Eric Cantor: did nothing about jobs, now has to find a new one

[Heywood]

He wants to deny seniors Medicare because he doesn't think it's fair that they aren't paying enough for it.

You mischaracterize his position.

Brat doesn't think it is fair that Medicare recipients get back 3 dollars for every dollar that they put in. He didn't say he wanted to deny seniors Medicare. He wants a fair system with fairness being defined as Medicare recipients getting out what they put in.

I didn't look into your other claims as I am fairly certain they are mischaracterizations as well.

[Minimalist]

A quick review of his public statements reveals a fellow who is about as tea party as can be. He appears to endorse slashing Social Security payouts to seniors by two-thirds. He wants to dissolve the IRS. And he has called for drastic cuts to education funding, explaining, "My hero Socrates trained in Plato on a rock. How much did that cost? So the greatest minds in history became the greatest minds in history without spending a lot of money."

He's a shithead, Woodie. Just like you.

[Heywood]

A quick review of his public statements reveals a fellow who is about as tea party as can be. He appears to endorse slashing Social Security payouts to seniors by two-thirds. He wants to dissolve the IRS. And he has called for drastic cuts to education funding, explaining, "My hero Socrates trained in Plato on a rock. How much did that cost? So the greatest minds in history became the greatest minds in history without spending a lot of money."

He's a shithead, Woodie. Just like you.

I may be a shithead, but you're an idiot who lets Motherjones think for you. I don't agree with a lot of this guys positions. But I'm not going to stoop to mischaracterizing them in order to try to get people to hate him.

[Cato]

You mischaracterize his position.

Brat doesn't think it is fair that Medicare recipients get back 3 dollars for every dollar that they put in. He didn't say he wanted to deny seniors Medicare. He wants a fair system with fairness being defined as Medicare recipients getting out what they put in.

I didn't look into your other claims as I am fairly certain they are mischaracterizations as well.

This is fucking ridiculous. If people had the money to put into Medicare so that there would be a one to one relationship between input and output, what precisely would be the need for Medicare? Or insurance for that matter. Medicare exists precisely because people don't have the ability to pay (your stupid one for one requirement) for basic medical services.

If your ignorant ass missed this, so be it. If this is truly Brat's position as an Economics Ph.D well then....Holy Fuck!

Just in case you don't get my point...
Requiring people that don't have the money to pay 100% of medical costs in order to get medical care is the same fucking thing as denying medical coverage.

Yet another example of why people should be made to pass a minimum aptitude and knowledge test before being allowed to vote.

[Ryantology]

Brat doesn't think it is fair that Medicare recipients get back 3 dollars for every dollar that they put in."

As if it is the fault of seniors that medical care is a profit-driven industry. Oh, wait, that's the fault of people who think it should be a profit-driven industry, like Dave Brat.

He didn't say he wanted to deny seniors Medicare.

"Right. So, maybe the next ten years we have to grandfather some folks in, but basically we're going to move them in a direct line toward fairness and we have to live within our means."

That is exactly what he is saying. Only, he's a shithead politician, so he dresses it up in the euphemism of "moving them towards fairness".

He wants a fair system with fairness being defined as Medicare recipients getting out what they put in.

And booting out everybody (but only after ten years, the fucking saint) who can't afford to get anything substantial out of it. Which happens to be a really huge number of seniors.

I didn't look into your other claims as I am fairly certain they are mischaracterizations as well.

Given that you're lying about his positions to make him not appear inhumane, I don't think I'm the one mischaracterizing.

I don't know what's up with these tags.

[Heywood]

You mischaracterize his position.

Brat doesn't think it is fair that Medicare recipients get back 3 dollars for every dollar that they put in. He didn't say he wanted to deny seniors Medicare. He wants a fair system with fairness being defined as Medicare recipients getting out what they put in.

I didn't look into your other claims as I am fairly certain they are mischaracterizations as well.

