I hate to say this is all about me, but this thread was started because adaher was too damn lazy to actually back up his citeless, support-free assertions about me. Seriously. See my post #43. It has the links and everything.
I work for SSA and personally handle SSDI claims all the time. I can guarantee you that the money you are receiving now (and will likely receive until age 65, barring a cessation) will vastly outweigh what you contributed from your wages.
Is this okay? Why or why not?
Enlighten me.
Ah, that must be why our health care was so cheap and efficient before the ACA was passed.
I don’t know if this is a larger trend among the right wing, but adaher, at least, doesn’t seem to be calling it “Obamacare” much anymore. I guess since Obama can’t run again there’s no sense in using it to weigh him down. I expect them to try and tie it around the neck of the next Democratic presidential nominee, “Hillarycare”, “Bidencare”, something like that. Or just start calling it “Democare” if they want to cover all the bases.
And Romneycare was also Gruberized. By Gruber. Gruber did such a great job of misleading the public that the Democrats brought him on board to Gruberize ACA/Obamacare.
Impeachment requires a two-thirds vote in the U.S. House. It’s obvious that that number of votes simply are not there.
And your attempt to manipulate people doesn’t seem to be very successful. IMHO, of course. 
Perhaps you could provide your definition of gruberize, in the cause of fighting our ignorance?
Why was this thread started? Oh yeah, to find out if people believe Obama was lying when he repeatedly said, “If you like your health insurance, you can keep it”.
Yes, Obama lied. Repeatedly.
More than that - they’re already trying to take credit for it instead, and you’ll see more of that in the future.
Seriously? I haven’t seen that yet, but I’ll keep an eye out for it. Pretty ballsy strategy, I must say.
Do you mean your ignorance?
Gruberizing is the act of deliberately lying to, or deliberately confusing, the voters into supporting passage of a bill that the voters might not have supported if they had been given the facts and trusted with the truth.
Why tell the truth and risk losing the implementation of an unwritten, confusing bill. As Pinocchio Pelosi said - “but we have to pass the bill so that you can, ah, find out what is in it.”
It’s interesting that, in order to give a name to this phenomenon, you and millions of other morons have chosen a person involved with the current administration.
I don’t want to give you the vapors or anything, but some of us who actually understand politics recognize that politicians have been doing this for decades at least, and more likely centuries.
Don’t get me wrong: i’m glad you’ve finally come to understand how politics works. I’m just a little bit surprised that it took you so long, and that this strategy is apparently new to you. Were you not paying attention when the Bush administration gave its reasons for invading Iraq? Have you ever heard of the Gulf of Tonkin? The Strategic Defense Initiative?
I’m glad you find it interesting. Gruberized works for me.
What about the Gulf of Tonkin? Which Gulf of Tonkin incident are you referring to?
I wonder what doorhinging is…?
Maybe “repeating Limbaugh spiels as if they represent a factual view of the world”? “Buying Republican talking points hook, line, and sinker”?
Maybe “hiding one’s true desire to cavort with honey dabbed, muscular Adonises”?
Is *that *what happened? :dubious:
Yes, you do have to experience it for yourself so you can recognize the lies about it that were and still are being told to you, by people you continue to trust for some reason.
For one thing, pretending Chris Christie was innocent of all wrongdoing in Bridgegate. 
There are multiple Republican governors, in Florida and Nevada and soon others, who are finally implementing Medicaid expansion while trying not to mention that they’re part of ACA. Even the “replace” part of “repeal and replace” showed the strategy right from the get-go - and the few bullet-point “ideas” they’ve put out (still no actual bill) in the following years are simply parts of Obamacare but with some protections removed.
It will take a few more years of transition, for people to recognize what it is from their own experience instead of RNC/Fox lies, as Pelosi predicted, for it to happen, and for the “Kenyan” (code word) guy to leave office, but the trend is already toward ACA being claimed as a Heritage Foundation idea that was proven out by Romney - and that’s even pretty much true as far as it goes, better yet.
Willfully distorting and misrepresenting the meaning of statements by politicians you dislike does wonders for your credibility.
In a bad sense.
Especially when your interlocutors know exactly what said politician actually meant.
Of course, what difference at this point does it make? You’re just going to keep doorhingizing all of us into a doorhinged stupor.
You are responding to those who equate Social Security with welfare.
Someone who actually planned for the future and did everything they could to ensure they could pay their own bills. Cuts out a large percentage of the population.
Wrong, try again. I get significantly less than if I’d made it to 65. And whether I end up getting more than I put in depends on how long I manage to live. And it has zero to do with whether or not a person is needy - millionaires are eligible to get their Social Security when they qualify.
That word “contribute” is the important difference between SSDI and welfare. It’s amazing how many people here make pronouncements on shit they no very little about.
Medicare? I’m not on Medicare, so why throw that in?
The difference here is I am entitled to Social Security because it is my money that the government took out of my paycheck without my approval for decades. Its a pension plan I was forced to contribute to. How you can equate that with people who just blither thru life and expect to be given things they haven’t earned, I really don’t know.
Boy howdy, you are batting a 1000 here. I am not a conservative - I have some conservative views and some liberal ones. I do believe in self-responsibility but have no opinion on the size of government. I do not have “the entitlement attitude” because that is used to describe people who expect something for nothing, and all I “expect” is what I’ve earned.
And again, you all keep assuming that I will live long enough to take out in SSDI as much as I put in plus interest. If nothing else, the suicide rate in people like me tends to be rather high.
On your estimate, what percentage of people receiving welfare benefits can reasonably described as
as opposed to being people
but despite their best efforts were unsuccessful in doing so?
And do you have any data to support your estimate?
Nobody seems to, other than the rise in the percentage of people on welfare here in CA. I have tried to find any sort of study on this and apparently nobody is interested in looking at the root of the problem rather than the symptoms.