How the mighty have fallen

[tucker6]

From being above the fray and smarter than his advisors to sweating over the details of the fix to his website in the family quarters. Doesn't look like Michelle is getting any lately. Tsk, tsk.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-obamacare-details-briefings/2013/11/26/id/538673


"By day, Jeffrey Zients drives around Washington’s Beltway, overseeing the private contractors and government officials racing to fix the flawed Obamacare website. By night, President Barack Obama gets a rundown of Zients’ progress from White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough during their evening stroll along the South Lawn. A fuller report follows in a briefing book Obama takes upstairs to the first- family’s quarters for late-night reading."

[sammy the sage]

From being above the fray and smarter than his advisors to sweating over the details of the fix to his website in the family quarters. Doesn't look like Michelle is getting any lately. Tsk, tsk.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-obamacare-details-briefings/2013/11/26/id/538673


"By day, Jeffrey Zients drives around Washington’s Beltway, overseeing the private contractors and government officials racing to fix the flawed Obamacare website. By night, President Barack Obama gets a rundown of Zients’ progress from White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough during their evening stroll along the South Lawn. A fuller report follows in a briefing book Obama takes upstairs to the first- family’s quarters for late-night reading."



yep...typical pugs...more worried ABOUT THE bedroom than things THAT matter :rolleyes: :faint: :lol:

[tucker6]

yep...typical pugs...more worried ABOUT THE bedroom than things THAT matter :rolleyes: :faint: :lol:
yes, that was the entire point of my post ... :rolleyes:

[FantasticDan]

yes, that was the entire point of my post ... :rolleyes:What was the point of your post? You take a story about the ongoing effort to fix the website, and turn it into "how the mighty have fallen"? I don't get it. Because Obama was once being fitted for Mt Rushmore, but now stays up late worrying about a website and not servicing Michelle? :confused: :sleeping:

[tucker6]

What was the point of your post? You take a story about the ongoing effort to fix the website, and turn it into "how the mighty have fallen"? I don't get it. Because Obama was once being fitted for Mt Rushmore, but now stays up late worrying about a website and not servicing Michelle? :confused: :sleeping:
The shrillness of the lefties on here is funny to see. You got it Danny boy. Obama himself said that he was smarter than his underlings. I guess in that he was correct although the bar was set pretty low. He chose a bunch of morons as cabinet members. He also thought he didn't need to get his hands dirty with the work of governing. You know, what his job is. Instead, he's spent five years being a political hack. So yeah, I'm laughing a lot right now at your discomfiture at how poorly YOUR choice of president is performing. His legacy has already been written, and his party is beginning to worry about themselves rather than support his agenda. I'm just thankful on the day before ultimate thankfulness that he self-destructed before he did any more damage to our country.

[Tom]

His legacy will be Iran getting nukes with his assistance.

[davew]

article says they are developing metrics for website

so average page load time was 8 seconds, if they get it down to 6 in the next week -> success, they fixed the website....

[Jay Trotter]

...So yeah, I'm laughing a lot right now at your discomfiture at how poorly YOUR choice of president is performing. ...You guys couldn't even pick a worthy candidate. That has to really suck! :lol:

[Tom]

You guys couldn't even pick a worthy candidate. That has to really suck! :lol:

You think Romney was not worthy?????
Oh, wait, YOU guys elected the crack-snortin' Mayor......and drive his approval rating up with each new stupid thing he says! OK, just soes we know what frame of reference you're coming from......:lol::lol::lol:

[redshift1]

Cosmic humor where the challengers are unable to unseat the worst sitting president in history (by their own definition) despite having the "most watched" cable news service in history 100 % behind them.

2016 looks to continue the amazing run when the most electable republican candidate is fully despised by half the party.

[tucker6]

Cosmic humor where the challengers are unable to unseat the worst sitting president in history (by their own definition) despite having the "most watched" cable news service in history 100 % behind them.


Romney was correct in his assertion that the dems have bought off about half the country with our grandchildren's money. He lost because he couldn't pay off enough voters. Good for you I guess. If that's cosmic humor, then we have more to cry about than laugh about.

[redshift1]

Romney was correct in his assertion that the dems have bought off about half the country with our grandchildren's money. He lost because he couldn't pay off enough voters. Good for you I guess. If that's cosmic humor, then we have more to cry about than laugh about.


Ah shucks , schadenfreude... down memory lane to Kathleen Harris whose assualts on propriety were legendary.


.

[tucker6]

Ah shucks , schadenfreude... down memory lane to Kathleen Harris whose assualts on propriety were legendary.


.
in what way?

[HUSKER55]

yep...typical pugs...more worried ABOUT THE bedroom than things THAT matter
Today 06:48 AM



have you ever considered the possibility that YOU take money too seriously.

Certainly a good roll in the hay should be on par with money! :D

[Jay Trotter]

You think Romney was not worthy?????
Oh, wait, YOU guys elected the crack-snortin' Mayor......and drive his approval rating up with each new stupid thing he says! OK, just soes we know what frame of reference you're coming from......:lol::lol::lol:Tom, that guy is as much my Mayor as Bob Filner is your Mayor. Sheesh! I'm not from Toronto. I'm not even from Ontario. I don't know Joe (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRI-A3vakVg) from Canada.

Just so's you know my frame of reference.....:lol::lol::lol:. Oh, and yes, Romney really wasn't a worthy candidate. I think you've even had some choice remarks about him yourself. Now Christie or Jeb Bush, those are worthy candidates.

[fast4522]

Mitt Romney is every bit as worthy as a good man and businessman than any Canadian who has ever walked this earth. The problem is not with the candidate but with the party and establishment. Not all republicans are good republicans, one who always votes the party faithful. In a Canadian's eyes a good republican candidate is either one who has not been born yet or has been aborted, now you may feel that is harsh but deep down you know it is true. That being said your qualifications are limited for north of the border.

[PaceAdvantage]

You guys couldn't even pick a worthy candidate. That has to really suck! :lol:Actually, we did.

[PaceAdvantage]

Now Christie or Jeb Bush, those are worthy candidates.Until they're not...until they look threatening...then you watch...they will become the epitome of unworthy. Just like Romney did...

[Jay Trotter]

The poor, poor Republicans. The lame stream media just won't cut them any slack, eh! I thought FOX was the number 1 channel. Are they part of the lame stream media? I don't get it. You guys are funny.:lol:

[tucker6]

The poor, poor Republicans. The lame stream media just won't cut them any slack, eh! I thought FOX was the number 1 channel. Are they part of the lame stream media? I don't get it. You guys are funny.:lol:
your humor seems forced. Are you trying to get us to believe it or yourself? All I know is that there are about 50 dems who wished that the president's name wasn't Obama right about now.

[NJ Stinks]

The shrillness of the lefties on here is funny to see.

Let's see. You start a thread where you say: "Doesn't look like Michelle is getting any lately...."

Then you proceed to trash the President of the United States.

And now you lecture us on the "shrillness of the lefties on here".


Tucker, grab a mirror. Quick! :rolleyes:

[Tom]

I'm curious, JAy....just what did Obama bring to the table that Romney did not?
Other than no experience in anything ( which has really been his legacy) and a questionable background?

Romney was probably he most qualified candidate in either party the last three elections. Make that last 4.

[HUSKER55]

JAY,... you do know that CNN is moving away from the news because they can't compete.

[Robert Goren]

I'm curious, JAy....just what did Obama bring to the table that Romney did not?
Other than no experience in anything ( which has really been his legacy) and a questionable background?

Romney was probably he most qualified candidate in either party the last three elections. Make that last 4.You have to be kidding. A guy lost his last general election by a landslide and was a retread from 2008 when he was far back in the field of GOP presidential candidates. He beat a field of nobodies in 2012. He was nominated because all the big names in the GOP( like Palin) decide not to run.

[Tom]

Look up the word qualified, Bobby.

[TJDave]

Romney was probably he most qualified candidate in either party the last three elections. Make that last 4.

Romney wasn't running for president of GE.

What made him qualified to be president of a country?

[PaceAdvantage]

Nice deflection - could be applied to most if not all candidates.

What made him unqualified, given the above?

[TJDave]

What made him unqualified, given the above?

Good businessmen do not make good politicians. The qualification for one is the antithesis of the other. The idea that government should be run as a business is fantasy.

[Robert Goren]

Look up the word qualified, Bobby. In his only attempt at government, he was a major failure in the eyes of those he governed. I don't believe being a lousy governor makes him qualified. The GOP could have done much better. There were any number of successful GOP governors who would made a better candidate. But then the GOP has a love affair with charismatic governors who were very bad governing.

[dartman51]

Romney wasn't running for president of GE.

What made him qualified to be president of a country?


What the hell did Obama ever run, besides his mouth?

What made him "more qualified", or even qualified to run anything, let alone, a country?

Do you think being President of a law review, at Harvard, makes one qualified to be President of the United States? :lol: What a F%&*$@G joke.

[dartman51]

In his only attempt at government, he was a major failure in the eyes of those he governed. I don't believe being a lousy governor makes him qualified. The GOP could have done much better. There were any number of successful GOP governors who would made a better candidate. But then the GOP has a love affair with charismatic governors who were very bad governing.

Major failure? Really? Did someone from Mass. actually tell you this, or did you get this from the Democrat talking points, during the campaign? His approval rating was at a LOW point of 50% when he announced that he would not seek re-election, and proceeded to go down from there, to a LOW of 34%, as people in Mass. felt that he was more interested in things outside the state. Which, by the way, is exactly what Obama's approval rating is in Ohio, 34%. A state which helped get him elected. Obama's approval rating has been below 50%, for a while now, so I guess you would agree that he has been a MAJOR FAILURE, as President, using your measurement. :ThmbUp:

[PaceAdvantage]

What the hell did Obama ever run, besides his mouth?

What made him "more qualified", or even qualified to run anything, let alone, a country?

Do you think being President of a law review, at Harvard, makes one qualified to be President of the United States? :lol: What a F%&*$@G joke.You've fallen into his trap. He never stated Obama was any more qualified or even qualified at all.

[TJDave]

It's very simple, really. People qualify candidates with their vote. The candidate receiving the most votes is the most qualified.

[Jay Trotter]

I'm curious, JAy....just what did Obama bring to the table that Romney did not?Short answer..........a winning campaign times two. Enough said.

Romney, on the other hand alienated 47% of the people right off the bat. Tough to win an election that way.

[reckless]

Romney, on the other hand alienated 47% of the people right off the bat. Tough to win an election that way.

I think the freeloaders and the parasites in this once great USA are now just about 50 per cent -- AKA Obama's base.

Add a few more percentage points to emasculated, cowardly left wing 1960s re-threads along with the usual skanks and sluts in the Democrat Party and you have a two-term Obama presidency.

[Ocala Mike]

Obama's base consisted of young people, minorities, women, and educated whites. Although the nation is getting older, it's also getting less white. Somehow, at least on the NATIONAL scale, the opposition has to find a way to erode that base if it wants to win an election.

[HUSKER55]

give them all a job and make them pay up. that would do it.

[badcompany]

Obama's base consisted of young people, minorities, women, and educated whites. Although the nation is getting older, it's also getting less white. Somehow, at least on the NATIONAL scale, the opposition has to find a way to erode that base if it wants to win an election.

You act as though the Dems have had some kind of Presidential dynasty. Obama won because the middle got sick of Republicans. They'll eventually get sick of the Dems and you'll have another Repub in the White House.

[Clocker]

It's very simple, really. People qualify candidates with their vote. The candidate receiving the most votes is the most qualified.

The person with the most votes is the most qualified to win an election. There is zero necessary correlation between that and the most qualified to run an administration or to promote the policies most beneficial to the country.

[davew]

Good businessmen do not make good politicians. The qualification for one is the antithesis of the other. The idea that government should be run as a business is fantasy.

Yes, I am sure that the founding fathers in the 1770's were a bunch of community organizers that sat around asking what can the government do for me ... and decided England was not doing enough so they started their own country.

[Tom]

As we have all seen, whatever your bitch about Romney was, your vote for Obama was a total waste on a fool who suckered you into thing he was qualified. How does it feel know, losers? :lol: :lol: :lol:

[johnhannibalsmith]

Seems to me like a lot of votes went to Obama specifically because he was NOT qualified. Qualified has come to mean a rubber stamp by the party as a business-as-usual politician and he was packaged as the antithesis of that label. He was not qualified, he was allegedly not part of any machine. That was one of his big selling points. Being "qualified" isn't always an advantage.

[Robert Goren]

Major failure? Really? Did someone from Mass. actually tell you this, or did you get this from the Democrat talking points, during the campaign? His approval rating was at a LOW point of 50% when he announced that he would not seek re-election, and proceeded to go down from there, to a LOW of 34%, as people in Mass. felt that he was more interested in things outside the state. Which, by the way, is exactly what Obama's approval rating is in Ohio, 34%. A state which helped get him elected. Obama's approval rating has been below 50%, for a while now, so I guess you would agree that he has been a MAJOR FAILURE, as President, using your measurement. :ThmbUp:Yes and an ultraconservative former YAFer republican to boot. Nobody was saying he did a good job until after the 2012 election when a few republicans seem to think they had justify his nomination. The liberals thought he was the usual conservative failure and the conservatives thought he was the usual liberal failure. The only thing everybody agreed on was that he was a failure according my old chum whom I met at the 1975 YAF convention in Chicago. I was part of the Nebraska delegation while I had a brief flirtation with conservatism. He was at that time from Conn. I will say this, when I talked to my friend in August of 2006, Romney had not yet finished his term. It had 4 months yet to run.
It seems you are the one using a political party's talking points. I doubt if you came up with that Ohio number by scouring through political polls. That would not leave time for handicapping, would it?

[dartman51]

Yes and an ultraconservative former YAFer republican to boot. Nobody was saying he did a good job until after the 2012 election when a few republicans seem to think they had justify his nomination. The liberals thought he was the usual conservative failure and the conservatives thought he was the usual liberal failure. The only thing everybody agreed on was that he was a failure according my old chum whom I met at the 1975 YAF convention in Chicago. I was part of the Nebraska delegation while I had a brief flirtation with conservatism. He was at that time from Conn. I will say this, when I talked to my friend in August of 2006, Romney had not yet finished his term. It had 4 months yet to run.
It seems you are the one using a political party's talking points. I doubt if you came up with that Ohio number by scouring through political polls. That would not leave time for handicapping, would it?

I love the way you Libs seem to think you know me. The political party's talking points came from CNN, which political party? Well, you can be the judge of that. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/27/ohio-poll-clinton-christie-tied-obama-approval-rating-at-lowest-point/

From the site.
At 34%, Obama's approval rating in Ohio is six percentage points lower than his previous low point in the Buckeye State, when it was at 40% this past June.
A majority–57%–say the President is not honest or trustworthy, while 39% say the opposite, according to the new survey.

But, yeah, that's probably just the right wing strong arming CNN to print this stuff. :D

[Ocala Mike]

You act as though the Dems have had some kind of Presidential dynasty. Obama won because the middle got sick of Republicans. They'll eventually get sick of the Dems and you'll have another Repub in the White House.

From The Daily Beast just after the 2012 election:

"Since 1992, Democrats have prevailed in the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 presidential elections. In terms of the total two-party vote over that time, Democrats have garnered 51.5% and Republicans have received 48.5%. That seems pretty close, doesn't it? Just a knife's edge of difference between them? It's tempting to believe that a small adjustment here or there, whether in demographic appeal or in simply becoming less social-issue oriented might cure all that ails the Republican brand. But this thinking masks a fundamental---and now nearly insurmountable---problem.

Let's look at these elections in a different way. Since 1992, Democrats have prevailed by 2003 electoral votes to 1223. Nearly twice as many for the Democrats as the Republicans. The races have not been competitive when viewed through this lens. Republicans eeked out a couple of field-goal wins while Democrats have won by touchdowns.

