Gaming World Forums
General Category => General Talk => Topic started by: XxNemesis29xX on January 20, 2010, 04:11:28 am
-
Well, Brown has somehow ousted a democrat for the Senate seat in Massachusetts. I was surprised to hear Mass. has 50% of its residents as Independents, I thought it was much more, but yes, it seems the Independents helped the Republican win this seat, in addition to the lazy and poor campaign ran by Coakley.
But that's all behind now, I am wondering what'll happen to the Health Care Bill now. As it stands, it is in debate between the passed Senate and House bill, and we PLANNED to have the differences reconciled, and a final bill sent to Obama's desk. However, even if things are reconciled, Brown'll vote against the final bill, so we need a plan B for health care form.
As is stands again, we have 3 options:
1) Let the House agree 100% with the Senate Bill, and have it finalized as THE definitive Health Care Reform Bill.
2) Let the House pass the Senate Bill, and then use "Budgetary Reconcilliation" to fix some of the problems with a simple 51-vote, rather than the 60 supermajority (problems being: lack of a public option and expansion of medicaid, etc.).
3) Start from scratch, back to the drawing board, and find a bill that a few Republicans will favor (this is incredibly unlikely to happen, so really we have only 2 options).
I personally want Option 2: using Reconcilliation to pass the bill with public option. Ultimately, I think the people won't care HOW it was passed, but rather WHAT was passed. Initially there may be some heat, but looking back, we'll look at what policies were introduced and what change we received rather than how it came about. I don't think many people even know about how the Bush Tax Cuts passed (they were through reconcilliation), but rather that they WERE passed. Looking at headlines, it seems that Congress is currently weighing in both options, possibly Option 1 a little more heavily.
So what do you think will happen? What do you WANT to happen? Is there a 4th option I missed? And finally, and most importantly just because I'm very curious about this, what's so bad about using reconcilliation anyway?
-
I have done nothing of the sort, you lie!
that is all I wanted to say I'll leave now.
-
we we we there is no we
I'll tell you whats gonna happen, whats always happened
-
if you were ever expecting anything positive you were setting your sights too high and I don't think I'm being cynical or :cool: in stating this!!
-
you guys need clement attlee
-
I never thought I'd say this but I really, really wonder if Obama is actually going to be reelected.
-
you guys need clement attlee
couldnt help but wank immediately after reading this post
-
couldnt help but wank immediately after reading this post
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Willem_Drees.jpg)
(props to whomever knows who this is without looking at the image name)
-
2) Let the House pass the Senate Bill, and then use "Budgetary Reconcilliation" to fix some of the problems with a simple 51-vote, rather than the 60 supermajority (problems being: lack of a public option and expansion of medicaid, etc.)
what's so bad about using reconcilliation anyway?
You answered your own question.
-
yeah also the whole concept of "fixing some problems" using reconciliation is entirely flawed in itself since the budgetary committee would be editing the bill. they would REMOVE useful things rather than add them back in.
-
this is now the social reform topic post your favourite moustachioed reformists
-
(http://pub.gamingw.net/28418/stalin.jpg)
“When we hang the capitalists they will sell us the rope.”
-
I just looked at this article on Budgetary Reconciliation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_%28United_States_Congress%29) and it seems to have nothing to do with making up. I'm not certain I completely understand it, but it seems messy. and Earlchip, you are being annoyingly -but not necessarily unreasonably- cynical.
"Hope for the Best. Expect the worst. Life is a play. We're unrehearsed." -- Mel Brooks
Even if the worst was to be expected, there's nothing wrong in hoping for the best. I bet even you did.
-
(http://pub.gamingw.net/28418/stalin.jpg)
“When we hang the capitalists they will sell us the rope.”
i'm quoting this so hard right now
(even though he wasn't a reformist)
-
(http://pub.gamingw.net/28418/stalin.jpg)
“When we hang the capitalists they will sell us the rope.”
hahahaha holy shit
-
(http://pub.gamingw.net/28418/stalin.jpg)
“When we hang the capitalists they will sell us the rope.”
own
-
The Supreme Court determined in US v. Ballin that the Senate could change its procedural rules with a simple majority. They can hypothetically change the rules such that they are able to invoke cloture with less than the 60-seat supermajority. That would be your option 4.
