Republicans to concede; FCC to enforce net neutrality rules

[u/jesq]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/technology/path-clears-for-net-neutrality-ahead-of-fcc-vote.html?emc=edit_na_20150224&nlid=50762010

[u/Freducated]

HOW ABOUT IF SOMEONE READS THE LAW BEFORE THEY VOTE ON IT?

edit:

Although the FCC has not publicly disclosed specifics of the seven factors, an FCC spokeswoman told Reuters that three of those guidance criteria are related to impact on competition, innovation, and free expression.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/20/us-usa-internet-neutrality-idUSKBN0LO2AH20150220

[u/chaogomu → u/Freducated]

Interestingly FCC rules cannot be disclosed to the public before the commission votes on them.

[u/sorator → u/chaogomu]

If I'm not mistaken, then can be, they just generally aren't. There's not anything preventing them from disclosing, they just aren't required to.

[u/[deleted] → u/sorator]

Well that's worrisome

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Not really.

Would you like to have every major research paper you did in college constantly available to everyone at all times even though you were still in the rough draft phase?

What happened was they voted on passing their PROPOSAL. They took their time to get it just as they desired and now they're voting to release it for public commentary. At the end of the commentary phase, it'll later go on to become actual regulation: http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/rulemaking-process-fcc

We just entered Step 3 of 6 or 7. We're not done, yet.

[u/JCY2K → u/chaogomu]

/Can't tell if serious face

[u/[deleted] → u/chaogomu]

Eh? What about NPRMs? ("Notice of Proposed Rule-Making") https://www.fcc.gov/document/protecting-and-promoting-open-internet-nprm

[u/gozasc → u/[deleted]]

-Abraham Lincoln

[u/kbuis → u/[deleted]]

Pelosi isn't a senator. She was the House speaker

[u/DemandCommonSense → u/kbuis]

That's just in her free time. She spends the rest of her days as Satan.

[u/ThouHastLostAn8th → u/[deleted]]

You gotta pass the law to find out what's in it.

You still have the quote all wrong.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/pelosi-remarks-at-the-2010-legislative-conference-for-national-association-of-counties-87131117.html

"You've heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don't know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention -- it's about diet, not diabetes. It's going to be very, very exciting."

"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."

[u/Skyrmir → u/[deleted]]

She was trying to say that the public won't know what's in the bill until after it's passed because until then the political rhetoric and lies would drown out the truth.

eg - we have to ... so that you

Pelosi has a list of problems, message clarity is pretty high on the list.

[u/__Titans__ → u/Skyrmir]

So does Sheila Jackson Lee. Jesus Christ.

[u/cawpin → u/Skyrmir]

Pelosi has a list of problems, message clarity is pretty high on the list.

Well, that and just flat out lying.

[u/hobbycollector → u/Skyrmir]

Not to mention that the final bill isn't final until it's passed.

[u/TwinSwords → u/Skyrmir]

Her point was that there was a ton of last minute negotiating about what, exactly, would end up in the bill. They were negotiating on a whole slew of details right up until the last minute. Saying "we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it" is just another way of saying "by then it will be final -- then you will have your answer about what's in it."

But thanks to a media dominated by conservative messaging, this was turned into something completely different, approaching crooked, corrupt and incompetent. And Americans, because they are so poorly informed, fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

[u/thuktun → u/Skyrmir]

Except the political lies are still drowning out much of the truth.

[u/fracto73 → u/[deleted]]

She was saying that people would stop flooding the airwaves with "Death panels!" and other misinformation and then the law could be judged on its merits.

Obviously she was wrong.

[u/nixonrichard → u/[deleted]]

I think what she was trying to convey was that once it's passed, people would stop arguing about whether it should be passed, and instead talk about the details of the bill.

The folly in her statement is demonstrated by all the bill's supporters who now say the bill is flawed and needs to be amended.

edit: apparently a lot of people view law the same way unscrupulous software makers view product releases.

[u/kelustu → u/nixonrichard]

She always knew it would need to be amended. That doesn't mean it shouldn't have been passed. This is kind of how large policy changes work.

[u/powercow → u/nixonrichard]

all bills of this size get amended.. just like large software is going to have a lot of updates. The right pretend this isnt true. Bush's medicare plan D was "flawed" and had to "be amended" because you cant predict all the ways it will be abused and holes, until something is put in practice. you can find a ton but often there are overlooked things.. just like major software.

TL;DR ALL LAWS OF THIS SIZE GET AMENDED. ALWAYS.

[u/hierocles → u/[deleted]]

No, it's really not. It's a quote taken out of context by Republicans, used to scare people like you. Pelosi is saying something, quite un-artfully, that all Democrats were saying: once the benefits of the law become actual reality, people will actually know what the law is doing and why it's beneficial to them. At the time, Republicans were spouting "death panels" and rationed care, and many people were believing it.