The starting electoral map in 2012 offered Democrats 431 ways to win and 76 for the Republicans. This includes Wisconsin as a swing state, which I think we have learned it never really was, campaign bluster aside. Discounting that state, it was 230 ways for the Democrats to the Republican's 26 (and that includes ties!). From the first day, 2012 was played entirely on the Republican side of the 50 yard line wether they wish to acknowledge it or not."

[RaceBookJoe]

It's very simple, really. People qualify candidates with their vote. The candidate receiving the most votes is the most qualified.

Hopefully for us you also bet "qualified" horses too :)

[Robert Goren]

From The Daily Beast just after the 2012 election:

"Since 1992, Democrats have prevailed in the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 presidential elections. In terms of the total two-party vote over that time, Democrats have garnered 51.5% and Republicans have received 48.5%. That seems pretty close, doesn't it? Just a knife's edge of difference between them? It's tempting to believe that a small adjustment here or there, whether in demographic appeal or in simply becoming less social-issue oriented might cure all that ails the Republican brand. But this thinking masks a fundamental---and now nearly insurmountable---problem.

Let's look at these elections in a different way. Since 1992, Democrats have prevailed by 2003 electoral votes to 1223. Nearly twice as many for the Democrats as the Republicans. The races have not been competitive when viewed through this lens. Republicans eeked out a couple of field-goal wins while Democrats have won by touchdowns.

The starting electoral map in 2012 offered Democrats 431 ways to win and 76 for the Republicans. This includes Wisconsin as a swing state, which I think we have learned it never really was, campaign bluster aside. Discounting that state, it was 230 ways for the Democrats to the Republican's 26 (and that includes ties!). From the first day, 2012 was played entirely on the Republican side of the 50 yard line wether they wish to acknowledge it or not."This electoral votes have a way of falling by the wayside when there is a strong candidate. I thought Obama was very beatable in 2012. All it would have taken was a strong and likable republican candidate to beat him. The problem the GOP had is the same one I have when asked to name that person. I am not sure they had that person in their party. The one person who scared me as a democrat decided not to run. That person was Mike Huckabee and even he had some flaws. I am not sure he could have gotten the GOP nod. But if he had, he would have made it a much closer race than Romney and very well might have won. The GOP can't nominate people who lost their last general election and expected to win. Nixon was a one time thing.

[elysiantraveller]

From The Daily Beast just after the 2012 election:

"Since 1992, Democrats have prevailed in the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 presidential elections. In terms of the total two-party vote over that time, Democrats have garnered 51.5% and Republicans have received 48.5%. That seems pretty close, doesn't it? Just a knife's edge of difference between them? It's tempting to believe that a small adjustment here or there, whether in demographic appeal or in simply becoming less social-issue oriented might cure all that ails the Republican brand. But this thinking masks a fundamental---and now nearly insurmountable---problem.

Let's look at these elections in a different way. Since 1992, Democrats have prevailed by 2003 electoral votes to 1223. Nearly twice as many for the Democrats as the Republicans. The races have not been competitive when viewed through this lens. Republicans eeked out a couple of field-goal wins while Democrats have won by touchdowns.

The starting electoral map in 2012 offered Democrats 431 ways to win and 76 for the Republicans. This includes Wisconsin as a swing state, which I think we have learned it never really was, campaign bluster aside. Discounting that state, it was 230 ways for the Democrats to the Republican's 26 (and that includes ties!). From the first day, 2012 was played entirely on the Republican side of the 50 yard line wether they wish to acknowledge it or not."

Huntsman.

[PaceAdvantage]

Short answer..........a winning campaign times two. Enough said.

Romney, on the other hand alienated 47% of the people right off the bat. Tough to win an election that way.He didn't alienate jack squat. You really think those 47% were itching to vote for him, and then when the media got a hold of that grainy footage and poor audio, and ramped it up x1000, they suddenly said to themselves, "oh no, I was going to vote for the man with the perfect hair, but now, NO WAY JOSE! That man just alienated me!"

You guys are a hoot.

[Jay Trotter]

Who are you guys?

So you think Romney was the best you had? Nice to know. I guess you'll be able to whine about the media for another four years come 2016 if that trend continues. :ThmbUp:

[Tom]

Who are you guys?

So you think Romney was the best you had? Nice to know. I guess you'll be able to whine about the media for another four years come 2016 if that trend continues. :ThmbUp:

What the hell qualified Obama?
Rhetoric question....answer, as we have seen in his performance thus far, NOTHING.

Nothing but the promise of more hand outs for the anchors.
That might cut it up north, but down here, some of us have standards.

[FantasticDan]

What the hell qualified Obama?
Rhetoric question....answer, as we have seen in his performance thus far, NOTHING. Nothing but the promise of more hand outs for the anchors.By anchors, you mean poor whites in red states, right? The ones that make up the majority of govt assistance receivers in this country?

Interesting.

[Tom]

By anchors, you mean poor whites in red states, right? The ones that make up the majority of govt assistance receivers in this country?

Interesting.
I mean anyone leeching off the taxpayers.
Are you a racist, because that is the only reason I can see for you to be bringing that up?

That is all you have, Danny?
How sad for you.

[FantasticDan]

I mean anyone leeching off the taxpayers.So anyone receiving govt assistance is a leech?

Interesting.

Are these the leeches in question?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-05/republican-heavy-counties-eat-up-most-food-stamp-growth.html

[newtothegame]

Dan does his best to make this a racist theme.....:lol:

[Tom]

So anyone receiving govt assistance is a leech?

Interesting.

Are these the leeches in question?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-05/republican-heavy-counties-eat-up-most-food-stamp-growth.html

Sorry, Danny, I have describe exactly who I refer to as anchors in the past.
You will have to find someone else to play your little games with.

[PaceAdvantage]

By anchors, you mean poor whites in red states, right? The ones that make up the majority of govt assistance receivers in this country?

Interesting.Aren't anchors more like those who are sucking off the teat of the mommy gov't when in fact they are perfectly capable of getting gainful employment?

That would anyone, of any color, in any state.

Hope I've clarified what Tom means by anchor.

You can thank me very much.

[FantasticDan]

Aren't anchors more like those who are sucking off the teat of the mommy gov't when in fact they are perfectly capable of getting gainful employment? That would anyone, of any color, in any state..Then why is the term used exclusively by righties as a derogatory reference to Obama voters? The statistics don't back up that notion (as has been pointed out on numerous occasions), yet somehow the stereotype remains strong as ever. Why?

[Tom]

Wasn't that the main issue in the campaign?
The 47%?

That was the only thing anyone could say Obama had as a qualification - he promised re-distribution of wealth and made success a dirty word. The constant use of the phrase millionaires and billionaires?

Come on, Dan, you know better. Don't play dumb now that your boy's pants have been pulled down. :lol: :lol: :lol:

btw, I include union members as anchors, too.

[newtothegame]

Because the left and people like yourself, continue to try and make it about race. It's the democrats way!!!

[NJ Stinks]

Then why is the term used exclusively by righties as a derogatory reference to Obama voters? The statistics don't back up that notion (as has been pointed out on numerous occasions), yet somehow the stereotype remains strong as ever. Why?

Because these rghties are looking for excuses in all the wrong places! :jump:

I mean - no way they can accept losing the election for what it was. Oh no. It was the freebies, the dummies, Romney was not conservative enough....

The excuse list is apparently endless. :sleeping:

[Track Collector]

I mean - no way they can accept losing the election for what it was.

A significant number of those who voted for Obama in 2012 would not vote for him today, and that is just 1 year into his new term. The change is so significant that it is believed that Romney, even after all the vilifying by the MSM, would win easily if the election where held today.

Could it be that folks now don't trust what Obama was selling at election time. Could it be that he lied about Obamacare and being about to keep your plan and doctor, and that he knew about the lie several years ago but continued to tell it? Could it be that they have learned that he and his policies are the primary causes of the very things he claims to be fighting against? Could it be that people are easily in favor of some type of cause until they learn that THEY are the ones who will be paying for it? How about his leadership skills in the world theater?

Obama's polling numbers are way down at this point in time, as more people have become enlightened. While perhaps not good enough for you, it fits logically for me how one could win an election just over a year ago, then today be riding an elevator that has not stopped on the bottom floor yet. When a President loses his trustworthiness, he is done.

[NJ Stinks]

A significant number of those who voted for Obama in 2012 would not vote for him today, and that is just 1 year into his new term. The change is so significant that it is believed that Romney, even after all the vilifying by the MSM, would win easily if the election where held today.



Oh yea. How could I forget about the mainstream media excuse. :bang:

I'm sure you are sincere in your beliefs, TC, but I seriously do not believe most people think of Obama is trying to screw them over when it comes to Obamacare. There are too many good things in it for people to believe otherwise.

[PaceAdvantage]

Then why is the term used exclusively by righties as a derogatory reference to Obama voters? The statistics don't back up that notion (as has been pointed out on numerous occasions), yet somehow the stereotype remains strong as ever. Why?So, you are saying that anchors (by my definition of the word), the ones who actually DO vote, voted more for Romney and McCain in the last two elections?

I find that impossible to believe.

[tucker6]

I seriously do not believe most people think of Obama is trying to screw them over when it comes to Obamacare. There are too many good things in it for people to believe otherwise.

Good things from whose point of view? If "good things" to me include a catastrophic plan without mental or drug rehabilitation or maternity coverage, why can't I get that?? I don't do drugs, I'm a guy, and I don't plan on being crazy. So why should I subsidize welfare moms, drug addicts, and unstable people? I thought my tax dollars already supported those types, but I guess the dems needed more money in their wealth redistribution scheme, so they invented another way to tax me.

Be honest, that's exactly what Obamacare is. Another tax!!

[Track Collector]

I seriously do not believe most people think of Obama is trying to screw them over when it comes to Obamacare.

I used to be one of those folks who gave more credit for "purer and nobler" intentions, but the actions of the current administration over the past several years have changed my mind.

Discussions about Obamacare motives and intent aside, the administration had several years to work on the website and get everything in working order. This was their signature program, and one would think they would have done everything in their power to have a smooth and clean roll-out.

The fact that they failed miserably makes a strong case for those who believe government is not competent and capable of running and administering such a huge and important sector.

[Ocala Mike]

btw, I include union members as anchors, too.



ALL union members? Policemen, firemen, healthcare workers, right-wing broadcasters, factory workers? Maybe the lake effect snows have started early for you up there (or maybe you've been channeling Rush again).

[Tom]

Be honest, that's exactly what Obamacare is. Another tax!!

So sayth the Kourt - it is the only way the law was allowed to stand - it is a tax.

[Tom]

ALL union members? Policemen, firemen, healthcare workers, right-wing broadcasters, factory workers? Maybe the lake effect snows have started early for you up there (or maybe you've been channeling Rush again).

Many. Anchor is a an all encompassing term - it refers to anyone or any group that holds back progress, stops the ship from sailing.

Unions do not grease the wheels of progress. In fact, many times, there is no progress until someone greases the union! :D

And yes, lake effect has already hit - we set a records for November snowfall. Now we are hip deep in melting snow as the temps head towards 40-50 this week.

[Thebart]

It seems to me there's a bit too "liberal" a use of the word "liar" when referring the Health Care Reform and President Obama. Most of the time it seems to come from those who simply oppose any form of national healthcare plan and need a way to bad mouth those who support it.

The Q&A below is right out of the AARP Bulletin published in September of 2010 just a few months after the law was enacted. It seems clear that while, as the President said many plans were "grandfathered" and could be continued by policy holders, the ability to do so ultimately resided in the hands of the insurance companies. They could, and some did, deliberately modify grandfathered plans so as not to conform to the grandfather provisions. It is obvious there may have been misunderstandings. What is not obvious at all is that the President or anyone else lied or deliberately misled anyone.


Q. What does it mean if my health plan is "grandfathered" under the new health care reform law?

A. During the debate on health care reform, President Obama often promised Americans: "If you like the health care plan you have now, you can keep it." Therefore, the legislation exempts plans that were already in existence on March 23, 2010—the date it was signed into law—from certain requirements that apply to all new plans. Exempt plans are known as "grandfathered" plans.

If your employer provides a grandfathered plan, you should receive a written notice to this effect. If you buy your own insurance, contact the insurer to find out.

Readers seem to have two main concerns about these plans. They want to know whether grandfathered plans must stay exactly the same as they were on March 23—same benefits, same premiums, same co-payments — in order to continue to be exempt in future years. And they also ask whether these plans will give them fewer consumer protections and benefits than will be required of new plans.

Administration officials say that the rules for grandfathered plans try to strike a balance between these two concerns—requiring certain new protections to be added to these policies but also allowing the plans a certain amount of flexibility so that they will not lose their grandfathered status if they only make routine changes from year to year.

Some new consumer protections apply to all plans, whether they're grandfathered or not:



A plan cannot exclude coverage for your children if they have preexisting medical conditions.


A plan can no longer cancel your coverage if you become sick and had made an unintentional mistake on your application for insurance.


A plan cannot impose lifetime limits on coverage.


A plan must extend coverage to your adult children up to age 26.
Some new consumer protections and benefits are not required under grandfathered plans:



They need not offer screenings and other preventive measures for free.


They need not provide guaranteed access to ob-gyns and pediatricians.


Individual grandfathered plans are not required to abolish annual coverage limits.
Grandfathered plans can lose their exempt status only if they do one of the following:



Significantly cut benefits, such as eliminating all or nearly all benefits to treat a specific condition such as diabetes, cystic fibrosis or HIV/AIDS.


Raise charges that are based on a percentage of costs—for example, increasing your share of a hospital bill from 20 to 25 percent.


Significantly raise copays—for example, from $30 to $50 for a doctor visit over the next two years.


Significantly raise deductibles—for example, increasing from $1,000 to $1,500 over the next two years.


Reduce the employer's share of the premium by more than 5 percent—for example, so that the employee's share rises from 15 to 21 percent.


Reduce existing annual benefit limits or add limits.
End of AARP Article.

The simple reality is that the so-called Obamacare plan's mandate that people must have insurance should be described as requiring one of two things. The very low income people can get coverage from expanded Medicaid. Everyone else must get PRIVATE insurance from PRIVATE insurance companies. The so-called "exchange" is merely a marketplace created to facilitate the process. Obviously the roll out was screwed up. No one is denying that. But that marketplace (aka website) is now well on the way to being fixed.

Final note. The government actually didn't have a few years to complete and test the site. I think it is pretty clear now that the feds expected most states - including states with Republican led governments - to create their own exchange. It would benefit their people and bring much of the control back to the local level which Republicans traditionally support. In this instance it appears their desire to "just say no" to anything Obama was the more decisive controlling factor. As a result the federal exchange must now service the needs of people in roughly 35 states. That alone made the process more complicated since some of those states waited until the last minute to notify the federal government

[Tom]

Simple reply - Obama lied. Knowingly.
"IF you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Period."

The Period excludes all else. Nothing else matters.
And he knew better.

btw, history tells us he has lied repeatedly over the past few years, so it is not just N0-Care.

[Thebart]

Simple reply - Obama lied. Knowingly.
"IF you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Period."

The Period excludes all else. Nothing else matters.
And he knew better.

btw, history tells us he has lied repeatedly over the past few years, so it is not just N0-Care.

Always nice to see a "fact-free" reply stating nothing but an opinion with absolutely no facts. It might be your opinion that he lied, but that's all it is.

[PaceAdvantage]

Always nice to see a "fact-free" reply stating nothing but an opinion with absolutely no facts. It might be your opinion that he lied, but that's all it is.Kind of like when the left said Bush lied about WMDs...

It's all coming together nicely now...I believe the right's response to the Bush charge of lying by the left was the same..."your opinion."

Funny how what goes around comes around.

Now you will excuse me while I step back and prepare for the "how dare you compare the two events!" screams about to be hurled my way...

[Clocker]

Always nice to see a "fact-free" reply stating nothing but an opinion with absolutely no facts. It might be your opinion that he lied, but that's all it is.

He lied, and he admitted it in a typical politician's weasel words.

President Barack Obama offered an apology Thursday to those Americans who have been told they’re losing their health insurance plans, contrary to his promise that no one would be forced off a plan they wanted to keep.