As a fiscal pragmatist, the idea of a public option actually intrigues me. Normally, I'm conservative when it comes to financial issues because I often find that the private sector provides services more effectively and efficiently than public services do. I sort of resent the fact that the police department, fire department, and education system in my area are taking huge budgetary hits for the sake of paying for the mindless pet projects our state representatives like to cultivate. Not that I'm willing to cut EDUCATION away from our budget and throw it to the so-called "free market," but the point is that there are some heavy downsides to giving the government more power, and as a result, each of its services becomes less effective.
As it pertains to the public option though, it seems pretty legitimate to me to let the federal government establish a competing insurance system. With a public option you solve for all the problems inherent to private companies...which turn people down for pre-existing conditions and have exorbitant middle-man fees. I'm even alright with being forced to purchase health insurance -- I recognize the dangers of not having insurance, as well as the logistic needs of having to maintain a system like this.
The bigger question though, is how we provide a basic health care system for the uninsured. I'll have to admit, and this is pretty much a suicide thing to do at GW, but I'm a bit hazy on the ethics of forcing people to pay for health care for that select group of people. As a foreword, I'm not at all disputing the idea that "I am my brother's keeper," which is the founding idea of the Democratic point of view (the irony is its cross-application to the 'religious' Republican). It's obvious that we are responsible for our fellow Americans to a certain extent, one of the biggest examples of this being education -- you might not have kids, but you're paying education taxes because it's THAT important to us and our nation as a whole (eg democracy kinda depends on it). But going back to providing free services to the uninsured, it seems to me that it promotes rigid classism because it provides incentive for people not to rise up out of that financial position. Case in point -- my mom makes 26K a year, but because of the extra costs and taxes that come with the bigger paycheck, she is very careful not to make too much money. We can lose our government-subsidized apartment, which forces us to pay *twice* as much for rent as a result, and will really put the family in the financial crapper (back to eating rice, grits, and Kraft Mac-n-snot). Going back to the main point, these sorts of things actually -do- have an effect on social class, and it's not because people are lazy, as many opponents of welfare systems stupidly think. It's about economic feasibility and whether it's a good idea to rise up in the ranks. I don't think it's morally permissible to entice the lower class with goods aimed to keep them from rising up in the world. And yes, to pre-empt your response, I am willing to trade those goodies for continued financial hardship. Why? Because I have a pretty good idea of what it means to be poor, so I'm used to it. I also know that the best way to serve the poorest people is to provide them with a 'world class' education. Sure, not very many people will be able to get the managerial jobs that a good education calls for, assuming that everyone actually gets this education...but I am one to believe that life is a pursuit, and while the goal of it is to get someplace, the value lies in the journey. Never should you provide incentive for anyone to remain stuck, as providing health care to the uninsured does. You would be depriving them of one of the unassailable human rights that once founded this country -- the right to the pursuit of happiness.
This entire argument of course is a broad generalization dependent on the kind of health care provided (what constitutes 'basic' health care?), whether ascending the steps of the social ladder can be made more bearable wallet-wise, and whether it will actually cost much more to provide this care to the uninsured. I don't profess to say that I can crunch the numbers and come out with an answer for you guys, and I highly doubt you could definitively do so either. So let's open the floodgates to broad speculation and ad hominem attack!
(I know you too well, GW. P.S, I'm not actually back from my pronounced GW hiatus -- I'm actually procrastinating on some homework. FUCK EDUCATION!)
-
there is so much in there.
it's much less scary empowering the government than corporations imo. increased government spending is the best way to boost your economy, and if you're spending it to prevent people dying that's even better. the poor aren't a drain on the economy, economic drain comes from people not spending or your money going overseas (or not comming from overseas). poor people don't travel.
also, death is a huge drain (in terms of potential dollars). if you consider the resources that go into getting someone to the age of 10, to the age of 20, 30, etc. it's a huge loss on your investment if they die. ideally everyone would live long lives consuming goods and services and providing goods and services. as to the ethics of giving someone something for free i don't know.
-
*explains the value of human life using potential profits*
-
outside of a religious arena i don't know if there's any other vocabulary. "reciprocal altruism"
-
I'm still pretty lost as to how this'll move forward. So far, the administration is essentially hoping for the CURRENT bill to pass through. They're calling for Republican support and talks, and who knows, maybe we'll compromise, but Obama is adamant in his fight to get insurance to the uninsured.
