With No Job, Plenty of Time for Tea Party

[Lanyap]

Does he deserve better?

We don’t know yet. If he approached the NYT reporter on his own knowing that he might be the focus of her article then you could make the argument that he thrust himself into the spotlight like JTP. If the reporter saw the material in the back of his car and targeted him with questions to create an anti-right slant and he did not know he would play such a prominent role in the article then I would say he deserves better. It looks like the latter to me.

Reporters know how to ask questions and get the positive or negative information they are looking for. This NYT reporter has a history of having an anti-right, pro-left slant in her articles. She’s very good at it. Look at some of the statements in this article. Did he have the 18 month COBRA coverage and it was about to end? If so then I could see where he might call his congressman to request that he vote for the extension bill. Political party should not matter in that case so why point it out? She knew the reference to beck’s book would get the left excited along with pointing out that he gets SS. The fact that she points these things out but does not provide details shows her bias. We don’t know the details of his situation yet but I’m sure he’ll be on FOX news, maybe even Beck’s show, soon to explain his side.

“When Tom Grimes lost his job as a financial consultant 15 months ago, he called his congressman, a Democrat, for help getting government health care.”

“Mr. Grimes, who receives Social Security, has filled the back seat of his Mercury Grand Marquis with the literature of the movement, including Glenn Beck’s “Arguing With Idiots” and Frederic Bastiat’s “The Law,” which denounces public benefits as “false philanthropy.”

“If you quit giving people that stuff, they would figure out how to do it on their own,” Mr. Grimes said.”

I thought these jobless deadbeats living on government paychecks were "parasites", according to most right wing members on this forum.

It would probably shock the tea partiers on this forum if they realized how much of their federal taxes went to support these "parasites" living in red states.

They are usually talking about the people who misuse the welfare system most of their life to get money without even trying to work. If he has been working and is receiving unemployment comp then that comes from the employer.

 

[Fern]

The whole point of socialistic social programs like Social Security is that everybody pays in, and people who need the services take advantage of them. It's not "pay in now, take out later". WE are paying for his social security disability benefits.

You righties are basically arguing that it's not hypocritical based on the very nature of a social program. Do you not see the contradiction?

Social Security is a combination, or package, of many elements, many of which can be purchased from private insurance companies etc.

Social Security includes:

1. A pension plan. It's a defined benefits- type program that was common back then but have now mostly dissapeared. Many people/companies have pension plans from the private sector.

2. Disability insurance. Disability insurance is available form private insurance companies.

3. Health insurance for retirees. This also exists in the private market. AFAIK, most retirees have private HI, paid for by their prior employer. For many Medicare is just another insurer, splitting the bill for health care with their private insurer. (BTW: I don't understand why people keep referring to Medicare as a 'single payer system' because it certainly is not. For many, Medicare is one of two insurance companies that pays bills. For those without private HI, Medicare is the only payer, but I don't see how that makes it 'single payer' anymore than any other insurance company.)

4. Health insurance for the poor - Medicaid. This is welfare, or I guess "socialism".

So, I don't see how somebody receiving their SS retirement benefits, which they paid for, is any different than somebody getting a pension from their company or withdrawing funds from an IRA/401(k).

Likewise, I don't see how somebody drawing SSI (disability) is any different from someone getting their disability under a private plan.

These things are just financial products purchased, sometimes purchased privately.

Now someone on Medicaid would be hypocritical, but claiming a retirement benefit, or disability benefit that they paid for? No.

Fern

 

[Darwin333]

The whole point of socialistic social programs like Social Security is that everybody pays in, and people who need the services take advantage of them. It's not "pay in now, take out later". WE are paying for his social security disability benefits.

You righties are basically arguing that it's not hypocritical based on the very nature of a social program. Do you not see the contradiction?

First of all, I am not one of the "you righties". I think the Republicans are just as big of a steaming pile of dogshit as the Democrats are and I know they aren't nearly as different as the posters here would have you believe. The shit they get the sheeple all worked up over is generally a diversion and both parties are owned by the same masters.

My point was and is very simple, if you force people to pay for insurance all of their lives, regardless if they agree with it or not, it isn't all that hypocritical for them to use that insurance policy should they ever need it. Its the same dumb ass argument the right makes about taxes "Why do you lefties take all the deductions you can if you think we should be paying more taxes".

There are all kinds of tax laws that I disagree with but do you honestly expect me to put my company at a disadvantage to "make a point"? Or how about "how many healthcare bills did you lefties pay last year out of your OWN pocket (other than normal costs/taxes) if you think everyone deserves healthcare"

They are all absurd arguments but that is to be expected from partisans. Always going to one extreme or the other, rarely taking the rational viewpoint.