“I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me,” the president said in a Thursday interview with NBC News, offering his first mea culpa for an issue that’s generated negative headlines for the White House for the past two weeks.

...

“We weren’t as clear as we needed to be in terms of the changes that were taking place” in messaging before the insurance companies started taking action this fall, he added.

...

“If you had one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law and you really liked that plan, what we said was you can keep it if it hasn’t changed since the law passed,” Obama said Monday at an event for Organizing for Action, the nonprofit group that works to boost the White House agenda.

Obviously, he never said what he claimed he said in that last paragraph.

Quotes above from Politico article (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/barack-obama-i-am-sorry-affordable-care-act-obamacare-99559.html).

[Clocker]

I think it is pretty clear now that the feds expected most states - including states with Republican led governments - to create their own exchange.

If they expected this, that is further proof of executive incompetence. Twenty-five states filed suit against the feds in 2010, charging that forcing the states to build their own exchanges was unconstitutional. A prudent executive would have intuited something short of 100% participation. Especially after SCOTUS ruled in the states' favor on this issue.

[Thebart]

Having looked at what was being discussed four years ago I think the president was simply responding to misleading statements that the new law was going to force people to give up their insurance.

He responded by saying no, you can keep your insurance. I think he was thinking in terms of "there's nothing we're doing to force people to drop their insurance."

The simple fact is many of these polices get terminated and modified all the time (by the insurance companies) and it was not something right wing politicians criticized. In fact many seem to have gone "brain dead" as to what often happened in the real world. Companies regularly shop the insurance market and change plans and carriers for their employee group health plan. I can't tell you how many times I had to change plans because employers changed what they offered. It happens.

The truth is we're where we are because Obama and some of the Dems sold out the single payer - Medicare For All - concept in favor of protecting private insurance. That is what makes this so complicated. The current plan is one that was originally proposed by the conservative Heritage Foundation - including the mandate - and modified by Romney for Massachusetts. But, the original concept was a draft proposal coming from the pro-insurance company right wing to keep insurance companies in the game.

All the crap about the government not being able to do this or administer the program is just that, pure crap. Every single day the government administers Social Security, Medicare, and Tri-Care for federal employees and they do it well. The idea that the private sector is always competent, and the government is not, is simply not the case.

[Thebart]

If they expected this, that is further proof of executive incompetence. Twenty-five states filed suit against the feds in 2010, charging that forcing the states to build their own exchanges was unconstitutional. A prudent executive would have intuited something short of 100% participation. Especially after SCOTUS ruled in the states' favor on this issue.

Not exactly correct. From the start states have had three options.


Establish their own exchange
Establish a joint-exchange with the Feds
Let their state default to the Federal Exchange.
No need really for a law suit on that point. The relevant law suit was related to the forced expansion of Medicaid which the court ruled in favor of the states.

It really does amaze me that the entire developed Western World and beyond subscribes to some form of a national healthcare system. Some completely socialized, some - Switzerland is a good example - mandatory participation with private insurance companies competing for business. But, here in the US we cling to this stupid notion that health care is like buying a car. You should only get on if you can afford it. Health, which is really about life - should be about more than just a commodity.

It is interesting that in Kentucky the one Southern state that has built it's own exchange and promoted it aggressively is securing sign-ups at an incredibly high rate. People of all racial, ethnic and income groups are signing up and getting good insurance. Many for the first time, particularly those with preexisting conditions who didn't qualify before.

The right wing's biggest fear is that in the end the program will work and just like Medicare, the public will like and accept it.

[PaceAdvantage]

The right wing's biggest fear is that in the end the program will work and just like Medicare, the public will like and accept it.Yeah, they're literally quaking in their boots...it would be the end of all things should that happen...

Seriously man? Biggest fear is that Obamacare "will work?" I don't think so...

BTW, define "will work." What performance benchmarks are you using?

[thaskalos]

Then why is the term used exclusively by righties as a derogatory reference to Obama voters? The statistics don't back up that notion (as has been pointed out on numerous occasions), yet somehow the stereotype remains strong as ever. Why?

Danny...you surprise me. We all knew all along that the republicans are as eager as anybody else to cash those government checks -- regardless of the empty rhetoric that they spew. What do you expect them to do...hand the checks back and go hungry? :lol:

Did you really believe Tom's ridiculous assertions that the republicans are the only pillars of the community, who are out at work all day...while the democrats are the only freeloading "anchors", who are dragging this country down?

Of course the republicans are sticking to this faulty "freeloading democrat" stereotype.

If they give up this stereotype...what else have they got left?

[PaceAdvantage]

If they give up this stereotype...what else have they got left?Kind of like if the Dems give up the "racist Republicans" stereotype? You mean like that sort of stuff...I can relate man...I can relate...rock on

[Clocker]

Not exactly correct. From the start states have had three options.





Establish their own exchange
Establish a joint-exchange with the Feds
Let their state default to the Federal Exchange.
No need really for a law suit on that point. The relevant law suit was related to the forced expansion of Medicaid which the court ruled in favor of the states.


Call it what you will, the feds tried to force the states to build their own exchanges. The court said they couldn't use the threat the feds were trying to use. Regardless of the details, the point is that the administration knew in 2010 that a significant number of states were not going to build their own exchanges. And the failure to prepare for that is incompetence.

[thaskalos]

Kind of like if the Dems give up the "racist Republicans" stereotype? You mean like that sort of stuff...I can relate man...I can relate...rock on

What "racist republican stereotype"?

I must have missed it...

[thaskalos]

Kind of like if the Dems give up the "racist Republicans" stereotype? You mean like that sort of stuff...I can relate man...I can relate...rock on

Tell the truth; how many times have you seen Tom assert that ALL the voters who voted for Obama did so because they had their hand out for a government handout?

How many times have you seen him state that ALL the democrats were freeloaders?

Are these accurate assertions...and if not...how come you didn't rush to correct him -- the way you rush to correct some of the liberals here who make outlandish remarks?

[PaceAdvantage]

I must have missed it...Must have...

[PaceAdvantage]

Tell the truth; how many times have you seen Tom assert that ALL the voters who voted for Obama did so because they had their hand out for a government handout?

How many times have you seen him state that ALL the democrats were freeloaders?

Are these accurate assertions...and if not...how come you didn't rush to correct him -- the way you rush to correct some of the liberals here who make outlandish remarks?This has nothing to do with Tom. I was responding to your comment and yours alone.

Why do you (and others, like Capper Al) insist on lumping together all those who lean right on here into some sort of rival gang? What only concerns me at this moment is what you and I are discussing. I don't really care at this point what Tom wrote. I'm addressing your post.

[reckless]

Obama lied and people will die due to Obama Care ...

Especially old people; especially those not of the political elite class or in the preferred demographic society; the indigent and powerless are most at risk as will everyone else for that matter.

Can you imagine a crumb bum like Zeke Emanuel deciding who will live or die? God help us, all of us.

But if death isn't in the immediate cards for all you liberals, the Obama apologists crowd can now expect no new hip or knee replacements, no heart bypass surgery after age 60 or so; no life-saving pharmaceutical drugs, and, finally ... no pap smears for all you Hillary, Michelle, Sandra Fluke and Nancy P. fan-girls out there.

Now, convince me, please, that life is indeed better, especially for all those that previously had 'rotten' private insurance health plans that were since cancelled by Obama Care.

There was never, ever any Affordability, Care nor Acts of kindness in the heart and mind of Obama and his storm trooper socialists friends.

[thaskalos]

This has nothing to do with Tom. I was responding to your comment and yours alone.

Why do you (and others, like Capper Al) insist on lumping together all those who lean right on here into some sort of rival gang? What only concerns me at this moment is what you and I are discussing. I don't really care at this point what Tom wrote. I'm addressing your post.
Did I address my post to you? What prompted you to respond in the way that you did? If you found argument with what I initially stated, then why not state your case, without bringing the "racist card" into it...which had nothing to do with what I was talking about?

You are free to bring every topic that suits you into the conversation, regardless of how irrelevant it is to what we are talking about...and then you expect me to keep the conversation strictly "on-topic"?

Your point about me being the one who insists on "lumping together" all those that I disagree with, is laughable. How many times have YOU "lumped all those who lean left on here into some sort of rival gang"? How many times has Tom done it?

Ooops...sorry.

I forgot that I'm not supposed to talk about Tom... :rolleyes:

[PaceAdvantage]

Did I address my post to you? What prompted you to respond in the way that you did? If you found argument with what I initially stated, then why not state your case, without bringing the "racist card" into it...which had nothing to do with what I was talking about?

You are free to bring every topic that suits you into the conversation, regardless of how irrelevant it is to what we are talking about...and then you expect me to keep the conversation strictly "on-topic"?

Your point about me being the one who insists on "lumping together" all those that I disagree with, is laughable. How many times have YOU "lumped all those who lean left on here into some sort of rival gang"? How many times has Tom done it?

Ooops...sorry.

I forgot that I'm not supposed to talk about Tom... :rolleyes:Continue on with your ridiculous agenda without me...wasting time is not my top priority these days.

But to give what I wrote earlier some closure, you brought up a stereotype that conservatives supposedly have about Democrats, and I wrote that I understand what you're saying, since liberals have serious stereotypes of their own about conservatives. That's all. Sorry you took offense.

[thaskalos]

Continue on with your ridiculous agenda without me...wasting time is not my top priority these days.

Typical...

[PaceAdvantage]

Typical...No, not typical. Typically, I'd go head to head with you and those like you until it's beaten to death. No longer. Especially when it's clear you'd rather be ridiculous.

[thaskalos]

No, not typical. Typically, I'd go head to head with you and those like you until it's beaten to death. No longer. Especially when it's clear you'd rather be ridiculous.

I am being ridiculous...but you are not?

You jump into the conversation uninvited, and provoke people...and then you pretend that you never intended to argue to begin with.

We are unto you, PA...

[PaceAdvantage]

You jump into the conversation uninvited, and provoke people...Now it's jumped to ridiculous squared. Keep going. I take back what I said about not having time. I always have time to be entertained.

[PaceAdvantage]

Allow me to be ridiculous as well for a moment...

The mighty thaskalos...the man who stood up to the evil, repressive force of administration that was the right-wing juggernaut known as PaceAdvantage on off-topic.

PA mercilessly wielded his biased admin club, and used it to bash the heads of any left-leaner that dared to get the least bit out of line...beat them like a baby seal...then claimed innocence...or...told them they could go elsewhere if they didn't like it.

This fiefdom of censorship (only of lefties of course) existed for years until the mighty thaskalos came along to right the many wrongs committed in the name of the Goliath known as PA...and with one swift blow, the clever thaskalos brought the mighty giant to his knees...and there was at last peace among the warring factions. The king was dead...long live the king...and constructive dialog and debate became fruitful and multiplied where there was once only fear, frustration and a vast waste of bandwidth.

Am I warm? :lol: :lol: :lol:

[thaskalos]

Continue on with your ridiculous agenda without me...wasting time is not my top priority these days.

But to give what I wrote earlier some closure, you brought up a stereotype that conservatives supposedly have about Democrats, and I wrote that I understand what you're saying, since liberals have serious stereotypes of their own about conservatives. That's all. Sorry you took offense.

Oh...is this what you meant with your post #80...where you wrote:

Kind of like if the Dems give up the "racist Republicans" stereotype? You mean like that sort of stuff...I can relate man...I can relate...rock on

You were just trying to tell me that you "understood what I was saying..."?

Sorry, PA...I was obviously mistaken. I thought you were using your sharp satirical sword on me...

[PaceAdvantage]

Sorry, PA...I was obviously mistaken. I thought you were using your sharp satirical sword on me...Come on man...I just told you it was a biased admin club, not a sharp satirical sword... :lol:

[thaskalos]

Allow me to be ridiculous as well for a moment...

The mighty thaskalos...the man who stood up to the evil, repressive force of administration that was the right-wing juggernaut known as PaceAdvantage on off-topic.

PA mercilessly wielded his biased admin club, and used it to bash the heads of any left-leaner that dared to get the least bit out of line...beat them like a baby seal...then claimed innocence...or...told them they could go elsewhere if they didn't like it.

This fiefdom of censorship (only of lefties of course) existed for years until the mighty thaskalos came along to right the many wrongs committed in the name of the Goliath known as PA...and with one swift blow, the clever thaskalos brought the mighty giant to his knees...and there was at last peace among the warring factions. The king was dead...long live the king...and constructive dialog and debate became fruitful and multiplied where there was once only fear, frustration and a vast waste of bandwidth.

Am I warm? :lol: :lol: :lol:

I little more melodramatic than I would have put it.

The "mighty thaskalos" only ventures into the jungle of the off-topics on infrequent occasions...because he knows EXACTLY what takes place here. It's the Goliath known as PA, attacking every single questionable post that the liberals submit...while totally ignoring the equally -- or even more -- absurd posts submitted by a few of his like-minded members here.

The conservatives of this site must be the best-behaved members here by a longshot...because I can't for the life of me remember when the last time was when "Goliath PA" reprimanded one of them for whatever absurd political views they might voice.

Only those on the liberal side are repeatedly reminded that this is "not a democracy".

And you are wrong...it is not the intention of thaskalos to "bring the mighty giant to his knees". His intention is to make the giant realize that he needs to be a little more even-handed in the way he does things here...because he is running the risk of having all the beleaguered liberal members of his here fly the coop.

And then...whom will he use his sharp satirical sword on?

Hmmm?

[PaceAdvantage]

I little more melodramatic than I would have put it.Nah...I believe it was scarily accurate, at least how you view things around here.

And once again, you fail to detach the moderator from the contributor. Since I "lean right," I am of course going to argue with those who espouse left-leaning positions (for the most part).

You view this as me using my bully pulpit, however, I view this as myself simply being another contributor on this site.

I don't go around reprimanding members for their political views. I will argue ideas and views I disagree with. And obviously, I am not going to argue much with people I agree with.

So, if you will simply view me as PA the moderator, and PA the contributor, I believe all of your conflicting feelings and emotions towards me will be soothed.

I reprimand when someone breaks the rules. And I don't do that every often. That's me acting as admin.

However, arguing with someone over political views should not be viewed as reprimanding that person, rather, I should be viewed as any other member on here who engages in debate.

You WOULD have a valid point if I banned everyone I disagreed with, or edited/deleted their posts, simply because I disagree with their political views.

However, you know, and I know, this DOESN'T happen.

[Thebart]

First let me point out that absolutely no one has disputed with facts a single piece of evidence I presented in this thread. But more disturbing is the continuing list of false claims about the legions of people who will allegedly die from Obamacare in a world of no heart transplants, no drugs, no nothing but death under the new system.

Wake up and smell the damn coffee people. The entire new system rests upon the principle of driving the newly insured to PRIVATE insurance companies. Read it again: Private Insurance companies get the business.

What the new law does do is set new rules such as banning denial of coverage based upon reaching maximum limits or pre-existing conditions. That is based upon a notion which I guess you righties think is wrong. That is that once people have maxed out an arbitrary policy limit we cut off coverage and let people die, go bankrupt, or both. Or force people to rely upon charity care which, in the long run, costs more and the rest of us pay for anyway.

The new system mandates various preventive services be provided such a mammograms or colonoscoies to catch signs of disease and treat it sooner rather than later. Sure sounds like a good thing to me.

I can accept that it's a reasonable thought to say there was some incompetence in the design and kick-off of the website. But that certainly has absolutely nothing - not a damn thing - to do with the underlying principle that it's better to have everyone covered by some form of health coverage that meets a minimum standard.

Honestly there are no death panels or that kind of b.s. But to be blunt, if you get screwed by a government mandated system thousands of people can seek redress from their congressman or senator who generally respond to public pressure. If private insurance shafts you, exactly who do you go to (except trial lawyers which you already hate) for help? Good luck with that.