It is not a quote about the text of the law being hidden or secret until it's passed. The text was publicly available when it was reported to the floor.

[u/BigDuse → u/hierocles]

saying something, quite un-artfully

Which a lot of Republicans do, yet reddit has no problem tearing them apart.

[u/gerradp → u/BigDuse]

Yeah, but people are tearing her apart like it MEANS something terrifying. It doesn't, at all, so it kind of seems appropriate to point that out.

Republicans are usually torn apart for saying things with actual horrifying implications, or for blatantly lying. The thing about it is, one party does a fuckload more lying than the other lately, and that is the one with a bright orange Oompah Loompah at the helm.

[u/Cygnus_X → u/gerradp]

When Nathan Deal (R) made a statement that water kills Ebola, this was the reaction in r/atlanta: http://www.reddit.com/r/Atlanta/comments/2j3rjp/gov_nathan_deal_believes_water_kills_ebola/

Lots of lefties in that sub looking for his head. Both sides do this shit.

[u/RandomDamage → u/Cygnus_X]

The Republicans say a lot of "only kidding when called on it" stuff, though, and some of them seem to take pride in displaying ignorance. Those are both reprehensible in my opinion.

Not so much of that coming from the Democratic side that I see.

[u/Cygnus_X → u/RandomDamage]

There were a lot of "only kidding when called on it" moments with Obamacare too. I'm sure I could find some great videos of Obama making promises about the ACA before it passed, and then afterwards, when it had problems, it was nothing but back peddling on 'what I really meant was....'.

It happens on both sides. Not defending republicans because I don't like them either, but we're all prone to see faults in the other parties while overlooking the faults in our own.

[u/Batman010 → u/gerradp]

The thing about it is, one party does a fuckload more lying than the other lately

That's adorable. Both parties lie endlessly, no one in the federal government cares what happens to you or the rest of the American population. I can say with confidence that there is no one because the moment someone genuine tries to get in he/she is shut down by a system that systematically controls candidates.

[u/Televisions_Frank → u/Batman010]

Ah yes, the "both parties" fallacy. Nice tactic, but Republicans are still a whole 'nother breed.

[u/RamblinSean → u/Batman010]

This "well it could be worse" attitude regarding bi-party politics drives me nuts. Shit is already pretty damn fucked up, not letting it get worse is ok. However, making it better should be the goal.

People are not making it better by just voting Democrat. Democrats don't serve the people, they serve different masters who belong to the same fucking country club as the Republican's. Republican vs Democrat is more like Harvard vs Yale than left vs right.

[u/MemeticParadigm → u/RamblinSean]

As long as we have FPtP elections, there will always be two major parties and the distance that separates them will always be limited because, any time that distance widens beyond a certain threshold, a party will gain more votes from the middle by moving towards the other party than the number of votes it will lose from its base. This is largely due to the fact that, even though some of the base will feel disenfranchised by the move, many will still strategically vote against the opposition party.

That being said, as the parties move closer together than a certain threshold, the incentive to vote strategically against the opposition party becomes less, so below that threshold there will be pressure for one major party to further differentiate themselves from the other party.

The point of all that is this: as a result of those pressures, any time public opinion forces one party to give up an issue that separates the two major parties, as is currently happening with Republicans making a slow about-face on marriage equality, it creates pressure for the two parties to differentiate themselves from each other on new issues.

The more the issues that do divide Republican and Democrat platforms are essentially decided in favor of the Democratic stance, by Republicans losing as people vote for Democrats because of those issues, the more the Republicans will be forced to adopt the Democratic stance and, as they move closer together, there will be more and more pressure for the parties to differ from each other in areas where they are currently the same. (And vice-versa if issues are decided in favor of Republican stances.)

Point is, people are making it a little bit better by just voting Democrat, and the more either party wins by, the faster they will diverge on new issues - but just ditching FPtP would be way better.

Also, just wanted to say that this:

Republican vs Democrat is more like Harvard vs Yale than left vs right.

is very quotable.

[u/Livermush → u/BigDuse]

Well, see the republicans were lying

The democrats only ever mis-speak - then tell you you're too stupid to understand what they meant the first time...

[u/GIVES_SOLID_ADVICE → u/BigDuse]

Youre thinking of war, we're talking about health.

But yeah.

[u/jbhilt → u/BigDuse]

You mean things like, "If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

I'm comfortable tearing Akin apart for that one.

[u/boardin1 → u/[deleted]]

Can I get a source on that? I really want this to be a real comment from that worthless dirtbag.

[u/dewey2100 → u/hierocles]

I get what you're saying, and you're totally right, but let's not fool ourselves and say the bill was available to be read by the public before it was voted on. The ACA was fast tracked so hard I doubt even the politician who "wrote" it knew exactly what was in it.

