 hours ago, chasfh said:

Can anyone tell me what the intellectual argument against healthcare subsidies is? Why is it a bad thing? Serious question.  

every dollar the Federal government spends on healthcare for ordinary people is another increment in the political necessity to start seriously controlling health care costs in the US. That's a big gravy train you are threatening with billions of dollars of campaign contributions connected to it. Now I'll grant you that is not an argument about the public's interest at all, but since when did that matter in  modern US politics?

Today it is everywhere and always about the campaign money. 

Edited 17 hours ago by gehringer_2

[Screwball]

3 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

every dollar the Federal government spends on healthcare for ordinary people is another increment in the political necessity to start seriously controlling health care costs in the US. That's a big gravy train you are threatening with billions of dollars of campaign contributions connected to it. Now I'll grant you that is not an argument about the public's interest at all, but since when did that matter in  modern US politics?

Today it is everywhere and always about the campaign money. 

They piss away enough money each and every year - and have done so my entire lifetime - to give we the people the same health"care" as these worthless pukes who inhabit DC are fortunate to have. The money we pay on the interest on our debt alone would do wonders... Money is fungible, so just an example.

Anyone who thinks these worthless ****s are going to fix this cluster **** (of their own making) has their head firmly stuffed up their ass.

[chasfh]

16 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

every dollar the Federal government spends on healthcare for ordinary people is another increment in the political necessity to start seriously controlling health care costs in the US. That's a big gravy train you are threatening with billions of dollars of campaign contributions connected to it. Now I'll grant you that is not an argument about the public's interest at all, but since when did that matter in  modern US politics?

Today it is everywhere and always about the campaign money. 

I want to know how they are selling it on the RWM to rank and file red hats. There’s got to be something they’re saying to them that they think is a benefit, doesn’t there? Such as, every subsidy is going only to illegals, or welfare queens, or something like that to make them hate the idea. That’s what I’m trying to get at. I can’t locate anything along those lines.

[gehringer_2]

6 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I want to know how they are selling it on the RWM to rank and file red hats. There’s got to be something they’re saying to them that they think is a benefit, doesn’t there? Such as, every subsidy is going only to illegals, or welfare queens, or something like that to make them hate the idea. That’s what I’m trying to get at. I can’t locate anything along those lines.

got to save ‘Murica from SOCIALISM! 😱

 

[chasfh]

26 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

got to save ‘Murica from SOCIALISM! 😱

 

Yeah, maybe that's all it is. I can see it.

As with everything else controversial or divisive in this country, hatred of socialism has racist roots.

The Origins of the Socialist Slur - The Atlantic

The accusation of “socialism” had sharp teeth in the 1950s, as Americans recoiled from the growing influence of the Soviet Union and the rise of Communist China. But Republicans’ use of the word typically had little to do with actual, Bolshevik-style socialism. The theory that the people would rise up and take control of the means of production has never been popular in the United States. The best a Socialist Party candidate has ever done in an American presidential election was when Eugene V. Debs won about 6 percent of the popular vote in 1912.

Rather, in the United States, the political charge of socialism tended to carry a peculiar meaning, one forged in the white-supremacist backlash to Black civil rights in the 1870s.

During the Civil War, the Republicans in charge of the government both created national taxation and abolished legal slavery (except as punishment for crime). For the first time in U.S. history, voting in federal elections had a direct impact on people’s pocketbooks. Then, in 1867, Congress passed the Military Reconstruction Act, extending the vote to Black men in the South. White southerners who hated the idea of Black people using the vote to protect themselves started to terrorize their Black neighbors. Pretending to be the ghosts of dead Confederate soldiers, they dressed in white robes with hoods to cover their faces and warned formerly enslaved people not to show up at the polls.

But in 1870, Congress created the Department of Justice to enable the federal government to protect the right of Black men to vote. Attorney General Amos Akerman oversaw the prosecution of more than 3,000 members of the Ku Klux Klan, winning more than 1,000 convictions. Meanwhile, Congress passed laws to protect Black voting.

Suddenly, it was harder for white southerners to object to Black rights on racial grounds. So they turned to a new argument, one based in economics.

They did not want Black men voting, they said, because formerly enslaved people were poor, and they would vote for leaders who promised to build things such as roads and hospitals. Those public investments could be paid for only with tax levies, and most of the people in the South with property after the war were white. Thus, although the infrastructure in which the southern legislatures were investing would help everyone, reactionaries claimed that Black voting amounted to a redistribution of wealth from white men to Black people, who wanted something for nothing.