It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by inforeal
Christie is a typical modern day depraved Republican, who like those other republican governors in Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida, and other states are all a disgrace to the human race.
This republican tide, as the republican maniacs in congress are also, the new Nazis...
Christie has proposed cutting Medicaid eligibility to absurdly low levels: from the current maximum income of $24,645 to $5,317 a year for a family of three. Apparently, the governor believes a family of three making $6,000 a year is simply too rich to receive Medicaid.
“Those 23,000 people are going to get sick this year,” said Louis Greenwald (D), a committee chairman. “Where are you suggesting they’re going to go?”
Marie Diamond is a reporter/blogger for ThinkProgress.org. She hails from the great metropolis of Temple, TX. She holds a B.A. in political science from Yale and was a Yale Journalism Scholar. Before joining ThinkProgress, she worked at West Wing Writers, a speechwriting and communications firm. She has also interned for The American Prospect and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, and has done development work in South Africa and Kazakhstan.
Originally posted by QuantumDisciple
reply to post by Vitchilo
This is the same guy who just got caught taking a helicopter to his son's baseball game. I believe he'd decided to pay for it out of his own pocket...once he got caught. I believe it cost him more than $5317...that is pretty sick.
Originally posted by cry93
Is there some reason why this family's income is so low? Is there a medical reason? If there is, then the family should qualify for other services.
Originally posted by Schkeptick
Godwin's law again.
Anyone who makes a Nazis reference should be ignored like an unruly child.
Originally posted by Vitchilo
What kind of sicko this bastard is?
Right-Wing Ideology In A Nutshell
When you cut right through it, right-wing ideology is just "dime-store economics" – intended to dress their ideology up and make it look respectable. You don't really need to know much about economics to understand it. They certainly don't. It all gets down to two simple words.
"Cheap labor". That's their whole philosophy in a nutshell – which gives you a short and pithy "catch phrase" that describes them perfectly. You've heard of "big-government liberals". Well they're "cheap-labor conservatives".
"Cheap-labor conservative" is a moniker they will never shake, and never live down. Because it's exactly what they are. You see, cheap-labor conservatives are defenders of corporate America – whose fortunes depend on labor. The larger the labor supply, the cheaper it is. The more desperately you need a job, the cheaper you'll work, and the more power those "corporate lords" have over you. If you are a wealthy elite – or a "wannabe" like most dittoheads – your wealth, power and privilege is enhanced by a labor pool, forced to work cheap.
Don't believe me. Well, let's apply this principle, and see how many right-wing positions become instantly understandable.
Cheap-labor conservatives don't like social spending or our "safety net". Why. Because when you're unemployed and desperate, corporations can pay you whatever they feel like – which is inevitably next to nothing. You see, they want you "over a barrel" and in a position to "work cheap or starve".
Cheap-labor conservatives don't like the minimum wage, or other improvements in wages and working conditions. Why. These reforms undo all of their efforts to keep you "over a barrel".
Cheap-labor conservatives like "free trade", NAFTA, GATT, etc. Why. Because there is a huge supply of desperately poor people in the third world, who are "over a barrel", and will work cheap.
Cheap-labor conservatives oppose a woman's right to choose. Why. Unwanted children are an economic burden that put poor women "over a barrel", forcing them to work cheap.
Cheap-labor conservatives don't like unions. Why. Because when labor "sticks together", wages go up. That's why workers unionize. Seems workers don't like being "over a barrel".
Cheap-labor conservatives constantly bray about "morality", "virtue", "respect for authority", "hard work" and other "values". Why. So they can blame your being "over a barrel" on your own "immorality", lack of "values" and "poor choices".
Cheap-labor conservatives encourage racism, misogyny, homophobia and other forms of bigotry. Why? Bigotry among wage earners distracts them, and keeps them from recognizing their common interests as wage earners.
The Cheap-Labor Conservative "Dirty Secret" : They Don't Really Like Prosperity
Maybe you don't believe that cheap-labor conservatives like unemployment, poverty and "cheap labor". Consider these facts.
Unemployment was 23 percent when FDR took office in 1933. It dropped to 2.5 percent by time the next Republican was in the White House in 1953. It climbed back to 6.5 percent by the end of the Eisenhower administration. It dropped to 3.5 percent by the time LBJ left office. It climbed over 5 percent shortly after Nixon took office, and stayed there for 27 years, until Clinton brought it down to 4.5 percent early in his second term.
That same period – especially from the late forties into the early seventies – was the "golden age" of the United States. We sent men to the moon. We built our Interstate Highway system. We ended segregation in the South and established Medicare. In those days, a single wage earner could support an entire family on his wages. I grew up then, and I will tell you that life was good – at least for the many Americans insulated from the tragedy in Vietnam, as I was.
These facts provide a nice background to evaluate cheap-labor conservative claims like "liberals are destroying America." In fact, cheap-labor conservatives have howled with outrage and indignation against New Deal liberalism from its inception in the 1930's all the way to the present. You can go to "Free Republic" or Hannity's forum right now, and find a cheap-labor conservative comparing New Deal Liberalism to "Stalinism".