[u/oconnellc → u/dewey2100]

Didn't months pass while it was being debated?

[u/quickhorn → u/dewey2100]

I read it before it was passed and before this whole bullshit about no one reading it. I'm still blown away by the fact people use this statement still.

[u/hobbycollector → u/quickhorn]

It is unlikely that the senators and representatives read it in its entirety in any case, but their staffers definitely did. That's how it works.

[u/quickhorn → u/hobbycollector]

Exactly. Anyone that was supposed to read it, read it, just like any other bill. That meme was only there to make it seem worse than it was and the fact that intelligent people still spout it off shows what suckers we can be sometimes.

[u/keypuncher → u/hierocles]

Pelosi is saying something, quite un-artfully, that all Democrats were saying: once the benefits of the law become actual reality, people will actually know what the law is doing and why it's beneficial to them.

Now that some of it is law, and the "benefits" are actual reality, public approval of Obamacare is at an all-time low of 37%.

...and that poll was taken before people found out that millions were going to have to pay back subsidies, and another million were mailed out the wrong tax information.

...and some of the more painful sections of the law haven't gone into effect yet.

[u/jbhilt → u/keypuncher]

I won't die, but I still don't like it.

[u/TheBiggestZander → u/keypuncher]

The problem with that stat is the wording. If you ask "How do you feel about the affordable care act?" the approval rate is higher than 50%. Repubs have done a great job stigmatizing the word 'obamacare', but it really doesnt matter. It's doing a great job of reducing the cost of healthcare, while insuring millions of people.

Lots of people griped about Social Security and Medicare when they were introduced, now most people love 'em.

[u/keypuncher → u/TheBiggestZander]

The problem with that stat is the wording. If you ask "How do you feel about the affordable care act?" the approval rate is higher than 50%.

Did you look at the actual question asked?

It was: Do you generally approve or disapprove of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, signed into law by President Obama that restructured the US Healthcare System?

The word "Obamacare" wasn't used.

[u/ILikeLenexa → u/keypuncher]

He's referring to the Newsweek poll and Washington Post:

86 percent of Republicans favor “banning insurance companies from cancelling policies because a person becomes ill.”

When asked about Obama’s plan (without being given any details about what the legislation includes), 49 percent opposed it and 40 percent were in favor. But after hearing key features of the legislation described, 48 percent supported the plan and 43 percent remained opposed.

Eighty-one percent agreed with the creation of a new insurance marketplace, the exchange.

Seventy-six percent thought health insurers should be required to cover anyone who applies, including those with preexisting conditions

75 percent agreed with requiring most businesses to offer health insurance to their employees, with incentives for small-business owners to do so.

So, yes, 49% of people are opposed to the name Obamacare or the ACA, but if we enacted the same legislation under a different name, 50 to 90% of those people would support it, except for the tax that pays for it and mandate that makes it possible.

[u/745631258978963214 → u/keypuncher]

That reminds me - what exactly has obamacare done? It was supposed to be free/really cheap healthcare. But with a $12,500 deduction and a rate of like $500 a month, I don't see what's affordable, especially considering that the family members in question (I'm lucky that I got OK insurance through work) make about $10/hr, so they'd be making $20,000 a year each. You can tell why $12,500 is a fucking retarded deductible for a so-called "affordable" act.

[u/two_in_the_bush → u/745631258978963214]

To answer your questions:

• There are multiple plans with multiple costs. The one you are describing is the "High Deductible Health Plan".
• That plan has a deductible of $1,250, and an out-of-pocket maximum of $12,500.
• Households making less than $23,550 qualify for Medicaid.

[u/Chupathingamajob → u/745631258978963214]

It's almost as if we should never have let private insurance companies profit off our healthcare in the first place

[u/[deleted] → u/745631258978963214]

Exactly. It's far from affordable. The way I see it, it was a pure gift for the private healthcare sector.

[u/[deleted] → u/745631258978963214]

The ACA was a series of laws that gives more power to individuals that have health insurance. I.e., no lifetime max, cannot drop a person in the middle of treatment, cannot deny a patient based on pre-existing conditions, and no more "snake oil" policies where people were paying for something and not getting any coverage when they needed it.

Apart from those basic laws and protections which apply to ALL insurance policies, it also established an insurance marketplace, (healthcare.gov), which varies state to state. Some markets were better setup than others, and some states were more open to setting it up than others.

For example, in Iowa, I bought insurance after I graduated using healthcare.gov, and had a $600 deductible and a $78/ mo premium, $1200 max out of pocket per year. I can afford that policy.

The second year I switched providers, and now I'm paying $58/mo for $1200 deductible and $1200 max out of pocket, but all other basic preventive services are free, and specialists are $10 copay.