The system is going to work. Bush's creation of the prescription benefit took time to get right, but in the end, it worked and it's working today. The difference is the Democrats didn't run around saying kill the plan. Were some critical of the implementation? Sure. But the vast - overwhelming majority - of Democrats in the Congress urged the public to be patient while the glitches were fixed. That is exactly what's going to happen here amidst Republican cries of 'kill the plan." That is not going to happen today or tomorrow.

[Tom]

I forgot that I'm not supposed to talk about Tom... :rolleyes:

I'll be your huckleberry.

[PaceAdvantage]

What the new law does do is set new rules such as banning denial of coverage based upon reaching maximum limits or pre-existing conditions. That is based upon a notion which I guess you righties think is wrong. That is that once people have maxed out an arbitrary policy limit we cut off coverage and let people die, go bankrupt, or both. Or force people to rely upon charity care which, in the long run, costs more and the rest of us pay for anyway.Yes, that's it. Once again someone has so accurately described why Obamacare meets resistance from conservatives.

It's all about being heartless and cruel. It has absolutely nothing to do with being unsustainable cost-wise. And thaskalos can't understand why I respond to certain posts the way that I do?

[Thebart]

Yes, that's it. Once again someone has so accurately described why Obamacare meets resistance from conservatives.

It's all about being heartless and cruel. It has absolutely nothing to do with being unsustainable cost-wise. And thaskalos can't understand why I respond to certain posts the way that I do?

The big thing you overlook is that all of Europe, Canada, Asian countries like Taiwan, all provide some form of a national health care system to guarantee care to everyone. Even a free-market place like Switzerland narrowly approved it a decade ago and politicians who opposed it then have now become ardent supporters. Countries whose system is based upon a notion that universal healthcare is a worthy national objective find a way to sustain the system.

I certainly accused no one of being heartless or cruel that is your form of argument. I stated a simple fact: If you don't have a system of national health care some people are not going to have access. That IS the heartless and cruel part. Especially for those who, under the old system, were shut out because of pre-existing conditions, maxing out benefit limits, or high cost.

What is the alternative? Do you even have one? The only ideas I've heard so far are nonsense like letting me buy coverage from other states. Do you really believe letting someone from Connecticut buy coverage from New York, or Delaware, or even Mississippi, is going to make my cost go down and the quality of the coverage go up? You call that a plan? It can't possibly be the state and federal "exchanges" you oppose? If you do, get ready because Paul Ryan's Medicare Reform proposal calls for the creation of - guess what? - "exchanges" through which seniors would take his "Medicare voucher" to buy coverage from private insurance companies. Sounds a lot like Obamacare doesn't it?

Or so-called tort reform? Amidst all the talk about malpractice suits and damage awards, the reality is they are the exception to the rule. Reducing malpractice liability limits is not going to cut costs all that much, if at all. Besides, that is no solution to access for those boxed out of the existing system by arbitrary limits. The fact is the current system is the one that is not sustainable. How long do you want to pay through taxes huge emergency room costs for providing what would otherwise be routine care for uninsured people?

I am really offended by those who suggest that 47% of the population is just sitting around all day looking for government aid. I voted for Obama twice. Do I agree with everything he's done? Absolutely not. I actually support single-payer Medicare for All. But, that didn't happen. I am pissed he ruled it off the table right from the start. What we will have under the reform law is going to better than what we have now.

All my life I've worked, paid for my own insurance or at least paid for the part my employer didn't. I'm not looking for a handout.

God only knows what the future holds. But I pray that if I ever have to deal with some very serious, potentially life-threatening illness, I don't have to worry about not being rich enough to get the treatment my doctors tell me I need.

I am not into class warfare. I don't object in the least if someone who's been able to earn more - even much, much more - than I have, has a better car or bigger home, or is able to go on exotic vacations or has more of life's "toys" to enjoy. More power to them. Works for me. But, some things, like healthcare shouldn't be allocated (rationed?) based upon wealth. Life is much more precious and the care we provide the sick should not be dependent on your bank account balance.

[Clocker]

First let me point out that absolutely no one has disputed with facts a single piece of evidence I presented in this thread

Most of your statements are opinions, not "evidence". You said that Obama never lied. I posted quotes from him apologizing for not telling the truth, while rationalizing his statements as less than complete.

You said that the states opted out of the exchanges at the last minute. I pointed out that the administration knew in 2010 a large number of states would not build their own exchanges. And the last minute, the deadline to officially opt out, was December, 2012.

.The entire new system rests upon the principle of driving the newly insured to PRIVATE insurance companies. Read it again: Private Insurance companies get the business.

That's because the insurance company people wrote the bill. And Congress let them, because Congress was too lazy and incompetent to do the job, and because the program was designed to fund a huge expansion of socialized medicine through a flow of subsidies via premiums from young and healthy people to poor and less healthy people. That is a hidden tax. That is fraud, perpetrated on the public by a Democratic Congress and president too cowardly to do it openly and honestly.

the underlying principle that it's better to have everyone covered by some form of health coverage that meets a minimum standard.

No matter how bad the system or how absurd the standards? At any cost? The end justifies the means? You sound like you are channeling Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) last weekend:

KEITH ELLISON (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2013/12/01/dem-keith-ellison-interprets-obama-if-you-misunderstood-what-i-was): You know, I just want to say I think that everything that the president said and did was in pursuit to get all Americans health care, so, I think, even though he may have said, if you like your decent insurance, your insurance that works, then you can keep it, I think that people really get that. When -- he owned it. He said, look, if you misunderstood what I was trying to say, I'm sorry about that. I think that shows integrity.

So it's all okay, as long as the goal is health care. Even though the Congressional Budget Office estimates that over 33 million people will not have health insurance after full implementation. And even though millions of people will face huge increases in rates for services they neither want nor need.

[Thebart]

Most of your statements are opinions, not "evidence". You said that Obama never lied. I posted quotes from him apologizing for not telling the truth, while rationalizing his statements as less than complete.

You said that the states opted out of the exchanges at the last minute. I pointed out that the administration knew in 2010 a large number of states would not build their own exchanges. And the last minute, the deadline to officially opt out, was December, 2012.



That's because the insurance company people wrote the bill. And Congress let them, because Congress was too lazy and incompetent to do the job, and because the program was designed to fund a huge expansion of socialized medicine through a flow of subsidies via premiums from young and healthy people to poor and less healthy people. That is a hidden tax. That is fraud, perpetrated on the public by a Democratic Congress and president too cowardly to do it openly and honestly.



No matter how bad the system or how absurd the standards? At any cost? The end justifies the means? You sound like you are channeling Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) last weekend:



So it's all okay, as long as the goal is health care. Even though the Congressional Budget Office estimates that over 33 million people will not have health insurance after full implementation. And even though millions of people will face huge increases in rates for services they neither want nor need.

It is quite easy to highlight things that have some importance if only minor and turn them into a major fraud.

First of all I never said Obama didn't lie. What I did say is that you and your co-thinkers have no proof he did. His so-called apology was based upon the reality that his "you can keep it if you like it" comment may have misled people into thinking INSURANCE COMPANIES would not change their policies so as not to comply.

Unless you know what was in the man's heart and mind at the time he made his statement you don't know whether he willfully lied. It's that simple. You're entitled to think he lied, but you have no proof.

Congress didn't let the insurance companies write the bill because many members of congress are beholden to the big insurance and pharmaceutical lobby. That is why I supported single-payer. It had nothing to do with being stupid or lazy. It had a lot to do with being influenced by lobbyists and corporate campaign cash. Ya know, Republicans take lots of that too.

The entire concept of universal healthcare - in fact part of the original Heritage Foundation proposal which Romney adopted in Massachusetts - is that insurance companies would be required to cover everyone without pre-existing condition exclusions and no policy limit on coverage. In return the companies accepted the end of pre-existing condition and cap limitations.

Will the younger pay a little more? Probably so. Will healthy pay more than unhealthy? Doesn't seem that way so far from the rates I've seen. Is that socialism? Well not purely so because the "profits" are going to private companies.

You can call it socialism because that term has become a "buzz" word for everything righties don't like. I am not afraid to say it. If this is socialism I still support it.

I do agree that it is wrong, absolutely wrong, that everyone is not being covered. But, I also believe that a step - and a pretty big one - in the direction of universal coverage is better than no step at all.

If we're going to start picking and choosing what government services we're willing to pay for based upon those we use, the entire concept of America and government goes down the drain. Everyone pays for public education. We pay for roads we use and many we don't. We pay for airports even if we don't fly. Corporations bitch about taxes, but they get the benefit of a court and legal system that enforces contracts and protects their intellectual property.

This Ayn Randian idea that virtually everything government does that you don't like is some socialist plot, or that government is incapable of doing things right is pure hogwash. But then, I think in the privacy of your own little world I think you now that. Have a great day. Contrary to what you might think, I'm off to work.

[Tom]

The big thing you overlook is that all of Europe, Canada, Asian countries like Taiwan, all provide some form of a national health care system to guarantee care to everyone.

Instead, we passed a health INSURANCE bill that does nothing to improve health care either in terms of quality or access.

There is a huge difference between care and insurance. Our bill wuill only drive up costs - there is no other possible outcome.

[rastajenk]

I'm not buying into the notion that an individual's health habits are on a par with highways, court systems, and national defense.

[tucker6]

It is quite easy to highlight things that have some importance if only minor and turn them into a major fraud.

First of all I never said Obama didn't lie. What I did say is that you and your co-thinkers have no proof he did. His so-called apology was based upon the reality that his "you can keep it if you like it" comment may have misled people into thinking INSURANCE COMPANIES would not change their policies so as not to comply.

Unless you know what was in the man's heart and mind at the time he made his statement you don't know whether he willfully lied. It's that simple. You're entitled to think he lied, but you have no proof.

Congress didn't let the insurance companies write the bill because many members of congress are beholden to the big insurance and pharmaceutical lobby. That is why I supported single-payer. It had nothing to do with being stupid or lazy. It had a lot to do with being influenced by lobbyists and corporate campaign cash. Ya know, Republicans take lots of that too.

The entire concept of universal healthcare - in fact part of the original Heritage Foundation proposal which Romney adopted in Massachusetts - is that insurance companies would be required to cover everyone without pre-existing condition exclusions and no policy limit on coverage. In return the companies accepted the end of pre-existing condition and cap limitations.

Will the younger pay a little more? Probably so. Will healthy pay more than unhealthy? Doesn't seem that way so far from the rates I've seen. Is that socialism? Well not purely so because the "profits" are going to private companies.

You can call it socialism because that term has become a "buzz" word for everything righties don't like. I am not afraid to say it. If this is socialism I still support it.

I do agree that it is wrong, absolutely wrong, that everyone is not being covered. But, I also believe that a step - and a pretty big one - in the direction of universal coverage is better than no step at all.

If we're going to start picking and choosing what government services we're willing to pay for based upon those we use, the entire concept of America and government goes down the drain. Everyone pays for public education. We pay for roads we use and many we don't. We pay for airports even if we don't fly. Corporations bitch about taxes, but they get the benefit of a court and legal system that enforces contracts and protects their intellectual property.

This Ayn Randian idea that virtually everything government does that you don't like is some socialist plot, or that government is incapable of doing things right is pure hogwash. But then, I think in the privacy of your own little world I think you now that. Have a great day. Contrary to what you might think, I'm off to work.
Holy mackeral, I just lost ten points of IQ and the ethics training I took after reading this. You would have us believe that if something quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, we should withhold judgment because we cannot be 100% sure it's duck unless the duck tells us that it's a duck. Is that the position you hold with regard to Obama's lies??

... and we know you're not afraid to say the word "socialism". You live and breath it. I'm not afraid to say that I like sunny days over rainy ones. There, I feel liberated now. :rolleyes:

[NJ Stinks]

This guy - Thebart - is making too much sense. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

The million dollar question is how long will Thebart put up with the conservatives here refusing to acknowledge that Obamacare may actually be a step forward for our country? My guess is not too long but I could be wrong.

Anyway, I've got some unsolicited and, more importantly, free advice for you, Thebart. :) The way things go down here in Off Topic is that we exchange ideas with the expectation that no poster is ever going to change their mind about whatever the subject is. So the obvious "satisfaction" derived from participation in discussions about a topic here comes from the opportunity to express an opinion in an open forum. The less obvious plus is that there are many viewers of Off Topic - General who read but do not post. Getting both sides of an issue is - well, it's "fair and balanced"! ;)

In short, I hope you don't let negative feedback discourage you from posting here.

[Clocker]

Holy mackeral, You would have us believe that if something quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, we should withhold judgment because we cannot be 100% sure it's duck unless the duck tells us that it's a duck.

The alleged duck telling you it's a duck is insufficient evidence. You have to know what is in the alleged duck's heart before you can pass judgement on it.

[tucker6]

The alleged duck telling you it's a duck is insufficient evidence. You have to know what is in the alleged duck's heart before you can pass judgement on it.

Unfortunately, we know what is in Obama's heart.

[Clocker]

conservatives here refusing to acknowledge that Obamacare may actually be a step forward for our country?

Quinnipiac poll (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1975) from last month:

Only 19 percent of American voters say the quality of care they and their families receive will improve in the next year because of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), while 43 percent say it will get worse and 33 percent say ACA won't affect their health care.

That doesn't look like a step forward to me. Of course, I quit drinking Kool Aid when I was about 12.

[Clocker]

Unfortunately, we know what is in Obama's heart.

"Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows..."

[TJDave]

Congress didn't let the insurance companies write the bill because many members of congress are beholden to the big insurance and pharmaceutical lobby. That is why I supported single-payer. It had nothing to do with being stupid or lazy. It had a lot to do with being influenced by lobbyists and corporate campaign cash. Ya know, Republicans take lots of that too.

The entire concept of universal healthcare - in fact part of the original Heritage Foundation proposal which Romney adopted in Massachusetts - is that insurance companies would be required to cover everyone without pre-existing condition exclusions and no policy limit on coverage. In return the companies accepted the end of pre-existing condition and cap limitations.

Will the younger pay a little more? Probably so. Will healthy pay more than unhealthy? Doesn't seem that way so far from the rates I've seen. Is that socialism? Well not purely so because the "profits" are going to private companies.

You can call it socialism because that term has become a "buzz" word for everything righties don't like. I am not afraid to say it. If this is socialism I still support it.

I do agree that it is wrong, absolutely wrong, that everyone is not being covered. But, I also believe that a step - and a pretty big one - in the direction of universal coverage is better than no step at all.

If we're going to start picking and choosing what government services we're willing to pay for based upon those we use, the entire concept of America and government goes down the drain. Everyone pays for public education. We pay for roads we use and many we don't. We pay for airports even if we don't fly. Corporations bitch about taxes, but they get the benefit of a court and legal system that enforces contracts and protects their intellectual property.

This Ayn Randian idea that virtually everything government does that you don't like is some socialist plot, or that government is incapable of doing things right is pure hogwash. But then, I think in the privacy of your own little world I think you now that. Have a great day. Contrary to what you might think, I'm off to work.

What he said.

Except the 'off to work' part.

[reckless]

The big thing you overlook is that all of Europe, Canada, Asian countries like Taiwan, all provide some form of a national health care system to guarantee care to everyone. Even a free-market place like Switzerland narrowly approved it a decade ago and politicians who opposed it then have now become ardent supporters. Countries whose system is based upon a notion that universal healthcare is a worthy national objective find a way to sustain the system.


The left wingers just love to say that since Europe, Canada, and countries like Switzerland provide their citizens with some worthy --hehehe-- national health care system, why can't the USA? The USA is 'rich' enough... yada, yada, yada, ad nauseum.

Well, what is conveniently ignored in this argument is that these countries, generally speaking, pay diddly squat in providing a protective military for their citizens. It is very easy to make promises of 'free' health insurance when there's little money spent to provide military protection to the very citizens these promises are made to.

The USA pays approximately 4.7 per cent of the GDP for military purposes as of 2012. The GDP of the USA is just under 16.0 trillion.

Germany spends a paltry 1.5 per cent of their 3.4 trillion GDP on the military.

France spends 2.6 per cent of their 2.6 trillion GDP on the military.