This is fucking ridiculous. If people had the money to put into Medicare so that there would be a one to one relationship between input and output, what precisely would be the need for Medicare? Or insurance for that matter. Medicare exists precisely because people don't have the ability to pay (your stupid one for one requirement) for basic medical services.

If your ignorant ass missed this, so be it. If this is truly Brat's position as an Economics Ph.D well then....Holy Fuck!

Just in case you don't get my point...
Requiring people that don't have the money to pay 100% of medical costs in order to get medical care is the same fucking thing as denying medical coverage.

Yet another example of why people should be made to pass a minimum aptitude and knowledge test before being allowed to vote.

In Brat's mind a fair system is one that doesn't run a deficit. He wants Medicare recipients(all of them as a group) to receive only what they(all of them as a group) pay into it. He isn't talking about an individual input to output parity....at least not that I can see from watching his statements made in the video Motherjones used as a source to mischaracterize his position.

[CapnAwesome]

I guess money doesn't mean everything in politics when someone can outspend 20-1 and still lose.

[Heywood]

He didn't say he wanted to deny seniors Medicare.

"Right. So, maybe the next ten years we have to grandfather some folks in, but basically we're going to move them in a direct line toward fairness and we have to live within our means."

That is exactly what he is saying. Only, he's a shithead politician, so he dresses it up in the euphemism of "moving them towards fairness".

"Grandfather people in" doesn't sound like "denying seniors medicare". You mischaracterized his position. Your fault was in letting MotherJones tell you what to think instead of thinking for yourself.

Brat does not want to "deny seniors medicare". Brat wants to quickly move the system toward sustainability. What is wrong with sustainable social security, sustainable medicare?

[Ryantology]

I guess money doesn't mean everything in politics when someone can outspend 20-1 and still lose.

True. That would be the one positive of the guy.

I saw someone comment to the effect that Eric Cantor and the GOP establishment learned that when you invite cannibals over for dinner, they might eat you.

---

"Grandfather people in" doesn't sound like "denying seniors medicare". You mischaracterized his position. Your fault was in letting MotherJones tell you what to think instead of thinking for yourself.

He is obviously allowing this grandfathering grudgingly, and then after ten years, new seniors will not get those benefits. The fuck do you think he would have done for seniors who can't afford Medicare? It is not much paraphrasing to say that his position on that is telling Americans to suck it up and say goodbye to Grandma in the name of 'fairness'.

Brat does not want to "deny seniors medicare". Brat wants to quickly move the system toward sustainability. What is wrong with sustainable social security, sustainable medicare?

I want sustainability by giving Medicare and Social Security the funding necessary for allowing seniors to live. Brat (and you) wants sustainability by letting people die who can't afford to live. There's your death panel.

But no, tell me about how evil fucking abortion is again. All Profitable Life is Sacred™.

[Heywood]

He is obviously allowing this grandfathering grudgingly, and then after ten years, new seniors will not get those benefits. The fuck do you think he would have done for seniors who can't afford Medicare? It is not much paraphrasing to say that his position on that is telling Americans to suck it up and say goodbye to Grandma in the name of 'fairness'.

He is obviously allowing this grandfathering grudgingly? Stop talking out of your ass crack. He said absolutely nothing to indicate this. MotherJones indicated this. You are letting motherjones think for you. Shame Shame Shame.

Brat does not want to "deny seniors medicare". Brat wants to quickly move the system toward sustainability. What is wrong with sustainable social security, sustainable medicare?

I want sustainability by giving Medicare and Social Security the funding necessary for allowing seniors to live. Brat (and you) wants sustainability by letting people die who can't afford to live. There's your death panel.

I want a negative income tax or universal basic income. I want the government to provide health care to anyone who wants it(not health insurance). You claiming I want let people die who can't afford to live is just another attempt to demonize people who oppose your ideology by spreading lies about them. You're getting to be as bad as Minimalist in this regard.

But no, tell me about how evil fucking abortion is again.

Having lost the argument, Ryantology quickly tries to change the subject to something completely different.