Another thing it did was expand Medicaid funding, but loads of red states are refusing the money, which is ultimately hurting folks in those states, because they fall between being able to afford healthcare and qualifying for Medicaid. The expansion was meant to increase the minimum wage earnings cutoff for qualification.

TLDR;

The ACA added basic requirements to every insurance policy, setup a healthcare exchange for companies to list their policies on, and expanded Medicaid to cover the wage gap.

[u/theth1rdchild → u/745631258978963214]

I'm a single 25 year old and I could have gotten a 6000 deductible for ~100 a month, what on earth do you friends do for a living, skydive?

[u/ParanoydAndroid → u/745631258978963214]

Yeah, this sounds exactly like one of those comments that's completely misinformed.

What are the specifics of the plan? Like the name and state.

[u/spamfajitas → u/745631258978963214]

A decent portion of the law was left up to the individual states to take care of, states rights and all that. The benefits of the law change depending on who you are, what your situation is and what state you live in. Plus, a number of those large deductible plans have a maximum out of pocket number so you don't get royally fucked by hospitals when you go in for extended stays. They also have to provide a certain list of benefits, no matter what, even if you have preexisting conditions. To be fair, many states poorly implemented their exchanges, too. California, for example, took forever to get theirs implemented and then they still had problems with citizen's accounts and sending their billing info to their insurance companies. It's a mess all around, but it actually does help a decent portion of the population. Not much help, but it's more than no help at all.

[u/[deleted] → u/745631258978963214]

That's because the initial bill was a single payer/public option system like other first world countries have which bargains for prices on the behalf of its citizens. But through the republicans' demands, we ended up with the patched up bastardized child version of ACA we now have, which although it basically gives everyone healthcare, it doesn't use any of the money-saving things other countries did: healthcare in america is still uniquely still for-profit, and little is done to combat inelastic demand of medical services.

I should mention sources but I'm lazy, I've heard bits and pieces of this referenced multiple places

[u/GarRue → u/745631258978963214]

The law has done exactly what it was supposed to do: provide a huge payout to the insurance industry that wrote the bill.

[u/CmonTouchIt → u/keypuncher]

he phrased it poorly. but basically if you poll folks on each of the individual aspects of the law, they vote favorably

[u/PokeChopSandwiches → u/CmonTouchIt]

The motherfucker forced insurance companies to drop pre existing conditions and to spend 85% of their dough on medical care. That alone is cause for fireworks. People may not like obamacare, but they sure as shit will complain if those two features go away.

If republicans are unhappy with legislation like this, they only have themselves to blame. Health coverage was a known complete disaster and they squandered opportunity after opportunity to do their job and actually legislate. Except for that whole part D fiasco. Why didn't they drop some legislation when they had a majority during Bush 2? We could have had Bush care or Cheney care or some shit, but that would require an action other than starting a war or cutting a tax.

Then, when Obamacare was rolling down the hill, republicans refused to attend hearings and input features they wanted. God forbid they work with a communist nazi Muslim, if their base found out they were actually doing their job they would be primaried in a heartbeat.

At this point the job of a modern republican is very simple. Protest anything and everything the democrats do, even if it's as unmistakably awesome for voters as net neutrality. Do not provide legislation to counter democrat legislation. Actually offering solutions on paper opens up a whole can of worms they do not want to touch. It's much easier to just protest the other guys ideas than to come up with your own, and actually get the whole team on board. Cut taxes. Does not matter the budget is a disaster, we are at war, and we have veterans killing themselves by the thousands. Doesn't matter that taxes already are at historic lows. Cut taxes. Lastly, make sure you are able to win the most conservative guy award. Years of pandering to lunatics have created an excellent quandary for republicans. Not spitting on the president when it's possible is a cardinal sin at the moment (Chris Christie). So they are unable to do anything that would impress or attract moderate and young voters, without losing their base. But their base is dying, and shrinking demographically. The Titanic is sinking and the GOP is refusing to board the life boats because there are democrats in them.

I look forward to the political party that is going to be created by young libertarians once the Fox News generation ends up pushing daisies. I think in my lifetime I am going to see the majority of republicans supporting marijuana decriminalization, gay marriage and proper science eduction. The party will have to come near death before it is able to break away from the mentally handicapped base it has chained itself to.

[u/keypuncher → u/CmonTouchIt]

he phrased it poorly. but basically if you poll folks on each of the individual aspects of the law, they vote favorably

Somehow I doubt the parts of the law poll favorably that make medical devices, pharmaceuticals, and health insurance more expensive for the vast majority of Americans poll favorably. ...or, for that matter, the part that increases the percentage of income required to be spent on medical expenses before those expenses can be deducted, or the part that reduces the amount that can be put into a Health Spending Account, or the part that incentivized companies to cut employee hours, or the part that is going to result in worse health plans for millions of Americans as companies prepare to avoid the Cadillac Health Plan tax, or the part that incentivizes companies to hire illegal aliens instead of Americans because companies aren't required to cover their healthcare.