Britain spends 2.5 per cent of their 2.4 trillion GDP on the military.

Italy spends just 1.6 per cent of their 2.0 trillion GDP on the military.

The socialists that run most of the other European countries are the real pikers when it comes to protecting their citizens:

Military spending as a percentage of the GDP for some European countries goes this way: Portugal 1.8 per cent; Finland 1.5 per cent; Norway 1.4 per cent; Sweden 1.2 per cent, and Spain, an embarrassing 0.85 per cent. The GDP of these countries are smaller than the others that I listed above.

To both doves and hawks, the USA is the policeman of the world, like it or not. So ending our onerous expenditures and obligations to an ungreatful and socialist Continent will go a long in battling our very own fiscal woes.

Social spending should be for USA citizens and not for the Eurotrash or the parasites from Mexico and South America.

I propose that the USA leave Europe lock stock and barrel. Shut down all embassy's and military bases. Let these countries fight radical Islam and the once and future super powers like Russia and China, on their very own. Also, let the German economy and the economy of the other European nations expand on their own without USA greenbacks.

Once, these nations realize that it cost money to protect their sovereignty, cradle to grave socialism will wane--and fast! There goes the handouts to all the slobs in Greece, Italy, and Spain lying on the beach and screwing like bunnies while sipping their ouzo and overrated wines. And, they will eventually see their monthly checks slashed and their health 'insurance' promises chopped -- all by the same governments that left wingers in this once great country bow to and admire.

[thaskalos]

What he said.

Except the 'off to work' part.
:ThmbUp:

My whole body cries out against the inhumanity of regular employment.

[delayjf]

Well, what is conveniently ignored in this argument is that these countries, generally speaking.

The other thing they completely ingnore are the tax rates required to sustain their healtcare systems. Where I have cared to look, it appears that these tax rates are also paid by most citizens in those countries, you do not see a situation like you have here in the US where the bottom 50% pays nothing.

In countries like Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, an individual's biggest bill each month is their tax bill.

[TJDave]

In countries like Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, an individual's biggest bill each month is their tax bill.

Yet the citizens of these countries manage to save at better than twice our rate.

Go, figure. :rolleyes:

[NJ Stinks]

Quinnipiac poll (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1975) from last month:

Quote:
Only 19 percent of American voters say the quality of care they and their families receive will improve in the next year because of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), while 43 percent say it will get worse and 33 percent say ACA won't affect their health care.


That doesn't look like a step forward to me. Of course, I quit drinking Kool Aid when I was about 12.

If you think this poll enhances your arguments, you are delusional. (Notice how I carefully follow the TOS. :) )

First off, the 19% represent those Americans the ACA was passed to help. The 33% are part of the largest group that keep what they already have. The other 43% are the righties who claim the sky is falling daily even if they are keeping what they have. :rolleyes:


And, for the record, my taste buds never allowed me to drink the Kool Aid. Tak-Aboost was more my style. :cool:

[Clocker]

If you think this poll enhances your arguments, you are delusional. (Notice how I carefully follow the TOS. :) )

Those poll results are rosy compared to what is going to happen in 2014. The big stink doesn't hit the fan until the second half of next year.

[Ocala Mike]

:ThmbUp:

My whole body cries out against the inhumanity of regular employment.



"...those goody-good people who worked shitty jobs for bum paychecks and took the subway to work every day, and worried about their bills, were dead. I mean they were suckers. They had no balls." -

Henry Hill (Ray Liotta) in "Good Fellas"

[Thebart]

COMMENTING ON RECKLESS

The left wingers just love to say that since Europe, Canada, and countries like Switzerland provide their citizens with some worthy --hehehe-- national health care system, why can't the USA? The USA is 'rich' enough... yada, yada, yada, ad nauseum.

Well, what is conveniently ignored in this argument is that these countries, generally speaking, pay diddly squat in providing a protective military for their citizens. It is very easy to make promises of 'free' health insurance when there's little money spent to provide military protection to the very citizens these promises are made to.

The USA pays approximately 4.7 per cent of the GDP for military purposes as of 2012. The GDP of the USA is just under 16.0 trillion.

Germany spends a paltry 1.5 per cent of their 3.4 trillion GDP on the military.

France spends 2.6 per cent of their 2.6 trillion GDP on the military.

Britain spends 2.5 per cent of their 2.4 trillion GDP on the military.

Italy spends just 1.6 per cent of their 2.0 trillion GDP on the military.

The socialists that run most of the other European countries are the real pikers when it comes to protecting their citizens:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The really sad part of your comments ( I chopped some off to save space) is the vitriolic nature of your words. So much name calling and hate.

"Social spending should be for USA citizens and not for the Eurotrash or the parasites from Mexico and South America."

"There goes the handouts to all the slobs in Greece, Italy, and Spain lying on the beach and screwing like bunnies while sipping their ouzo and overrated wines."

Do you really believe Europe woke up one day and said "Oh man, the US will protect us from nation-state enemies, yipee now we can have free healthcare? Are you actually that stupid that you believe that crap?

Do you realize that Germany under Bismark adopted national healthcare in 1881 before communism took hold anywhere else? I mean is Bizmark the great German socialist? Or was that Karl Marx? Do you even have a clue?

Did the thought ever occur to you that the problem with the defense spending statistics you cite is not that Europe is getting a free ride, but that the USA might be overpaying and spending too much? Did we get our money's worth for the $1 trillion we spent in Iraq? Did the thought occur to you that we already get less and spend more on healthcare than all those evil countries? Is it possible that they just might have figured something out that we haven't?

A few years back I think it was Honda that was considering a North American site for a new plant. There were two sites they considered in the US South along with a province (I think it was Ontario but not 100% sure) in Canada. They picked the Canadian site despite Canada's taxes because US Health Care was too costly.

Regardless of what you might think about USA vs Europe national spending on military defense, it doesn't have a damn thing to do with whether or not we have a system of universal healthcare coverage.

[delayjf]

Did we get our money's worth for the $1 trillion we spent in Iraq?
When you consider that most of that money was spent with US companies using US citizens - I would say yes.

[delayjf]

Yet the citizens of these countries manage to save at better than twice our rate. Go, figure.

Helps when you don't have a car payment or two.

[reckless]

The really sad part of your comments ( I chopped some off to save space) is the vitriolic nature of your words. So much name calling and hate.

"Social spending should be for USA citizens and not for the Eurotrash or the parasites from Mexico and South America."

Why should the American taxpayer protect and support the Eurotrash and parasites from Mexico and South America -- especially since my country and standard of living becomes compromised because of your naive sense of utopia?

"There goes the handouts to all the slobs in Greece, Italy, and Spain lying on the beach and screwing like bunnies while sipping their ouzo and overrated wines."

I was just describing what will happen to all those slobs whose lifestyle will now be adjusted if the USA does what I suggest and cut off the gravy train. I noticed that you are long on banal criticism and very short on solutions. And when it comes to my using words like Eurotrash and parasites, I often try to work them in when the situation warrants, like now.

Do you really believe Europe woke up one day and said "Oh man, the US will protect us from nation-state enemies, yipee now we can have free healthcare? Are you actually that stupid that you believe that crap?

No, I do not believe the Eurotrash just woke up as you say. But guess what? If the USA threatened to leave Germany or Europe, in general, the hue and cry will be as loud as the Seattle football fans were on Monday. We are an important financial benefit to these local economies and their protection as well against 'nation-state enemies'.

I have always found it funny that left wingers have so much hate for conservatives and Tea Partiers but think nothing of ignoring terrorist threats while embracing Bismarck-type dictators and other villains.

Bart, the real question is: are YOU that stupid to make such a statement? So far, it seems that you are.

Do you realize that Germany under Bismark adopted national healthcare in 1881 before communism took hold anywhere else? I mean is Bizmark the great German socialist? Or was that Karl Marx? Do you even have a clue?

Bismarck (spelled correctly here) was indeed a Prussian war monger who gave his country some sort of national health insurance plan. I say some sort because his original plan was for the worker to actually pay two-thirds of the bill with the Prussian state paying just one-third. It was a subsidized plan.

Bismarck was at odds with the Socialist Party of the times. That didn't make him a free-market advocate, by any means. He was a totalitarian bully and what better way to control the masses than to 'give them free health insurance', just like Obama and the left wing in the USA are trying to do right now.

Another difference is that Prussia was a sovereign state, actually one in the making. Bismarck advocated his version of socialism on only the people of the Prussian state. I am sure he would have objected if he was expected to carry the load for the numerous and ungreatful foreign countries such as those that we are expected to support today.

Did the thought ever occur to you that the problem with the defense spending statistics you cite is not that Europe is getting a free ride, but that the USA might be overpaying and spending too much? Did we get our money's worth for the $1 trillion we spent in Iraq? Did the thought occur to you that we already get less and spend more on healthcare than all those evil countries? Is it possible that they just might have figured something out that we haven't?

Europe is getting a free ride and have ever since the end of WW II.

Yes, we are overpaying and overspending and not getting our monies worth. We agree -- so you must be a closet Tea Partier after all, being against wasteful spending at home or abroad. Welcome!

The only thing the Eurotrash and the parasites from Mexico and South America have figured out is how generous we truly are and how much of a sucker the USA taxpayer must be.

A few years back I think it was Honda that was considering a North American site for a new plant. There were two sites they considered in the US South along with a province (I think it was Ontario but not 100% sure) in Canada. They picked the Canadian site despite Canada's taxes because US Health Care was too costly.

Could the onerous UAW work rules and outrageous salary and benefit packages foisted on companies trying to manufacture in the USA have anything to do with Honda's decision to go to Canada instead? I say that these extra expenses built in the total cost structure had a lot more to say as opposed to the personal income taxes comparing Canada vs. USA.

Regardless of what you might think about USA vs Europe national spending on military defense, it doesn't have a damn thing to do with whether or not we have a system of universal healthcare coverage.

It has everything to do with this on many fronts, Bart, admit it or not.

The financial costs are unsustainable and the loss of individual freedom and liberty goes well beyond the shallow important need of left wingers to feel good about themselves.

[Thebart]

I am not going to comment on every absolutely stupid remark in your rant, except for one.

From Reckless

That one is:

Could the onerous UAW work rules and outrageous salary and benefit packages foisted on companies trying to manufacture in the USA have anything to do with Honda's decision to go to Canada instead? I say that these extra expenses built in the total cost structure had a lot more to say as opposed to the personal income taxes comparing Canada vs. USA.

Your comment shows how totally ignorant you are of what happens here and what are the realities are in Canada. Personal income taxes had nothing to do with the equation. The plants in the south would have been non-union. I don't know if the Canadian plant is unionized. But if it is the work rules and costs to the company are equal, if not actually more, than what they would be in the USA. Canada has a much more worker friendly environment.

You guys on the right love to blame unions for everything. You couldn't be more wrong. One of the most profitable US based airlines which has low fares and high levels of customer loyalty is Southwest. Guess what? Southwest has been between 80% and 85% unionized for decades. Amazing how they still make money.

Walmart and Sam's Club have to rely upon public welfare programs to help sustain the low wage business model they thrive on. Costco has the same low prices, is profitable and pays substantially higher wages and is unionized.

You righties are always pissed off because you know you're losing battle of real ideas. You have absolutely no answer for the problem of an economy that has encouraged companies to ship the good high paying jobs in the manufacturing and other sectors to cheap labor countries. The main problem being many of the laid off workers who had good paying jobs now are competing with their own kids for lower paying jobs in retail and convenience stores.

Yea, I know all about the crap argument that "minimum wage jobs" are entry level. Well many hard working folks have had to resort to those jobs to have any job at all. And you have no answer how a person who has two or three of those jobs is supposed to live, pay rent or a mortgage, and afford health care.
.
And the problem so many on the right absolutely won't even discuss is that many of these folks are White formerly middle class Americans who your free-market bull crap have screwed out of job. See, when the premise of so many right-wing arguments is that our social safety net is just a welfare program to buy minority votes, you make a huge mistake. If those folks didn't and don't work, then the the people who lost all the "shipped overseas" manufacturing jobs, have to be White. Clever how you divert attention from that by fabricating culture wars attacking minorities.

The bottom line is simple: The right wing attack mode is just a diversion from the reality that you have no answers for the real problems that confront workers in this country across the board regardless of race, ethnic origin, or any other divide and conquer scam the right can dream up. Upper middle class, middle class and low income Americans are all struggling and you have no real answers.

[Greyfox]

Why should the American taxpayer protect and support the Eurotrash and parasites from Mexico and South America -- especially since my country and standard of living becomes compromised because of your naive sense of utopia?


Without disagreeing with your arguments, I find your labelling of Europeans, Mexicans, and South Americans, quite offensive and a real "turn off" to the message you are sending. :ThmbDown:

[Clocker]

Your comment shows how totally ignorant you are of what happens here and what are the realities are in Canada. Personal income taxes had nothing to do with the equation. The plants in the south would have been non-union. I don't know if the Canadian plant is unionized. But if it is the work rules and costs to the company are equal, if not actually more, than what they would be in the USA. Canada has a much more worker friendly environment.

Honda has 4 plants in the US and one in Canada. Three of the US plants were built after the one in Ontario. Everything here so far as to the reasons for plant siting has pure speculation, and I have no facts to add. My contribution to the speculation is that Honda's return to the US to build their next three plants seems to negate most of the earlier speculation. Anyone care to speculate about that?

[Thebart]

Honda has 4 plants in the US and one in Canada. Three of the US plants were built after the one in Ontario. Everything here so far as to the reasons for plant siting has pure speculation, and I have no facts to add. My contribution to the speculation is that Honda's return to the US to build their next three plants seems to negate most of the earlier speculation. Anyone care to speculate about that?

Can't really speculate because quite often states, counties, often "sweeten the corporate kitty" by offering long term tax breaks to get the corporation to move into their jurisdiction. Without knowing what, if any, incentives were offered it's really impossible to speculate.

What I do know though, is that when the initial Canadian site was selected a Honda official was quoted as saying that not having to provide health insurance because healthcare was provided in Canada by the government and paid for by taxes and user premiums, was a significant factor in the company's decision.

[dartman51]

Absolutely ridiculous to say that Honda built their plant in Canada, instead of the U.S., because of the health care cost. :lol: Welcome aboard Bart, you will surely be good for a few laughs.

In 1986, Honda of Canada Mfg. (HCM) began production with the assembly of the Honda Accord, leading the way as the first Japanese automobile manufacturer to establish a production facility in Canada. Honda opened its manufacturing plant in Canada as part of Honda's global commitment to building vehicles close to where they are sold.

http://www.honda.ca/honda-in-canada/manufacturing

Try again. :D

[Thebart]

When you consider that most of that money was spent with US companies using US citizens - I would say yes.

I get it. So the Iraq war wasn't about right or wrong or removing Saddam, it was about generating business and profits for US companies. Kinda like the old "What's good for General Motors is good for America" philosophy.

I wonder whether the families of the 4,400+ dead and 32,000+ wounded would consider this "money well spent" philosophy a good thing.

[Thebart]

Absolutely ridiculous to say that Honda built their plant in Canada, instead of the U.S., because of the health care cost. :lol: Welcome aboard Bart, you will surely be good for a few laughs.

In 1986, Honda of Canada Mfg. (HCM) began production with the assembly of the Honda Accord, leading the way as the first Japanese automobile manufacturer to establish a production facility in Canada. Honda opened its manufacturing plant in Canada as part of Honda's global commitment to building vehicles close to where they are sold.

http://www.honda.ca/honda-in-canada/manufacturing

Try again. :D

No, the decision to open a NORTH AMERICAN plant was based on wanting to be close to a big market. The specific decision to pick Canada was based on Honda's view at the time that costs - including employee health care - were more favorable in Canada.

Think about it. If the main goal was to be closer to where their cars were sold why wouldn't they pick the USA? Do they sell more Honda cars in Canada then here? I don't think so. There's a reason they picked Canada for that first plant and wasn't to be closer to customers in the USA. If that was the key criteria they would have opened here.