Bottom line, right now they're going to pass 2 bills it seems: a small one with things both sides can agree on (no pre-existing conditions ban, can't get dropped outta no where etc.), and a comprehensive bill later... how'll THIS one get passed? Heck, I seriously think if they're going to do it, it'll be through reconcilliation.
Also, even if they DO get a small bill passed where denying coverage over pre-existing conditions becomes illegal, it's not a sustainable bill... all of a sudden, a large influx of "expensive" patients will flood in, and since not everyone'll be paying into the pool, there'll be no way to offset this influx. We're gonna' need that second bill.
-
As a fiscal pragmatist, the idea of a public option actually intrigues me. Normally, I'm conservative when it comes to financial issues because I often find that the private sector provides services more effectively and efficiently than public services do.
this is a demonstrably false assumption, take a look at the water riots in Bolivia not too long ago, Bechtel managed to make a bad situation even worse. Profitability is not synonymous with efficiency.
The bigger question though, is how we provide a basic health care system for the uninsured. I'll have to admit, and this is pretty much a suicide thing to do at GW, but I'm a bit hazy on the ethics of forcing people to pay for health care for that select group of people. As a foreword, I'm not at all disputing the idea that "I am my brother's keeper," which is the founding idea of the Democratic point of view (the irony is its cross-application to the 'religious' Republican). It's obvious that we are responsible for our fellow Americans to a certain extent, one of the biggest examples of this being education -- you might not have kids, but you're paying education taxes because it's THAT important to us and our nation as a whole (eg democracy kinda depends on it). But going back to providing free services to the uninsured, it seems to me that it promotes rigid classism because it provides incentive for people not to rise up out of that financial position. Case in point -- my mom makes 26K a year, but because of the extra costs and taxes that come with the bigger paycheck, she is very careful not to make too much money. We can lose our government-subsidized apartment, which forces us to pay *twice* as much for rent as a result, and will really put the family in the financial crapper (back to eating rice, grits, and Kraft Mac-n-snot). Going back to the main point, these sorts of things actually -do- have an effect on social class, and it's not because people are lazy, as many opponents of welfare systems stupidly think. It's about economic feasibility and whether it's a good idea to rise up in the ranks. I don't think it's morally permissible to entice the lower class with goods aimed to keep them from rising up in the world. And yes, to pre-empt your response, I am willing to trade those goodies for continued financial hardship. Why? Because I have a pretty good idea of what it means to be poor, so I'm used to it. I also know that the best way to serve the poorest people is to provide them with a 'world class' education. Sure, not very many people will be able to get the managerial jobs that a good education calls for, assuming that everyone actually gets this education...but I am one to believe that life is a pursuit, and while the goal of it is to get someplace, the value lies in the journey. Never should you provide incentive for anyone to remain stuck, as providing health care to the uninsured does. You would be depriving them of one of the unassailable human rights that once founded this country -- the right to the pursuit of happiness.
This is just too much. Do you really think that poverty is a choice people consciously make and that cutting things like subsidies for low income families is going to result in them just 'waking up' from their supposedly self-induced state of poverty and all pull themselves up by their bootstraps to 'get somewhere'? This is another observably false assumption. The biggest result of cutting welfare services is crime and its a no-brainer as to why, upward social mobility just isn't the norm.
The best solution is obviously a single-payer universal healthcare system. This is the case all over the world, even the most conservative folks in politics in countries where universal healthcare is implemented often don't dare suggest "American style" privatized health insurance based alternatives because its so wildly unpopular. Its certainly not perfect, yet despite all of the problems universal healthcare systems face, they do the job better than companies motivated solely by profit
-
It's a huge misconception to believe that the social security net is anything but a means of sustaining a minimum quality of life. It's not a matter of choice, especially in recent times. The idea that social security relieves people of the incentive to work is an ancient belief that's perpetuated because it's very convenient for the group of people that already "got theirs".