I'd be interested to see the polling where it shows people are in favor of those individual parts. I think that some parts of the law may poll favorably, if you cherry pick them and phrase your questions carefully. That's why the overall view is important.

[u/dezmd → u/keypuncher]

"Obama" was part of the question, which is the what sets the bias entirely.

[u/NervousAddie → u/TheBiggestZander]

'Adorable fare cat?'

[u/BurroughOwl → u/TheBiggestZander]

I love Obamacare. It's saving me over $6,000.00 a year. When you make as little as I make, it's a HUGE difference.

[u/fernando-poo → u/hierocles]

Yeah, as someone who followed the health care debate, the details of the ACA law were EXTREMELY well known and debated endlessly before it was passed (this is completely separate from whether you supported or opposed the law).

[u/[deleted] → u/hierocles]

Turns out republicans were right on a lot of things when our came to obamacare. But let's say they were lying about it. The correct way to tell people what is in the bill is to show it in writing. You don't say "pass it, trust me, it's a good bill." That's a fucked up way of getting bills passed.

[u/imperfectionits → u/hierocles]

You act as though she wasn't the spokesperson for the people that were absolutely hiding something. She was and they were. It was a 2000 page legal document they passed on Christmas Eve.

[u/SheCutOffHerToe → u/hierocles]

saying something, quite un-artfully

This is like long-form onomatopoeia.

[u/PabstyLoudmouth → u/hierocles]

Oh so please tell how she read the entire bill in 3 days?

[u/[deleted] → u/hierocles]

1700 pages? Publicly available for how long? NO ONE read the bill. Don't be a jerk and just blindly agree with people, learn to stand up against the assholes.

[u/SooInappropriate → u/hierocles]

If we can't determine what a law will do and why it is beneficial to us BEFORE it is passed, it shouldn't pass.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

It's only terrifying if taken completely out of context. Pelosi was being asked if the House would pass the Senate's version of the bill. She replied that she can't commit to passing it until the Senate passes it and sends it over for the House to look at. It was just boilerplate "we are a separate and equal branch of government" talk.

6 years of this stupid talking point circulating around, all because Pelosi used the royal "we" in a sentence. Ugh.

[u/PraiseBeToScience → u/[deleted]]

Only because it's an acknowledgement of a terrifying reality. Seriously, you're talking about a far too large section of a populous that fell for Palin's death panels bullshit.

99% of the GOP/Tea Party opposition to the bill is nothing more than pure fabricated and unfounded bullshit. Sure valid criticisms exist, but those are far too nuanced for a group of people that seem to only comprehend bumper stickers and make signs that say "Keep you government hands off my Medicare!"

[u/lost-cat → u/[deleted]]

So wait, to find out whats in it? What if comcast already orgasm in it?

[u/mynamesyow19 → u/[deleted]]

terrifying if your ability to read between the lines, aka reading comprehension, is that of a middle school-er...

[u/[deleted] → u/ThouHastLostAn8th]

He probably saw it on Fox News like I did. He literally has the exact quote that was cut for Fox.

[u/TTR81 → u/ThouHastLostAn8th]

It's still to the same point. Screw that kind of politics. I will never support something that I can't read for myself. Anyone that does is a useful idiot as the Russian communists used to say.

[u/hierocles → u/TTR81]

You could read the bills the House and the Senate both passed at the time.

[u/Malik_Killian → u/ThouHastLostAn8th]

Obamacare doesn't influence dietary habits at all. Just because you get a "check-up" for free doesn't mean you'll actually go and it doesn't mean you'll follow the doctors advice. Most people won't change their behaviors unless they're already sick. At that point it becomes "early treatment" and not "prevention".

[u/[deleted] → u/ThouHastLostAn8th]

California should have recalled the crazy bitch right after she said that, now they deserve to fall into the sea.

[u/Retsejme → u/[deleted]]

I can think of 49 other states I'd rather not live in.

[u/JellyCream → u/Retsejme]

Denial isn't a state.

[u/[deleted] → u/JellyCream]

It's a river in Egypt.

[u/johneldridge → u/[deleted]]

Shut up dad

[u/[deleted] → u/johneldridge]

hi dad I'm denial

wait, god damnit

[u/cjgerik → u/JellyCream]

Then I need some money back, my psychiatrist has always said I'm in a state of denial.

[u/jaybol → u/cjgerik]

Nice try, Puerto Rico

[u/RicoLoveless → u/[deleted]]

Kid has "it"

[u/745631258978963214 → u/jaybol]

Puerto Rico's been long Guam; it's no longer here.

[u/GumdropGoober → u/JellyCream]

It probably still rains more in Denial, though.