Interestingly I discovered a CBS news report about a Toyota decision to locate in Canada. Here is what it said:

"The factory will cost $800 million to build, with the federal and provincial governments kicking in $125 million of that to help cover research, training and infrastructure costs. Several U.S. states were reportedly prepared to offer more than double that amount of subsidy. But Fedchun said much of that extra money would have been eaten away by higher training costs than are necessary for the Woodstock project.

He said Nissan and Honda have encountered difficulties getting new plants up to full production in recent years in Mississippi and Alabama due to an untrained - and often illiterate - workforce. In Alabama, trainers had to use "pictorials" to teach some illiterate workers how to use high-tech plant equipment.

"The educational level and the skill level of the people down there is so much lower than it is in Ontario," Fedchun said.

Further on the article continues


"In addition to lower training costs, Canadian workers are also $4 to $5 cheaper to employ partly thanks to the taxpayer-funded health-care system in Canada, said federal Industry Minister David Emmerson.

"Most people don't think of our health-care system as being a competitive advantage," he said.

Tanguay said Toyota's decision on where to build its seventh North American plant was "not only about money."

"It's about being in the right place," he said, noting the company can rely on the expertise of experienced Cambridge workers to help get Woodstock up and running."

------------------------

You can draw your own conclusions. I think it's quite possible that the low-tax, low funding of education in the South may have been a factor. Clearly these companies take a "big picture" view when deciding. And it would appear that Canada despite it's feared socialistic healthcare didn't scare either Honda or Toyota away.

[Clocker]

"In addition to lower training costs, Canadian workers are also $4 to $5 cheaper to employ partly thanks to the taxpayer-funded health-care system in Canada, said federal Industry Minister David Emmerson.

Well, duh, who pays for that "taxpayer-funded health-care system"?

TANSTAAFL!

[newtothegame]

I am not going to comment on every absolutely stupid remark in your rant, except for one.

From Reckless

That one is:

Could the onerous UAW work rules and outrageous salary and benefit packages foisted on companies trying to manufacture in the USA have anything to do with Honda's decision to go to Canada instead? I say that these extra expenses built in the total cost structure had a lot more to say as opposed to the personal income taxes comparing Canada vs. USA.

Your comment shows how totally ignorant you are of what happens here and what are the realities are in Canada. Personal income taxes had nothing to do with the equation. The plants in the south would have been non-union. I don't know if the Canadian plant is unionized. But if it is the work rules and costs to the company are equal, if not actually more, than what they would be in the USA. Canada has a much more worker friendly environment.

You guys on the right love to blame unions for everything. You couldn't be more wrong. One of the most profitable US based airlines which has low fares and high levels of customer loyalty is Southwest. Guess what? Southwest has been between 80% and 85% unionized for decades. Amazing how they still make money.

Walmart and Sam's Club have to rely upon public welfare programs to help sustain the low wage business model they thrive on. Costco has the same low prices, is profitable and pays substantially higher wages and is unionized.

You righties are always pissed off because you know you're losing battle of real ideas. You have absolutely no answer for the problem of an economy that has encouraged companies to ship the good high paying jobs in the manufacturing and other sectors to cheap labor countries. The main problem being many of the laid off workers who had good paying jobs now are competing with their own kids for lower paying jobs in retail and convenience stores.

Yea, I know all about the crap argument that "minimum wage jobs" are entry level. Well many hard working folks have had to resort to those jobs to have any job at all. And you have no answer how a person who has two or three of those jobs is supposed to live, pay rent or a mortgage, and afford health care.
.
And the problem so many on the right absolutely won't even discuss is that many of these folks are White formerly middle class Americans who your free-market bull crap have screwed out of job. See, when the premise of so many right-wing arguments is that our social safety net is just a welfare program to buy minority votes, you make a huge mistake. If those folks didn't and don't work, then the the people who lost all the "shipped overseas" manufacturing jobs, have to be White. Clever how you divert attention from that by fabricating culture wars attacking minorities.

The bottom line is simple: The right wing attack mode is just a diversion from the reality that you have no answers for the real problems that confront workers in this country across the board regardless of race, ethnic origin, or any other divide and conquer scam the right can dream up. Upper middle class, middle class and low income Americans are all struggling and you have no real answers.

What is really funny is that you attempt, poorly I might add, to compare apples to oranges.
You attempt to make it sound like Costco and Wally World are the same and that one is unionized and one isn't. Yet, both are still profitable.
These two businesses, although warehouse environments, are quite different. But, you knew that didn't you....sneaky little devil you are....:lol:

Wal-Mart carries literally thousands of products which require a lot of shelf stacking and maintenance. Costco....palletized product which allows for a more efficient product to consumer delivery. Costco relies on the one size fits all model while Wally World gives huge assortments for ALL consumers. So, although similar in building shape, that's really about where the similarity stops. So, comparing the two is almost pointless....there is no real comparison. Sam's, a little more closer is modeling and might be a bit more closer.....

As to what keeps and who Wal-mart caters too, well Wally World and the Waltons did not sign into law NAFTA. That would be the lover of Ms. Lewinsky (or is it Hillary), sorry I get confused.....
But, on concept, Nafta was supposed to bring the third world standard of living up to our own. Instead, it brought our standards down to their level. So, please don't make it out to be that Wally World was the end all be all that dictates our economy. Wally World is sustained by our economy. Wally World did what most companies only dreamt of.....they fit their stores and had the foresight to get ahead of the curve.

Next, you talk about Wally World and imply that their low wages are killing this country....ok fair enough.... But, let's look a little deeper. The unions and their members, which despise Wally World, want to guess where they shop??? I can promise you if it were Nordstrom's, there would be one on every corner. Fact is those union people you are clamoring for and tooting their horns, they shop at the places where they too can save the most money. Damn I hate how that happens....they want to say they support high paying jobs, yet they shop and support the stores with the lowest wages....:bang:
Its kind of like all the people who complain about stores being open on the holidays while they stand in line to check out on that same holiday....lol

[HUSKER55]

why would anyone buy a membership (pay) to shop at Sam's club?

I realize they are still in business but I know quite a few people who claim it is not worth the effort.

[Clocker]

You righties are always pissed off because you know you're losing battle of real ideas. You have absolutely no answer for the problem of an economy that has encouraged companies to ship the good high paying jobs in the manufacturing and other sectors to cheap labor countries.

You mean jealousy about the really good ideas like stimulus spending for shovel ready jobs? Cash for Clunkers? "Investment" in green industries like Solyndra? "Investment" in more math and science teachers?

Here's an answer to the problem: it is not the government's role, or capability, to create jobs. The role of government is to provide a stable and predictable environment for businesses to create jobs. This administration has failed miserably at that. Show me the ideas that have worked and the jobs created by this administration.

Do you think that business leaders are lying when they say that they are not investing in new projects because of uncertainty about taxes and healthcare costs and government regulation? Why do you think that companies like GE are sitting on billions of dollars of profits parked overseas, rather than put them to work here? The answer is uncertainty and an adversarial political environment.

Government cannot create jobs. Government cannot come up with ideas to create jobs. Businesses create jobs, and they come up with the ideas and the solutions. If the government lets them.

[PaceAdvantage]

The big thing you overlook is that all of Europe, Canada, Asian countries like Taiwan, all provide some form of a national health care system to guarantee care to everyone.In the US, I believe it's called the ER.

[TJDave]

Helps when you don't have a car payment or two.

You wanna hang your hat on car payments?

Of the top ten countries in per capita car ownership care to guess how many don't have universal health care?

Here's a hint:

The USA is #2 on the list.

How about the top 15...or maybe twenty?

[Clocker]

In the US, I believe it's called the ER.

And Medicare. And Medicaid. And state high-risk pools. And on and on.

[Thebart]

You mean jealousy about the really good ideas like stimulus spending for shovel ready jobs? Cash for Clunkers? "Investment" in green industries like Solyndra? "Investment" in more math and science teachers?

Here's an answer to the problem: it is not the government's role, or capability, to create jobs. The role of government is to provide a stable and predictable environment for businesses to create jobs. This administration has failed miserably at that. Show me the ideas that have worked and the jobs created by this administration.

Do you think that business leaders are lying when they say that they are not investing in new projects because of uncertainty about taxes and healthcare costs and government regulation? Why do you think that companies like GE are sitting on billions of dollars of profits parked overseas, rather than put them to work here? The answer is uncertainty and an adversarial political environment.

Government cannot create jobs. Government cannot come up with ideas to create jobs. Businesses create jobs, and they come up with the ideas and the solutions. If the government lets them.

You have this amazing ability to respond to a point I never tried to make and then claim victory for your argument. How clever.

I never once said the government should create jobs. The point I made is that the government should not, as it has in the past, created INCENTIVES for companies to ship jobs overseas. That is my point.

It's a load of crap to suggest that any form of "uncertainty" is keeping money overseas. You conveniently forget that Obama did extend the Bush tax cuts. Do you really believe that companies open plants and ship jobs to low wage third-world countries because they think the governments there are more stable than here?

It's hard to reason with those who live in this alternate reality fantasy world where companies are always right and government is always wrong.

Oh, I almost forgot. The answer to your question Do you think business leaders are lying.......? My answer = Quite often, Yes they are. I also think right wing political leaders lie even more.

[newtothegame]

You mean like this right wing political leader???

KiIP_KDQmXs

In case the video doesn't work......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiIP_KDQmXs

[delayjf]

You wanna hang your hat on car payments?

I'm just pointing out that more Americans own a car(s) than Europeans, which would contribute to their ability to save money. I'm not sure which county (Norway I think??) has a 180% tax on all car purchases - not to mention the gas prices.

[Tom]

Some simpleton dem in congress is pressing to double the federal gas tax.
Heard him on Cavuto yesterday. Guy was a real Eintstein. Couldn't come up with anything other than we haven't raised it in 20 years. Dem thinking is holding us down. (Anchors)

[Thebart]

Some simpleton dem in congress is pressing to double the federal gas tax.
Heard him on Cavuto yesterday. Guy was a real Eintstein. Couldn't come up with anything other than we haven't raised it in 20 years. Dem thinking is holding us down. (Anchors)

Hey Tom, we agree! I'd oppose an increase in gas tax too. I must be one of those "common sense Dems."

More importantly though you need to do more research before you post misleading info. See link below. U. S. Chamber of Commerce actually supports raising the gas tax. Who the alleged "simpleton Dem" you refer to is I can't find. Ray Lahood, Obama's Secretary of Transportation who supports it is actually a Republican.

Support from very conservative U. S. Chamber hardly qualifies as "Dem thinking."

http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/21/news/economy/business-gas-tax/

[rastajenk]

An Oregon Dem has suggested this. (http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/energy-environment/191992-dem-proposes-taxing-drivers-by-the-mile)

[Clocker]

I also think right wing political leaders lie even more.

More than Obama? :eek:

[Clocker]

You have this amazing ability to respond to a point I never tried to make and then claim victory for your argument. How clever.

I never once said the government should create jobs. The point I made is that the government should not, as it has in the past, created INCENTIVES for companies to ship jobs overseas. That is my point.

You said that the right was losing the "battle of real ideas. You have absolutely no answer for the problem of an economy that has encouraged companies to ship the good high paying jobs in the manufacturing and other sectors to cheap labor countries."

I responded with answers for the problem. Create a stable business and regulatory environment that encourages business investment and job creation. Obama and Pelosi and Reid have done the opposite.

You say that business owners are lying about their reluctance to invest in a highly uncertain environment, but neglect to propose an alternative reason. So this is some kind of right wing conspiracy that business owners large and small got together and plotted because they hate Obama? Including the medium to small businesses that won't hire because of ObamaCare? Or that cut back hours for the same reason?

As to stable governments, yes, businesses are outsourcing production to places like China because they know that their production and costs are stable and secure for years to come.

[delayjf]

What is the alternative? Do you even have one? The only ideas I've heard so far are nonsense like letting me buy coverage from other states. Do you really believe letting someone from Connecticut buy coverage from New York, or Delaware, or even Mississippi, is going to make my cost go down and the quality of the coverage go up? You call that a plan? It can't possibly be the state and federal "exchanges" you oppose? If you do, get ready because Paul Ryan's Medicare Reform proposal calls for the creation of - guess what? - "exchanges" through which seniors would take his "Medicare voucher" to buy coverage from private insurance companies. Sounds a lot like Obamacare doesn't it?

Or so-called tort reform? Amidst all the talk about malpractice suits and damage awards, the reality is they are the exception to the rule. Reducing malpractice liability limits is not going to cut costs all that much, if at all. Besides, that is no solution to access for those boxed out of the existing system by arbitrary limits. The fact is the current system is the one that is not sustainable. How long do you want to pay through taxes huge emergency room costs for providing what would otherwise be routine care for uninsured people?

Until they are tried, how do you know the above reforms won't help cut down costs. As far as medical malpractice, you don't think the costs of mal-practice insurance (which can get into 6 figures) is going to be reflected in the fees a doctor charges?

[Thebart]

You said that the right was losing the "battle of real ideas. You have absolutely no answer for the problem of an economy that has encouraged companies to ship the good high paying jobs in the manufacturing and other sectors to cheap labor countries."

I responded with answers for the problem. Create a stable business and regulatory environment that encourages business investment and job creation. Obama and Pelosi and Reid have done the opposite.

You say that business owners are lying about their reluctance to invest in a highly uncertain environment, but neglect to propose an alternative reason. So this is some kind of right wing conspiracy that business owners large and small got together and plotted because they hate Obama? Including the medium to small businesses that won't hire because of ObamaCare? Or that cut back hours for the same reason?

As to stable governments, yes, businesses are outsourcing production to places like China because they know that their production and costs are stable and secure for years to come.

Honestly, do you really believe that business leaders think China is a more stable and reliable place to invest in than the USA? Do you really?

Because if you do then I guess all those right wing books saying that China is our biggest enemy are just B.S. or corporate leaders are morons. Give me a break.

What you're basically saying is that American business leaders don't give a crap about this country or its workforce. They care about money and profits and if they have to snuggle up to few "stable" dictatorships to earn more that's OK too. And you doubtless consider yourself a patriot.

[Thebart]

Until they are tried, how do you know the above reforms won't help cut down costs. As far as medical malpractice, you don't think the costs of mal-practice insurance (which can get into 6 figures) is going to be reflected in the fees a doctor charges?

I don't believe doctors will cut fees because malpractice insurance costs go down. In fact, I don't think insurance company's will reduce malpractice premiums that much. Part of this is just medical industry baloney. Doctors like surgeons pay higher premiums. Premiums for physicians like family doctors are typically under $50k a year, sometimes in the $20k to $30k range.

You might want to take a look at this. You might change your mind.
http://truecostofhealthcare.org/malpractice

Once again, we see that a little digging shows the right wing arguments are more often than not P.R. bullcrap out to fool the public.

[reckless]

Your comment shows how totally ignorant you are of what happens here and what are the realities are in Canada. Personal income taxes had nothing to do with the equation.

I confess to making a small error here. I did not mean to say Honda decided on Canada because of the personal tax difference. You did say that Honda picked Canada despite higher taxes. My bad there.

But, bart, instead of calling me totally ignorant you really should have left that comment alone. Why? Because you said Honda went to Canada because of the USA having higher health care costs, and that remark is the ignorant one devoid of any economic common sense.

Walmart and Sam's Club have to rely upon public welfare programs to help sustain the low wage business model they thrive on. Costco has the same low prices, is profitable and pays substantially higher wages and is unionized.

Look, I never do the club thing that Sam's and Costco offers so I can't honestly comment. I go to Wal Mart rather infrequently, for what that's worth.

But, if you are a consumer and object to Wal Mart's treatment of employees then don't shop there. If you also object to Wal Mart stocking its' shelves with products made in China, again, don't shop there.

Psst, psst, psst, bart, just between us ... as bad as Wal Mart is with selling products made mostly in China, they are far from the only company doing so. They may be the largest but no where near are they the only one.