And like dietcoke said it's actually DEMONSTRABLY false. I'm just gonna quote from wikipedia here because I'm dumb but
Some criticism of welfare states concern the idea that a welfare state makes citizens dependent and less inclined to work. Certain studies indicate there is no association between economic performance and welfare expenditure in developed countries (see A. B. Atkinson, Incomes and the Welfare State, Cambridge University Press, 1995) and that there is no evidence for the contention that welfare states impede progressive social development. R. E. Goodin et al., in The Real Worlds of Welfare Capitalism (Cambridge University Press, 1999), compares the United States, which spends relatively little on social welfare (less than 17 per cent of GDP), with other countries which spend considerably more. This study claims that on some economic and social indicators the United States performs worse than the Netherlands, which has a high commitment to welfare provision.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state)
This is because welfare is literally just enough to survive on, even here in the Netherlands where we have a relatively large net. It's not something you want to live on for very long.
Also,
Never should you provide incentive for anyone to remain stuck, as providing health care to the uninsured does. You would be depriving them of one of the unassailable human rights that once founded this country -- the right to the pursuit of happiness.
you are very astute mi amigo patriótico!
-
When it comes to health care, I'm all for a universal system. But seeing as how the assholes making these decisions won't even consider such a thing then I'd like the second best.
The way my healthcare works with my company is, I can pick and choose what coverage I get: dental, Health, Vision, Life insurance, Disability, cancer insurance and prescription coverage with or without family coverage. I can pick between insurance providers (two atm) and I can pick whether I want full coverage or another system kind of like a banking system but with insurance coverage, its the cheapest, the money put away for the insurance can be used at a later time for whatever I need.
And with all this, I don't have to pay hardly shit. My company gives me an insurance credit and they pay about 2/3 or 3/4 (I can't remember exactly how much but its most of it) of my annual payments for me. And that is before they draw out money from my check to pay for benefits.
If companies would all do something like this, credit their employees to help them pay for their insurance and keep them healthy and in the work force. It would not only be very helpful to people out there that need coverage but it would also help make the workforce more efficient.
But I also think right now with the economic downslump and alot of the biggest hiring places out there being selfish as fucking shit, it would be nearly impossible. But in my opinion holding employers responsible for taking care of their employees would not only help out the general public but also encourage folks out there to join the workforce if at all possible.
-
And with all this, I don't have to pay hardly shit. My company gives me an insurance credit and they pay about 2/3 or 3/4 (I can't remember exactly how much but its most of it) of my annual payments for me. And that is before they draw out money from my check to pay for benefits.
isn't this exactly like tax?
i think if the states was going to have public healthcare they'd need to prevent pharmaceutical companies from advertising to the public (Ask your doctor for Cyndaquil)
-
i think if the states was going to have public healthcare they'd need to prevent pharmaceutical companies from advertising to the public (Ask your doctor for Cyndaquil)
i hope professor elm will write me a prescription
-
do you suffer from heart burn and a general lack of adventure?
-
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/16/health.care.harry.reid/index.html
Looks like there's a chance that the public-option MIGHT come back, and pass with reconcilliation - the thing I've been hoping for since the beginning. The health care summit is on the 25th; my prediction: Republicans show up, their proposals fail to meet coverage/cost reduction parameters set by Obama, Dems realize there is NO OPTION but the PUBLIC OPTION via reconiclliation!
-
translation: nothing gets done
-
nothing worthwhile*
-
i hope professor elm will write me a prescription
you're brilliant
-
When it comes to politics I'm what you would call mentally challenged. As far as health care goes in the States, I heard you guys were trying to form your own NHS and join the rest of the civilised world. Is that what your health care bill is regarding?
How many Americans here actually have health insurance, cause isn't that another concern you guys are having?
-
they're trying to make heath care cheaper (kind of bullshit) and mandatory so more americans can afford and possess it. They are not trying to make it free because then how would insurance companies rip everyone off into paying for their god given right to be healthy? In my opinion this whole health insurance debacle is just a way to force everyone to buy healthcare at a cheaper rate but still a fucking rate because the insurance companies will make more money if more people possess health care even if it is a little cheaper.
And there are alot of americans that don't have healthcare. In fact I can't say I know anyone in my hometown that can afford or has ever had their own healthcare coverage.
-
With the amount I hear you guys can spend on your medical bills I cant help but wonder if it would be cheaper to buy a flight to the UK and just show up at one of our own hospitals.
-
With the amount I hear you guys can spend on your medical bills I cant help but wonder if it would be cheaper to buy a flight to the UK and just show up at one of our own hospitals.