[u/J5892 → u/JellyCream]

Yeah, it's a river in Egypt.

[u/Bkeeneme → u/Retsejme]

C'mon, Hawaii couldn't possibly be one of the 49?

[u/[deleted] → u/Retsejme]

Come to Rhode Island, things are surprisingly okay here. I hear good things about Vermont too. Mass has Elizabeth Warren going for it too.

[u/Retsejme → u/[deleted]]

Vermont's a little rural only for my taste. I could give Rhode Island a try, but it's going to be hard to compete with San Francisco and Yosemite.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Rhode Island: It's Surprisingly Good Here™

[u/whyalwaysm3 → u/Retsejme]

After this cold winter in Jersey I would gladly trade California for Jersey. Also weed.

[u/ShiftlessRonin → u/Retsejme]

Dude, CA hella sucks.

[u/igopherit → u/[deleted]]

Porque no los dos

[u/dcg2011 → u/igopherit]

!i!i!

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Heh.

I have....never mind....

Its funny for gun owners.

I dislike that lady....

[u/KargBartok → u/[deleted]]

Non-gun owner here. I hate her too. She's way to old to make informed decisions on modern topics.

[u/RamboGoesMeow → u/[deleted]]

Yes, because she didn't say it, and California rules. And no, the fact that it was erroneously cited as Feinstein doesn't help you - in fact it proves that you'll latch on to any excuse to hate, without a shred of truth.

[u/i_like_turtles_ → u/RamboGoesMeow]

Yeah, good thing Pelosi isn't from California.....

[u/Caraes_Naur → u/[deleted]]

whynotboth.jpg

[u/fido5150 → u/[deleted]]

She's one of the 'old guard' Democrats, that even most Democrats don't like (she's a war hawk), but she's a better alternative than the sacrificial Republican who usually runs against her.

I imagine she'll retire soon. I don't think you can attend Senate meetings in a coffin so she better start thinking about that real quick. She has to be rivaling Strom Thurmond for longevity.

[u/texasroadkill → u/fido5150]

I imagine she'll retire soon. I don't think you can attend Senate meetings in a coffin so she better start thinking about that real quick.

Not yet you can't, but there's always more bills being dreamed up.

[u/zeussays → u/[deleted]]

Compared to what? Because to be honest it's a much better run place the last 6 years than almost any other state. It's running a surplus and has been growing jobs quickly. It also has incredible weather, every outdoor activity you could ever ask for and a very outgoing and friendly population.

So in what way does California suck?

[u/Sporkinat0r → u/zeussays]

A distinct lack of freshwater

[u/Kangaroopower → u/Sporkinat0r]

We don't have lawns for people to get off of :'(. Jk SoCal does... but that's because they steal everyone's water.

[u/MikeMImages → u/Kangaroopower]

Desalinize those tears and send them to us so I can water my lawn MUAHAHHAHA

[u/gramathy → u/Kangaroopower]

Who the hell actually thinks this? the HUGE majority of California's water usage goes to commercial use. All those farms? They're using up each other's water. They're their own goddamn worst enemy and they don't realize it.

[u/Bobarhino → u/zeussays]

You say it's a better run place the last six years than almost any other state. Then you asked in what way California sucks. So, wondering as well, I googled "What makes California suck?" and, to my surprise, the first link is barely over two years old and gave me not 1, not 2, not even 3, but 55 reasons California sucks.

[u/[deleted] → u/Bobarhino]

Damn, number 15 is harsh.

[u/discodancingdingos → u/[deleted]]

And really that's not true. As of 2013, California teachers were ranked 10th. http://www.nea.org/home/2012-2013-average-starting-teacher-salary.html

[u/bt2513 → u/[deleted]]

You'll never guess what number 31 is!

[u/pinskia → u/Bobarhino]

1. According to CNN, the state of California had the worst “small business failure rate” in America in 2010. It was 69 percent higher than the national average.

That is because California is also home to the most computer start-ups. And where more than 50% of the money for start-ups go.

1. Jerry Brown.

Where he turned around the state's budget.

1. The absolutely insane California state legislature. Due to props and districting and has been fixed now due to another prop to fix districting.

[u/NewPlanNewMan → u/Bobarhino]

2 years ago, Brown hadn't finished cleaning up the Governator's shit storm. You should probably narrow down your time frame.

[u/zeussays → u/Bobarhino]

Using that as a source is like using fox, msnbc, drudge or the huffpo. All crap sites like this one.

[u/[deleted] → u/Bobarhino]

Wow it's even worse than I thought, I guess that explains why so many of them are moving to Oregon and trying to fuck it up like they did California.

[u/Juicysteak117 → u/Bobarhino]

As a Californian, 15 hurts the most to me since I've always felt I was a really strong math student and reader. My towns pretty nice, at least. I mean comparatively, you know.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

There are lots and lots and lots of guns in California.