Finally, if you work at Wal Mart or Sam's and believe you are underpaid and mistreated, then quit. You shouldn't be in an environment that makes you feel uncomfortable. If Wal Mart really mistreats its workers and underpays them as the left wingers claim, then by quitting you aren't missing much, now are you?

You righties are always pissed off because you know you're losing battle of real ideas. You have absolutely no answer for the problem of an economy that has encouraged companies to ship the good high paying jobs in the manufacturing and other sectors to cheap labor countries. The main problem being many of the laid off workers who had good paying jobs now are competing with their own kids for lower paying jobs in retail and convenience stores.

And what new ideas does the left claim to have and the right is losing? Obama Care? Your old friend Bismarck (spelled correctly here) initiated a subsidized National Insurance program during his 30-plus year run as warmonger and Prussian chancellor. His reign ended about 125 years old!

Was the impeached and disgraced left wing icon Bill Clinton a man of new ideas? Well, as discussed earlier Clinton is responsible for NAFTA and GATT, the two laws that put a shiv right into the backs of American labor. Clinton and Dick Gephardt, along with Newt Gingrich and a GOP majority, are responsible for those 'good paying jobs' leaving the USA. Gingrich could not have gotten those laws passed without Clinton and Gephardt. And it is those latter two phonies that always claimed to be pro union and friends of the working man.

So, if you connect the dots, today's high unemployment along with parents working at Wal Mart with their kids, began with NAFTA and GATT thanks to Bill Clinton.

And the problem so many on the right absolutely won't even discuss is that many of these folks are White formerly middle class Americans who your free-market bull crap have screwed out of job. See, when the premise of so many right-wing arguments is that our social safety net is just a welfare program to buy minority votes, you make a huge mistake. If those folks didn't and don't work, then the the people who lost all the "shipped overseas" manufacturing jobs, have to be White. Clever how you divert attention from that by fabricating culture wars attacking minorities.

The bottom line is simple: The right wing attack mode is just a diversion from the reality that you have no answers for the real problems that confront workers in this country across the board regardless of race, ethnic origin, or any other divide and conquer scam the right can dream up. Upper middle class, middle class and low income Americans are all struggling and you have no real answers.

'White', 'welfare program to buy minority votes', 'attacking minorities'... Once again bart, you are showing your true colors of racism and hatred. I feel sorry for you.

I have always said that once you peel the onion of a liberal, all that remains is hatred, anti-semitism, extemism and racism.

[Tom]

Hey Tom, we agree! I'd oppose an increase in gas tax too. I must be one of those "common sense Dems."

More importantly though you need to do more research before you post misleading info. See link below. U. S. Chamber of Commerce actually supports raising the gas tax. Who the alleged "simpleton Dem" you refer to is I can't find. Ray Lahood, Obama's Secretary of Transportation who supports it is actually a Republican.

Support from very conservative U. S. Chamber hardly qualifies as "Dem thinking."

http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/21/news/economy/business-gas-tax/

Always nice to see a "fact-free" reply stating nothing but an opinion with absolutely no facts. It might be your opinion that he lied, but that's all it is.

Deja vu?Like I saidm he was a congressman on Cavuto yeterday.Nothing misleading in my post. And, btw, anyone who is on Obama's team is NOT a republican!:lol:

[Tom]

You righties are always pissed off because you know you're losing battle of real ideas. You have absolutely no answer for the problem of an economy that has encouraged companies to ship the good high paying jobs in the manufacturing and other sectors to cheap labor countries. The main problem being many of the laid off workers who had good paying jobs now are competing with their own kids for lower paying jobs in retail and convenience stores.

Of course this is nonsense.
Where have you been?
Do some reading in old threads - you will find real-world idead, not pie in the sky liberish.

[BlueShoe]

Some simpleton dem in congress is pressing to double the federal gas tax.
Heard him on Cavuto yesterday. Guy was a real Eintstein. Couldn't come up with anything other than we haven't raised it in 20 years. Dem thinking is holding us down. (Anchors)
To the Dimicrats, energy independence and increased production equates to ravishing Mother. :rolleyes: These loons just do not get that with proper environmental safeguards, offshore drilling, fracking, oil from Alaska, and the Keystone Pipeline is perfectly safe, and will help wean the nation from foreign oil dependence and will lower fuel costs. This in turn will create tens of thousands of new permanent jobs, which will mean increased tax revenues, thus eliminating any need or consideration for raising gasoline taxes. Is there something here that liberals have missed, or is it just too logical for them to comprehend?

[Ocala Mike]

This guy - Thebart - is making too much sense. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

The million dollar question is how long will Thebart put up with the conservatives here refusing to acknowledge that Obamacare may actually be a step forward for our country? My guess is not too long but I could be wrong.



I think he'll last. If I'm not mistaken, he is coming in here from the Del Mar forum, which will soon be shutting down, so he might need a place to call home.

Compared to the denizens of this site, the Del Mar site was peopled by a bunch of leftie peaceniks. Probably all mellowed out with that medicinal marijuana out there.

[Tom]

The million dollar question is how long will Thebart put up with the conservatives here refusing to acknowledge that Obamacare may actually be a step forward for our country?

Hey!
We already have a thread devoted to humor.

[Thebart]

I confess to making a small error here. I did not mean to say Honda decided on Canada because of the personal tax difference. You did say that Honda picked Canada despite higher taxes. My bad there.

But, bart, instead of calling me totally ignorant you really should have left that comment alone. Why? Because you said Honda went to Canada because of the USA having higher health care costs, and that remark is the ignorant one devoid of any economic common sense.



Look, I never do the club thing that Sam's and Costco offers so I can't honestly comment. I go to Wal Mart rather infrequently, for what that's worth.

But, if you are a consumer and object to Wal Mart's treatment of employees then don't shop there. If you also object to Wal Mart stocking its' shelves with products made in China, again, don't shop there.

Psst, psst, psst, bart, just between us ... as bad as Wal Mart is with selling products made mostly in China, they are far from the only company doing so. They may be the largest but no where near are they the only one.

Finally, if you work at Wal Mart or Sam's and believe you are underpaid and mistreated, then quit. You shouldn't be in an environment that makes you feel uncomfortable. If Wal Mart really mistreats its workers and underpays them as the left wingers claim, then by quitting you aren't missing much, now are you?



And what new ideas does the left claim to have and the right is losing? Obama Care? Your old friend Bismarck (spelled correctly here) initiated a subsidized National Insurance program during his 30-plus year run as warmonger and Prussian chancellor. His reign ended about 125 years old!

Was the impeached and disgraced left wing icon Bill Clinton a man of new ideas? Well, as discussed earlier Clinton is responsible for NAFTA and GATT, the two laws that put a shiv right into the backs of American labor. Clinton and Dick Gephardt, along with Newt Gingrich and a GOP majority, are responsible for those 'good paying jobs' leaving the USA. Gingrich could not have gotten those laws passed without Clinton and Gephardt. And it is those latter two phonies that always claimed to be pro union and friends of the working man.

So, if you connect the dots, today's high unemployment along with parents working at Wal Mart with their kids, began with NAFTA and GATT thanks to Bill Clinton.



'White', 'welfare program to buy minority votes', 'attacking minorities'... Once again bart, you are showing your true colors of racism and hatred. I feel sorry for you.

I have always said that once you peel the onion of a liberal, all that remains is hatred, anti-semitism, extemism and racism.

Let's get real here. Your side is the one always referring to those who use the social safety network as "welfare queens" and all sorts of insulting descriptions. I just pointed out that right wingers very often use all the code and dog whistle words in the book to imply that most people on so-called "welfare" are non-white. You can deny that all you want but people who've run GOP campaigns like the late Lee Atwater have said as much.

Almost every single thing you guys criticize Obama for a Republican president before him did many times over. The silence from the Republicans lap dogs back then was deafening.

You are good at misstating what people say and then responding to the distortion. What I actually said was that a Honda official at that time said the lower cost of healthcare to the company in Canada was a factor (emphasis on "a factor") in it's decision to locate in Canada. I subsequently quoted an official of the Provincial government who said the exact same thing. So if there is a liar here it's not me.

When I read your comments on here I sometimes think your code name should be "Blinkers On" because it would be so "on point."

[thaskalos]

Let's get real here. Your side is the one always referring to those who use the social safety network as "welfare queens" and all sorts of insulting descriptions. I just pointed out that right wingers very often use all the code and dog whistle words in the book to imply that most people on so-called "welfare" are non-white. You can deny that all you want but people who've run GOP campaigns like the late Lee Atwater have said as much.

Almost every single thing you guys criticize Obama for a Republican president before him did many times over. The silence from the Republicans lap dogs back then was deafening.

You are good at misstating what people say and then responding to the distortion. What I actually said was that a Honda official at that time said the lower cost of healthcare to the company in Canada was a factor (emphasis on "a factor") in it's decision to locate in Canada. I subsequently quoted an official of the Provincial government who said the exact same thing. So if there is a liar here it's not me.

When I read your comments on here I sometimes think your code name should be "Blinkers On" because it would be so "on point."

I like this guy! :ThmbUp:

[Jay Trotter]

I like this guy! :ThmbUp:I'll ditto that! :ThmbUp::ThmbUp:

[johnhannibalsmith]

Me too... nice to have a coherent liberal addition to the roster.

[ArlJim78]

Almost every single thing you guys criticize Obama for a Republican president before him did many times over. The silence from the Republicans lap dogs back then was deafening
yeah that's great stuff.
vacuous and fact free, but nonetheless people seem to like it.:ThmbUp:

[Clocker]

yeah that's great stuff.
vacuous and fact free, but nonetheless people seem to like it.:ThmbUp:

Don't knock it. It's good enough to get elected president.

[magwell]

"As
democracy is perfected, the office of the President
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the
people. On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the
land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White
House will be occupied by a downright fool and complete
narcissistic moron."

----H.L. Mencken, The Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26,
1920

[reckless]

Let's get real here. Your side is the one always referring to those who use the social safety network as "welfare queens" and all sorts of insulting descriptions. I just pointed out that right wingers very often use all the code and dog whistle words in the book to imply that most people on so-called "welfare" are non-white.

Let's get specific because these tired, ridiculous open ended and unprovable cheap shots aimed at conservatives are simply laughable. I have never heard any conservative on this board make such vile comments. I have heard a lot of vitriol, racism and silliness come from the left wingers on here though.

And when it comes to this social safety net you mention that liberals often take credit for, can you please explain how this safety net has been a success?

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and corruptly used to reward favored cronies and other like-minded villains; the Welfare system has created discontent and loss of hope to millions; it has also indirectly caused millions of children being born out of wedlock and has destroyed the family unit; Medicare is broke and proven to be a horrible lie to the poor and uninformed who believed that their health insurance woes were gone; it is a system that has refused more top drugs, modern procedures and quality health care more often than any private insurance plan or medical facility has, despite the lies by the left; and Obama Care will be worse, if possible; subsidized Housing has given poor people nothing but unhealthy and unsafe living conditions throughout the USA where the term living in squalor is an understatement.

This horrible welfare state, which lies solely at the feet of people like FDR, LBJ and Obama, is almost unfixable thanks to the left. And you can no longer explain away this failure simply by calling conservatives mean. This tactic has already begun to lose its effectiveness. People know better.

You can deny that all you want but people who've run GOP campaigns like the late Lee Atwater have said as much.

I assume you mention the late Lee Atwater because you want to make your point that the GOP use 'code and dog whistle' words.

That being said, if true, by association then you are also making a veiled reference to the infamous 'Willie Horton' TV commercial in the 1988 Bush-Dukakis race, right?

Well, I hate to spoil your fun but the entire Willie Horton (who was black) situation was brought to the attention of the American people by Al Gore, who ran against Dukakis in the Democrat primaries. Once again, a liberal icon like Al Gore proves my point that left wing ideologues are the true haters and racists in our society. You are now beginning to sound just like a typical liberal flunky, one that doesn't know any better but thinks he's the smartest guy in the room.

[Jay Trotter]

... I have never heard any conservative on this board make such vile comments. ...Spit out my drink! :lol: Shirley, you jest! I know, I know, don't call you surely! :lol::lol::lol:

[NJ Stinks]

Me too... nice to have a coherent liberal addition to the roster.

And a solid right uppercut is delivered by the man of libertarian persuasion! :eek:

[thaskalos]

Let's get specific because these tired, ridiculous open ended and unprovable cheap shots aimed at conservatives are simply laughable. I have never heard any conservative on this board make such vile comments. I have heard a lot of vitriol, racism and silliness come from the left wingers on here though.



Who could have guessed that reckless had such a great sense of humor? :lol:

[Tom]

Me too... nice to have a coherent liberal addition to the roster.

Yes, just because you are totally wrong, no reason not be wrong with some class!

[ElKabong]

I like this guy! :ThmbUp:

The woman sitting next to me saw your pic and post and said "he's gay", why are you reading this stuff......i had to wait for her to leave before I posted this

thought it was funny, anyway

[thaskalos]

The woman sitting next to me saw your pic and post and said "he's gay", why are you reading this stuff......i had to wait for her to leave before I posted this

thought it was funny, anyway

Why did you wait until she left the room before you sent me this?

Were you afraid that she would start entertaining similar thoughts about you?

[reckless]

Who could have guessed that reckless had such a great sense of humor? :lol:

If you would have asked, I would have told you that myself. :lol:

But what isn't funny is the following:

From 2009 to 2012, since Obama has been president, the once great USA has continued its descent in worldwide education rankings.

In Math, under Obama's watch, the USA ranking in the world fell to 29th place, down from 24th place.

In Science, under Obama's watch, the USA now ranks in 22nd place, down from 19th place.

And, in the very important education segment, Reading, since Obama has been President, the USA has tumbled even further, falling from 10th place to 20th place!!

These sad results simply can't be ignored (except possibly by the left wingers in the media and those like-minded apologists on this board).

The NEA (National Educational Assn.) and NFT (National Federation of Teachers) cabal must be sent packing -- for the sake of the children.

[tucker6]

The NEA (National Educational Assn.) and NFT (National Federation of Teachers) cabal must be sent packing -- for the sake of the children.
You just wait. All we need to do is provide teachers tenure and increase their pay and benefits and test scores will rise. Wasn't that the mantra from the liberals for years in trying to justify the fleecing of taxpayers?

[Mike at A+]

0bama couldn't shine Romney's shoes. The bottom line is that 0bama got over 90% of the black vote, many of those votes JUST BECAUSE HE IS BLACK. Also, black voter participation was OFF THE CHARTS compared to past elections. 0bama also got votes from people who would rather vote for a living than work for one. All votes are counted equally but it is quite clear that 0bama got the overwhelming majority of the UNINTELLIGENT vote. Promise people free money and they will give you their vote. Demonize the rich and then punishing the middle class because the rich are too smart for 0bama to take their money doesn't phase the poor in the least. As long as they get their handouts they don't really care where they come from.

THIS IS HOW DEMOCRATS WIN ELECTIONS.

[PaceAdvantage]

Almost every single thing you guys criticize Obama for a Republican president before him did many times over. The silence from the Republicans lap dogs back then was deafening.And this is where you would be incorrect, at least when it comes to this forum. There were more than a few "righties" here who were critical of Bush while he was in office, far more than the almost total lack of left leaning critics of Obama who post here today.

[PaceAdvantage]

0bama couldn't shine Romney's shoes.Code and dog whistle ALERT. ...ALERT. ..ALERT. ..ALERT!!!!!!!!!!

[Mike at A+]

Code and dog whistle ALERT. ...ALERT. ..ALERT. ..ALERT!!!!!!!!!!
Oops, I should have qualified that as an old saying and a commonly accepted analogy that can only apply to a demographic other than 0bama's.

To clarify, I would add that employers would be much more agreeable to create jobs under a more business friendly president. Somehow, I just don't think that Romney would allow a job market that 0bama has allowed to continue for so long. Job creation is more about attitude than anything else. 0bama's attitude sucks. The simple action of allowing a project like Keystone to commence would send a positive signal to job creators. Instead, he chooses to squash it sending a very negative feeling to job creators. It almost seems like he wants Americans to remain jobless, struggling and dependent on government. That is how Democrats win elections.