There are people who travel to china to get organ transplants because it's much cheaper
-
Just finished watching the summit... yeah, I watched all 7 hours of it
I thought the Democrats did fantastic. The CBO was with them all the way in terms of deficit reduction, and showed how medical malpractice wouldn't save more than $50 billion over 10 years, where as the Senate bill would save $1.2 trillion over 20 years. And also how, medical malpractice, the #1 issue from Republicans, doesn't even come close to addressing the actual issues of health care reform: raising premiums and opening access to 30 million Americans; dealing with pre-existing conditions and lowering over all costs.
And as for the "starting over" with a blank slate... I don't know why they kept saying it. I mean, about 70% of the bill is in agreement with Republicans, so there's no need to start over - that's just a talking point and political stunt. As they said, incremental steps isn't possible for this type of reform since EVERYTHING is so interconnected; there was even proof: states that did JUST insurance reform, or repealed pre-existing conditions, all had premiums EXPLODE with rate hikes. Makes sense right? If they repeal pre-existing conditions, only the sick get insurance and premiums will obviously explode. I didn't understand how a "high risk pool" was a good idea from the Republicans either... I mean, yes the high-risk people would be able to get insurance, but it would be incredibly expensive. The whole philosophy of insurance is the pool together high-risk and low-risk people, especially when in terms of HEALTH, everyone is at some risk.
I remember there was a heated exchange about whether or not PREMIUMS would rise under the Senate plan. CNN made the verdict that Obama was right, and premiums will decrease by about 14% - however, because everything will be CHEAPER overall, many families would opt for better coverage at the same premium price. This is what the Republican was saying, but really, you still have the option of staying on the cheap insurance that's 14% cheaper than what you're currently paying now. As for raising taxes on Americans? It's ONLY on people that make over $250,000 or a family that makes $500,000 ...there's nothing wrong with that! We're all trying to be doctors, and maybe one day will make that kind of money, will you people really mind paying higher taxes for the poor that are hurting? We'll be way better off and can easily afford to make that slight sacrifice.
No one should say that this is a government take over, the case MIGHT have been made when the public option was in play but that isn't anymore... the Senate Bill just sets REGULATIONS for insurance exchanges. It's like saying the fact that the FDA (food and drug admin.) exists means there's a GOVERNMENT TAKE OVER over what we eat - obviously that's not the case. It just sets regulations on what we eat, making sure nothing is toxic or bad - or in this case, insurance that you pay for and then drop the second you get sick.
And it seemed President Obama is opening to doing tort reform - even though, if it's so important to Republicans, I don't know why they didn't proceed with this sort of bill back when Bush and the Republicans was in charge. It seems as though reconciliation is the way President Obama is going to proceed with.
-
*Raise* Well, it passed...
-
Loren C------ Republicans, do us all a favor and just STFU!!!
4 hours ago via Mobile Web · Comment · Like
K--- R-------- I wonder what the next evil industry will be destroyed and tens of thousands of workers dismissed in the name of change but the intent to control and redistribution.
5 hours ago via Facebook for iPhone · Comment · Like
K--- R-------- Well, so much for representative govt.
5 hours ago via Facebook for iPhone · Comment · Like
Jessica W------- joined the group I bet we can find 1,000,000+ people who disapprove of the Health Care Bill.
17 hours ago · Comment · LikeUnlike · Join this Group
Mandi T---- I want you all to know that I tried not to do this to you, but I cannot contain myself any longer. HAPPY HEALTHCARE SUCKAAAAAAAA! (yes, yes, yes!)
Yesterday at 11:34pm · Comment · Like
Jessamyn H------ Yay healthcare reform bill! Just in time cause i lose my parents insurance when I graduate :)
Yesterday at 11:20pm via Facebook for iPhone · Comment · Like
Morgan G----- Uggggh passed healthcare bill..
Yesterday at 10:31pm · Comment · Like
K--- R--------- Sad day for our Country. I know not what choice others may take.... - sadder, that's actually what they want. Arm up brothers.
Yesterday at 5:23pm via Facebook for iPhone · Comment · Like
-
welp.
-
this kind of reminds me when Obama was sworn into office and he proclaimed "change has come to america!" No! Change is only just beginning, right?