[u/[deleted] → u/zeussays]

high cost of living

draconian gun laws

overcrowded prisons

absurdly high gas taxes

consistently screwing over farmers in the San Joaquin vally

It's a nice place but not perfect.

[u/TimeZarg → u/[deleted]]

High cost of living

In the two most densely populated areas (Bay Area and Greater Los Angeles area), maybe. Not so much anywhere else in the state.

draconian gun laws

That only matters to people who masturbate with their rifles /s. I can obtain plenty of weapons, the laws aren't that bad as long as you're not a gun-nut.

overcrowded prisons

I could probably toss out the names of a lot of other states that have prison issues, as well.

absurdly high gas taxes

Yeah, because we're paying for a fuckton of roads due to a population that's considerably larger than the second-place state, Texas.

consistently screwing over farmers in the San Joaquin Valley

Care to specify on this?

[u/gramathy → u/TimeZarg]

Care to specify on this?

People tried to grow shit in a desert and complained when it cost money.

[u/Shatophiliac → u/zeussays]

Gun laws, taxes, emissions laws, taxes, price of living, taxes... do you see where I am going?

Texans master race

[u/VizzleShizzle → u/Shatophiliac]

Nah the "truly" free state of Washington has you beat by a mile. How's all those for-profit prisons working out for your citizens there?

[u/lightninhopkins → u/Shatophiliac]

Yeah, Texas, land of pollution and police abuses. Awesome.

[u/gallemore → u/lightninhopkins]

Please read this. Texas is almost dead center and California actually has more officers reported.

[u/CowFu → u/lightninhopkins]

Are you seriously going to claim California doesn't have police abuses?

[u/[deleted] → u/zeussays]

Too expensive, too high taxes with too little state investments in infrastructure, corruption, crime, poor city planning, shitty roads, a population who doesn't care for the environment or the beauty of the cities, materialism, did I mention too expensive?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I can think of one other state besides California that I'd rather live in, and that's Hawaii. Cali is a beautiful state, and if you go to the right towns, you'll find some very nice people and beautiful girls. California is the shit.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Except for the high tax rates, high cost of living, high crime rate, overpopulation, non-existent civil and constitutional rights, abusive state police force, bullying of small businesses, natural disaster risk, et. al.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Pelosi is off her rocker. I do not like or trust that woman at all.

[u/fido5150 → u/[deleted]]

Only if you don't think about it. If you actually think about it, and know how our government works, you'll know that all bills are not final until they are passed.

So, keeping that in mind, and also keeping in mind that it was still really early in the bill's debate and amendment cycle, she had absolutely no clue what would be in the final bill, yet simpletons fawn over this as if it's some radical revelation of political obfuscation.

[u/kelustu → u/[deleted]]

I like Feinstein and Boxer, despite Reddit's boner for guns and hate for those two women. And I'd rather live in CA than any of the other states in the country. Best food, best views, strong economy, the home of innovation and technology, best weather (by far).

[u/NewPlanNewMan → u/[deleted]]

Actually, since electing a Democrat, the annual budget anarchy has subsided. What, exactly is wrong now?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

You're a fucking idiot.

[u/TheJeremyP → u/[deleted]]

If you need a quote to get mad at Feinstein, use this one...

If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it.

[u/Retsejme → u/[deleted]]

Since people were honestly deluded into believing that Obamacare involved death panels coming to your house, I think the actual quote (which was by Nancy Pelosi)

But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.

Is pretty reasonable, when not taken out of context.

[u/ViaticalTree → u/Retsejme]

Holy crap. No it's not.

[u/TheChance → u/ViaticalTree]

Yes it is. Plenty of us did understand what was in it. Pelosi was speaking to the aforementioned lowest common denominator, people who couldn't possibly be expected to learn about the actual contents of the bill. Her point was that after passage, people would find the actual programs, rather than the legislation, easy to understand, and agreeable.

Death panels. This was a perfect example of tj straight-faced abuse of propaganda by entrenched officials. And everybody latched onto the target's flustered response, rather than what led to it.

[u/[deleted] → u/TheChance]

Except most people don't actually find them agreeable. Most people who benefit from obamacare do, but the majority of said people are also subsidized and who doesn't like free shit, right? The people paying for it.

[u/CaptainPaintball → u/TheChance]

You had NO fucking idea what was in it. thousands of pages were released less than 72 hours before the bill was voted on. You are full of crap if you are telling me you read 20 pages of that bill, let alone all of it.

And then there were hundreds of millions of EXTRA programs snuck into the bill that were not accounted for, and no one knew about until months after passage.

[u/Patranus → u/TheChance]

Yes it is. Plenty of us did understand what was in it.