Cheap-labor conservatives opposed virtually all of the New Deal, including every improvement in wages and working conditions.
Cheap-labor conservatives have a long and sorry history of opposing virtually every advancement in this country's development going right back to the American revolution.
Cheap-labor conservatives have hated Social Security and Medicare since their inception.
Many cheap-labor conservatives are hostile to public education. They think it should be privatized. But why are we surprised. Cheap-labor conservatives opposed universal public education in its early days. School vouchers are just a backdoor method to "resegregate" the public schools.
Cheap-labor conservatives hate the progressive income tax like the devil hates holy water.
Cheap-labor conservatives like budget deficits and a huge national debt for two reasons. A bankrupt government has a harder time doing any "social spending" – which cheap-labor conservatives oppose, and . . .
Wealthy cheap-labor conservatives like say, George W. Bush, buy the bonds and then earn tax free interest on the money they lend the government.[Check out Dubya's financial disclosures. The son of a bitch is a big holder of the T-bills that finance the deficit he is helping to expand.] The deficit created by cheap-labor conservatives while they posture as being "fiscally conservative" – may count as the biggest con job in American history.
"Free Trade", globalization, NAFTA and especially GATT are intended to create a world-wide "corporate playground" where national governments serve the interests of corporations – which means "cheap labor".
The ugly truth is that cheap-labor conservatives just don't like working people. They don't like "bottom up" prosperity, and the reason for it is very simple. lords have a harder time kicking them around. Once you understand this about the cheap-labor conservatives, the real motivation for their policies makes perfect sense. Remember, cheap-labor conservatives believe in social hierarchy and privilege, so the only prosperity they want is limited to them. They want to see absolutely nothing that benefits the guy – or more often the woman – who works for an hourly wage.
If approved by the Obama administration, the change would affect only new applicants and virtually everyone in the program now would continue to receive health benefits, officials said. Children would continue to be accepted.
What kind of sicko this bastard is?[
Originally posted by Hemisphere
Originally posted by cry93
Is there some reason why this family's income is so low? Is there a medical reason? If there is, then the family should qualify for other services.
That is precisely what is not presented by the smear site. Redundant services!
Originally posted by neo96
ok yell at me
but if all youi earn is $5317 you need to get a second job.
medicaid is paid to people who dont want to find another job or even a second job.
people do have medicare taken out of their check it should be no different.
if insurance is so important to people buy your own
but wait for it if its a federal law to have health insurance then medicaid is not needed.
Originally posted by Vitchilo
Wut? That's either total ignorance on the cost of life or total ``screw the poor`` statement right there.
Gov. Christie Thinks A Family Making $6,000 A Year Is Too Rich To Qualify For Medicaid
Adults in a family of three that makes as little as $103 a week would earn too much to qualify for health care provided by Medicaid under a sharply curtailed program Gov. Chris Christie wants the federal government to approve this year, according to state officials and advocates briefed on the proposal.[...]
The Christie administration is expected to propose cutting the maximum income level of Medicaid from $24,645 to $5,317 a year for a family of three [...]
“That is about a third of the poverty level,” Castro said. “That means that an uninsured parent working full time at a minimum-wage job wouldn’t be eligible. … A parent who works half-time for minimum wage wouldn’t even qualify.
That's insane.
5317$ a year... for THREE PEOPLE... Just a crappy apartment rent is already ALMOST 5000$ a year. With that, no food, no car, no bus pass, no school, no NOTHING.
Food for a family of 3 probably costs 103$ a week. Especially with food prices skyrocketing.
If you earn 6k$ a year, and you get sick, or your kid gets sick, you are screwed.
What kind of sicko this bastard is?edit on 3-6-2011 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)
Considering that many of Us can't even get a FIRST job, this is ridiculous. Sure, if a job happens along, and if They are physically capable, and They have no obligations that preclude it, that might be a solution. What do They do when no job comes along?
You are rather ignorant of how things really are out in the real world, it would seem. Medicaid is for people who cannot find enough - or any - work in this crazy economy.
What? "Here, here's some money. There, We took most of it away for medicaid." Doesn't matter if You can't LIVE on what's left.
Hahaha! With what MONEY?
Originally posted by pajoly
reply to post by Vitchilo
If he had intellectual honesty he'd just say NJ won't offer Medicaid. I promise you not a single person alive in NJ can live off that amount unless they live on the street and beg.
Americans, aren't we the cruelist of "civil" societies.
I am telling you, in few years, America will be awash with homeless families begging for your mostly eaten BigMacs at every street corner. You'll pass by them with disgust, maybe telling the little kid to get out of your way.
Originally posted by QuantumDisciple
reply to post by Hemisphere
Oh, I didn't know the helicopter was going to his son's game with or without him. My bad, I feel stupid now.
With South Carolina facing an $829 million budget shortfall, new Gov. Nikki Haley suggested spending cuts Wednesday that — best-case scenario — could total about $120 million if adopted, leaving $719 million more to cut.