Just like then, he's only passed the BARE BONES version so far which is later going to be supplemented by a round of fixes under reconciliation. so don't be talkin' smack about this being your grand victory, gramps.
-
yeah i couldn't even pay attention to obama's announcement the bill had been passed it was so boring. 'we have realised the dreams of the american people and fulfilled the promise of 3 generations and gazed sharply at the horizons and spread our big wings, soared into the sky and done a poop on the nose of the status-quo'
-
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=106484062708512&ref=mf#!/group.php?v=wall&ref=mf&gid=106484062708512
some of the comments on there are plain dumb
-
so what was the final revision of the bill? I'm guessing that it was total bullshit and now the regular folks pockets are gonna hurt because of it?
I quit paying attention to this shit because it won't effect me and I'm sick of hearing about fucking teabaggers. Plus politics were riling me up and pissing me off alot and I needed to chill out a lil bit.
-
Heh. The US? It's just gonna be a chinese landfill soon anyway. Your cheap health care plan gonna cover THAT eventuality? Yeah, Thought not.
-
No, Skelly, we'll cover that. Save your energy for action, not for snarky comments.
-
so what was the final revision of the bill? I'm guessing that it was total bullshit and now the regular folks pockets are gonna hurt because of it?
Nah it contains a bunch of good things. you'll also be required to get insurance if you don't have it already. and if you don't have the skills to pay the bills they've got a subsidy for you.
It sucks that this basically means the insurance industry will get a ton of extra clients on a platter but in spite of that it's still for the best.
I should stress that it's not over yet. It's worth watching to see how the reconciliation round will change things over the next few days.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFOnG9a1Pzw
even though the description is wrong and they obviously weren't calling the dude in front of them a communist (pr sure that was directed at obama), this video is still pretty awesome
-
I'm getting the impression from many Americans that you either have to be communist or not have health care. This means pretty much the entire continent I live on is communist, which I find a shocking fact.
-
I'm getting the impression from many Americans that you either have to be communist or not have health care. This means pretty much the entire continent I live on is communist, which I find a shocking fact.
You would be shocked how accurate this statement is, actually.
-
Oh how I love dumb Americans whining about this all. Sweet drama.
-
not super important, an interactive graphic showing how the bill will affect you as an american http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/03/21/us/health-care-reform.html
under uninsured -> penalties they use American Indian which is kinda suprising. but then again so did Jack on 30 rock
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFOnG9a1Pzw
even though the description is wrong and they obviously weren't calling the dude in front of them a communist (pr sure that was directed at obama), this video is still pretty awesome
I saw this video before, it's absolutely disgusting to see them THROW MONEY at the guy. Really, it's painful to even watch the full video.
-
I'LL DECIDE WHEN TO GIVE YOU MONEY!!!!
-
yeah i couldn't even pay attention to obama's announcement the bill had been passed it was so boring. 'we have realised the dreams of the american people and fulfilled the promise of 3 generations and gazed sharply at the horizons and spread our big wings, soared into the sky and done a poop on the nose of the status-quo'
it was probably the best speech of his presidency yo. ironic though considering the bill is pretty worthless (for the most part, it does have some very basic, completely obvious fixes)
but yeah, not cheering for any bill that essentially just shoves money up corporations asses
-
it was probably the best speech of his presidency yo
eh...how? he just talked alot of bullshit about how this is what everyone has been waiting for when it obviously isn't. i don't care how good his metaphors were this time or how believable his story about the construction worker who lost his livelihood when a stray brick broke his back and he didn't have insurance. if it's all lies, what does it matter how well he is saying it? i really couldn't care less about political theatre anymore.
like i said i didn't watch it all, so maybe he wrapped it up by saying all of this is just the first steps to proper reform but i am pretty sure he didn't. am i missing something here that you think makes his announcement particularly special?
-
oh
so I guess obama finally did what he said he'd do then
still fuck him it should be free
-
*binge drinks into a coma, is taken care of by the nanny state*
If I had MY way we'd scrap it all and have a national HEARSE service. Let 'em all rot. Rot in a grave.
-
(http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/B/J/3/obama-package-headline.jpg)
-
this bill was worth it for that article title alone
-
good old joey-b. we need guys like him in the government. there should just be a white house mascot who's only job is to warm up for the president and say funny stuff.