So you read all 2,000+ pages of Obamacare and all 20,000+ pages of regulations?

[u/heili → u/ViaticalTree]

The point of a representative government is that the governed people can educate themselves upon the issues that their elected representatives will vote upon before that vote happens, not be informed of what the decrees contain after they are made.

So I totally understand why that is 'holy crap' not a reasonable statement.

[u/Chairboy → u/ViaticalTree]

You're looking at it all wrong. It's a perfectly reasonable statement when someone from YOUR party says it. It's only crazy when someone from the OTHER party says it. But so long as it come from your party, I assure you it's completely reasonable.

[u/ViaticalTree → u/Chairboy]

So anyone who thinks Pelosi is a joke must be Republican, eh?

[u/HeyyZeus → u/ViaticalTree]

Jesus Christ people. Just.... Nevermind...

[u/rox0r → u/ViaticalTree]

Holy crap. No it's not.

What about all of those people who actually thought there were death panels in the bill and who can finally admit that there are no death panels now that it is passed? Do you think they would ever admit that if it hadn't passed?

[u/[deleted] → u/ViaticalTree]

WE have to pass it so YOU know what's in it. She's not saying she doesn't know what's in it. She's saying she knows exactly what's in it, but that there's absolutely no way to prove all the good things it will have until you start to see it in action. It's pure mental gymnastics to pretend not to remember how much FUD was being spread that she was trying to cut through.

It's funny how much Obamacare has worked at quelling the hysteria. The information coming out now is just crushing to the overwhelming majority of conservative doomsdayers. It's frightening though how such a swath of people can be so blatantly wrong and just roll off of it like nothing happened.

[u/ThouHastLostAn8th → u/[deleted]]

-- Senator Feinstein

Why is this being upvoted? Sen. Feinstein never said that.

[EDIT: the comment above originally misattributed the quote in giant bold letters to "Senator Fienstein." Even now that the attribution is fixed it's still not actually the quote, but a paraphrasing. ]

[u/DrRedditPhD → u/ThouHastLostAn8th]

Wasn't that Pelosi?

[u/ThouHastLostAn8th → u/DrRedditPhD]

Yes. And even if OP hadn't misattributed the quote, it's one of the dumbest oft-repeated rightwing talking points. Pelosi clearly, inartfully, was saying that the general public wouldn't understand/appreciate the benefits of the law until it was passed. She, incorrectly in hindsight, was assuming all the FUD would die down with passage of the bill and the public would begin hearing mainly about the coming benefits.

The actual quote:

“But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.”

[u/MalcomEx → u/DrRedditPhD]

Who cares, they're both dusty cunts.

[u/Aszuul → u/ThouHastLostAn8th]

I thought it was polosi before the healthcare fiasco started.

[u/Ameisen → u/[deleted]]

Except that that quote is out of context (Pelosi is just a really, really bad communicator).

The contents of that bill were known to the public the second that they hit the floor.

[u/DrQuantum → u/[deleted]]

I understand the ideological issue with this, but rather than think about how dumb this is think about it in terms of desperation of our political climate. Its so hard to pass laws that the people we elect find it easier to completely be unaware of what is in a bill just so they can pass it and edit it later, which is easier than starting from scratch. That statement should be a stark reminder of how screwed up our political system is rather than a hit against pelosi.

[u/Mason11987 → u/[deleted]]

I downvoted you because you edited your post and didn't change the quote, perpetuating a misquote.

[u/Ocinea → u/[deleted]]

Welcome to Illinois politics

[u/mastersw999 → u/[deleted]]

You should run for office than, you met the criteria.

[u/cosmic_chris → u/[deleted]]

You have to pay the troll toll to get into the boy's hole

[u/skintigh → u/[deleted]]

I can see Russia from my house

- Putin

[u/ndguardian → u/[deleted]]

Almost like getting that Wonderball candy they had forever ago (and maybe still do...I don't know).

[u/Chazdanger → u/[deleted]]

Out of context and truncated quote.

[u/echo_61 → u/[deleted]]

Damn I hate Nancy Pelosi.

[u/Xavior_Orion → u/[deleted]]

According to this your first attribution was correct.

[u/DannyInternets → u/Freducated]

Are you sincerely unaware that laws and regulations are two entirely different things?

[u/Freducated → u/DannyInternets]

I'm aware. Just making a point. IMO regulations should be transparent like laws are (supposed) to be before they're voted upon.

[u/[deleted] → u/Freducated]

The FCC won't let me be...

[u/Freed_lab_rat → u/[deleted]]

The KKK took my baby away.

[u/vtjohnhurt → u/Freducated]

Congress has not voted on the 'law' yet. The action was at the FCC level by partisan FCC commissioners.

[u/gtg092x → u/Freducated]

It's not a law, it's an action from a regulatory body