[Thebart]

Let's get specific because these tired, ridiculous open ended and unprovable cheap shots aimed at conservatives are simply laughable. I have never heard any conservative on this board make such vile comments. I have heard a lot of vitriol, racism and silliness come from the left wingers on here though.

And when it comes to this social safety net you mention that liberals often take credit for, can you please explain how this safety net has been a success?

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and corruptly used to reward favored cronies and other like-minded villains; the Welfare system has created discontent and loss of hope to millions; it has also indirectly caused millions of children being born out of wedlock and has destroyed the family unit; Medicare is broke and proven to be a horrible lie to the poor and uninformed who believed that their health insurance woes were gone; it is a system that has refused more top drugs, modern procedures and quality health care more often than any private insurance plan or medical facility has, despite the lies by the left; and Obama Care will be worse, if possible; subsidized Housing has given poor people nothing but unhealthy and unsafe living conditions throughout the USA where the term living in squalor is an understatement.

This horrible welfare state, which lies solely at the feet of people like FDR, LBJ and Obama, is almost unfixable thanks to the left. And you can no longer explain away this failure simply by calling conservatives mean. This tactic has already begun to lose its effectiveness. People know better.



I assume you mention the late Lee Atwater because you want to make your point that the GOP use 'code and dog whistle' words.

That being said, if true, by association then you are also making a veiled reference to the infamous 'Willie Horton' TV commercial in the 1988 Bush-Dukakis race, right?

Well, I hate to spoil your fun but the entire Willie Horton (who was black) situation was brought to the attention of the American people by Al Gore, who ran against Dukakis in the Democrat primaries. Once again, a liberal icon like Al Gore proves my point that left wing ideologues are the true haters and racists in our society. You are now beginning to sound just like a typical liberal flunky, one that doesn't know any better but thinks he's the smartest guy in the room.

There you go again. Saying I made a veiled reference to the Willie Horton ad that Bush ran in the 1988 campaign. I never mentioned the Horton ad. I wasn't even thinking about that when I wrote my comment. Atwater ran multiple GOP campaigns. He ultimately wrote a book describing various strategies which made clear the the GOPs "Southern Strategy" of trying to appeal to (I would say "scare") Southern white voters.

But since you brought up Gore and and the Willie Horton matter lets see how Wikipedia reports on that topic:

"The first person to mention the Massachusetts furlough program in the 1988 presidential campaign was Al Gore. During a debate before the New York primary, Gore took issue with the furlough program. However, he did not specifically mention the Horton incident or even his name, instead asking a general question about the Massachusetts furlough program.

Republicans picked up the Horton issue after Dukakis clinched the nomination. In June 1988, Republican candidate George H.W. Bush seized on the Horton case, bringing it up repeatedly in campaign speeches. Bush's campaign manager, Lee Atwater, said "By the time we're finished, they're going to wonder whether Willie Horton is Dukakis' running mate."

There's a difference between saying "I disapproved of your prison furlough program" as a policy issue, and running a commercial with a black man in a revolving door and his prison record splashed across the screen." Absolutely no one who saw that ad missed the dog whistle message that "Dukakis goes easy on black thugs; his liberal policies on crime should scare you."

But the b.s. part of your response is that Gore never mentioned Horton by name nor did he run "scare" commercials with a not so veiled race-based message.

A rather interesting side note to the whole Horton saga was that while Dukakis did support Massachusetts' existing furlough program when he was Governor, the program was actually initiated during the administration of Republican Governor Francis Sargent in 1972. The Dukakis/Bush presidential campaign occurred in 1988.

And just for the record, I absolutely don't think I'm the smartest guy in the room. But, I am smart enough to know that if I ever did begin to think that way I'd be setting myself up for a big fall. There is always someone smarter, faster, more lucky, than you or me.

For those of you who may not recall or never saw the Horton ad go here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io9KMSSEZ0Y

[Robert Goren]

And this is where you would be incorrect, at least when it comes to this forum. There were more than a few "righties" here who were critical of Bush while he was in office, far more than the almost total lack of left leaning critics of Obama who post here today.That is because there are so few liberals here. That being said, I have been critical of Obama on a few things. For example his giving up too quickly on taxing the rich. And He has been in Afghanistan far too long. I think should reduce the number of troops in Europe. I think he has stuck with incompetent generals too long. He should regulate the banks more. He should be pushing for more regulation on "machine guns".

[Mike at A+]

That is because there are so few liberals here. That being said, I have been critical of Obama on a few things. For example his giving up too quickly on taxing the rich.
He has "given up" on taxing the rich because IT WAS NEVER HIS INTENTION to tax the rich. He CAN'T tax the rich. They are far too smart to find themselves being overtaxed. They didn't get rich by being stupid. But demonizing them is great politics that play to his base. They just hate the fact that some people have the education, the experience and the work ethic to GET rich while they DON'T. So they are a convenient target even though they are among the biggest job creators. But note how he doesn't demonize the rich folks who DON'T create jobs. Folks like Hollywood, the NBA, the NFL, MLB who all make astronomical salaries while the only "jobs" they create are for their bodyguards (thugs with guns) who consider it a crime to even approach these rich folks.

[delayjf]

You might want to take a look at this. You might change your mind.OK, I took a look at it, a few points.

Mal-practice insurance is lower in CA is because they have passed Tort reform. They have a cap on settlements for pain and suffering (250,000). Insurance rates vary greatly with states, despite Dr. Belks claim, Doctors in other states pay thru the nose, especially anesthesiologist an OB-GYM physicans.

Secondly, I’m dubious that a staff writer from the Huffington Post (a liberal) is giving us the whole story. In this case I get the feeling that he’s leaving something out as to why he’s only paying 3000.00 dollars a year in mal-practice insurance; he sites another example of a heart surgeon only paying 5000 dollars a year. Specifically I’d like to know if he’s and the rest of the Doctors he quotes are members of a medical group that pays for their doctor’s coverage or in his case the majority of their doctor’s coverage. I have a brother in law that an ER physician and it costs 150,000 a year in Nebraska – a part of which is paid by his medical group.

I’m a bit more surprised that more liberals are not in favor of medical mal-practice tort reform. The healthcare systems in Europe don't allow jackpot justice. Very few doctors are sued in England, Germany, or France. Evidently, this is the one feature of European medicine we are not interested in emulating. How about we reduce the payments to lawyers, lets say from their typical 40% to 10%.

[Robert Goren]

He has "given up" on taxing the rich because IT WAS NEVER HIS INTENTION to tax the rich. He CAN'T tax the rich. They are far too smart to find themselves being overtaxed. They didn't get rich by being stupid. But demonizing them is great politics that play to his base. They just hate the fact that some people have the education, the experience and the work ethic to GET rich while they DON'T. So they are a convenient target even though they are among the biggest job creators. But note how he doesn't demonize the rich folks who DON'T create jobs. Folks like Hollywood, the NBA, the NFL, MLB who all make astronomical salaries while the only "jobs" they create are for their bodyguards (thugs with guns) who consider it a crime to even approach these rich folks. A lot were born both rich and stupid, something conservatives seem to forget. Some how they got the idea that every person started poor and made themselves rich by brain power and hard work. Ironically the folks in Hollywood , the NBA, The NFL and MLB are the people who started poor and got rich because of talent and hard work. While they themselves might not employ many people directly, their industries do. So do their investments in other industries.

[delayjf]

A lot were born both rich and stupid

Got anything to back this up? Question, how many of the current US Billionaires inherited their wealth?

[Mike at A+]

Being "born rich" makes someone lucky. And it's legal from what I gather. Besides, the money has already been taxed. While these people are envied and demonized, it's no reason to target them for any special punishment. Many of them create businesses that employ many people. Many invest in various venues that benefit many people. Many give to charities and foundations that do a lot of good things. 0bama knows that going after these people will have more negative effects than positive ones. The will simply take their ball and go home. We need jobs, not higher taxes on job creators. 0bama is either clueless or deliberately destructive. I suspect the latter. You can't raise people up by bringing other people down.

[Robert Goren]

OK, I took a look at it, a few points.

Mal-practice insurance is lower in CA is because they have passed Tort reform. They have a cap on settlements for pain and suffering (250,000). Insurance rates vary greatly with states, despite Dr. Belks claim, Doctors in other states pay thru the nose, especially anesthesiologist an OB-GYM physicans.

Secondly, I’m dubious that a staff writer from the Huffington Post (a liberal) is giving us the whole story. In this case I get the feeling that he’s leaving something out as to why he’s only paying 3000.00 dollars a year in mal-practice insurance; he sites another example of a heart surgeon only paying 5000 dollars a year. Specifically I’d like to know if he’s and the rest of the Doctors he quotes are members of a medical group that pays for their doctor’s coverage or in his case the majority of their doctor’s coverage. I have a brother in law that an ER physician and it costs 150,000 a year in Nebraska – a part of which is paid by his medical group.

I’m a bit more surprised that more liberals are not in favor of medical mal-practice tort reform. The healthcare systems in Europe don't allow jackpot justice. Very few doctors are sued in England, Germany, or France. Evidently, this is the one feature of European medicine we are not interested in emulating. How about we reduce the payments to lawyers, lets say from their typical 40% to 10%.Two things. First of all it is very hard to sue a doctor because other doctors won't testify against one of their own. Second, when there is settlement, it usually isn't a jackpot. I had a person who worked for me who got a nice piece of change from the Phen-Phen case. It will not even come close to paying for her life time of medical bills caused by the drug. While a not a suit against a doctor, it shows how the medical profession avoids a lot of the harm they do under the current system. Unless we get socialized health care (which Obamacare is not), somebody has to pay for the doctor's mistakes.

[Robert Goren]

Got anything to back this up? Question, how many of the current US Billionaires inherited their wealth? I don't know, but I do know several millionaires personally and most inherited theirs. By the way the richest one (worth maybe 100 million). I know was self-made and is a democrat and a big supporter of the Clintons. I knew him when he like me was a poor college student. We still keep in touch.

[Mike at A+]

Two things. First of all it is very hard to sue a doctor because other doctors won't testify against one of their own.
That is true in just about every facet of human life. Same with cops and DEFINITELY the same with things like impeachment.

[Thebart]

Being "born rich" makes someone lucky. And it's legal from what I gather. Besides, the money has already been taxed. While these people are envied and demonized, it's no reason to target them for any special punishment. Many of them create businesses that employ many people. Many invest in various venues that benefit many people. Many give to charities and foundations that do a lot of good things. 0bama knows that going after these people will have more negative effects than positive ones. The will simply take their ball and go home. We need jobs, not higher taxes on job creators. 0bama is either clueless or deliberately destructive. I suspect the latter. You can't raise people up by bringing other people down.

There is much in your comment I agree with. You are right that someone who has been fortunate enough to have been born into a wealthy family should not be demonized or targeted for punishment.

My problem with you conclusion is that many "spin" simple and very reasonable proposals for what they see (in this case I am one of these people) as an attempt to make things in our country a tad more fair. Since the mid 1970s the gap between rich and poor as gotten so wide that many in what was middle class now struggle to stay out of lower income brackets. Not because they work less. In fact they are working harder but struggling more. Making ends meet in our country has become more difficult today than it was thirty or forty years ago.

I don't think suggesting that the top one or two percent income brackets could easily absorb modest increases in their tax rates as either demonizing or targeting a particular group of people. Our country has adapted to the times and protects (as one example) new technologies with updated patent and intellectual property rights protection. A legal system that protects and enforces those rights. This protects wealth and the tools that create it.

Since business - particularly corporations - create a lot of jobs I guess it's fair to call them job creators. But actually the concept of "job creators" is Republican PR guru Frank Luntz's preferred spin term to refer to big business. Basically it is a term that gets used a lot but really has very little merit. Businesses don't create jobs because of tax cuts. If that were true we would have seen more job creation under Bush II. Clinton raised taxes but job growth - despite dire predictions of economic collapse from Republicans - exploded. Businesses create jobs because there's more demand for whatever they do or sell from customers willing and able to spend more. That is why it's important in a recession to enhance the safety net to enable people to still have something to spend.

I have yet to meet a business owner who has actually said "Gee wiz, if they just cut my taxes 10% I"ll create a new job and hire someone to fill it." It just doesn't work that way. What businesses really do is look at sales, see gains, have good reason to expect more, so they take a shot at expanding the workforce to meet the anticipate demand.

Believing any of this is not class warfare or targeting anyone. It is, at least to me, a call for simply fairness and common sense.

[Mike at A+]

There is much in your comment I agree with. You are right that someone who has been fortunate enough to have been born into a wealthy family should not be demonized or targeted for punishment.

My problem with you conclusion is that many "spin" simple and very reasonable proposals for what they see (in this case I am one of these people) as an attempt to make things in our country a tad more fair. Since the mid 1970s the gap between rich and poor as gotten so wide that many in what was middle class now struggle to stay out of lower income brackets. Not because they work less. In fact they are working harder but struggling more. Making ends meet in our country has become more difficult today than it was thirty or forty years ago.

I don't think suggesting that the top one or two percent income brackets could easily absorb modest increases in their tax rates as either demonizing or targeting a particular group of people. Our country has adapted to the times and protects (as one example) new technologies with updated patent and intellectual property rights protection. A legal system that protects and enforces those rights. This protects wealth and the tools that create it.

Since business - particularly corporations - create a lot of jobs I guess it's fair to call them job creators. But actually the concept of "job creators" is Republican PR guru Frank Luntz's preferred spin term to refer to big business. Basically it is a term that gets used a lot but really has very little merit. Businesses don't create jobs because of tax cuts. If that were true we would have seen more job creation under Bush II. Clinton raised taxes but job growth - despite dire predictions of economic collapse from Republicans - exploded. Businesses create jobs because there's more demand for whatever they do or sell from customers willing and able to spend more. That is why it's important in a recession to enhance the safety net to enable people to still have something to spend.

I have yet to meet a business owner who has actually said "Gee wiz, if they just cut my taxes 10% I"ll create a new job and hire someone to fill it." It just doesn't work that way. What businesses really do is look at sales, see gains, have good reason to expect more, so they take a shot at expanding the workforce to meet the anticipate demand.

Believing any of this is not class warfare or targeting anyone. It is, at least to me, a call for simply fairness and common sense.
The economy is a very delicate equation of many variables and I didn't mean to imply that tax cuts or incentives are the only things that can affect it. And I wouldn't lose any sleep if a small increase was levied against the upper brackets. BUT, it would be foolish to assume that such a tax increase would have no negative effects on the overall job picture or economy. Of all the people and entities that feel the impact of such a tax increase, SOME will need to make adjustments in spending, hiring and other non-essential (to them) issues. Another notion that annoys me about the "income disparity" is that raising the minimum wage will help. While it may help those who don't get laid off as a result, it will hurt those who do either because the pie is only so big or they simply don't merit the new wage due to lack of ability, experience, work ethic, etc. Another danger of raising the minimum wage is the bad taste it would leave in the mouths of those who are already earning that new minimum wage and will not be getting a raise themselves to distinguish themselves from those below them in experience. Someone may have taken a year or more to get to that milestone and now all of a sudden trainees with no experience are being compensated equally. So where does that lead? Must they get proportional raises? And if they do, then what about those directly above them who will end up with that same bad taste. How far up the seniority chain do we go with these raises? Obviously the cut off will have to be somewhere and some people will feel like they got screwed. The wealth disparity increases for other reasons as well. Rich people just seem to have that ability to better themselves because of their intelligence and their investment acumen. But my main gripe is that 0bama seems unwilling to foster an atmosphere that will allow businesses to trust him enough to expand. He basically destroyed two entire industries with his "fat cats" comment and now these industries are more conscious of their bottom lines and less eager to take on new hires and consultants. Every time 0bama opens his mouth in these periodic televised rants against business they become more protective and less inclined to take risks. They will simply wait the three years he has left and hope for a more business friendly administration once he vacates the White House. To many, 0bama is an immature brat who isn't willing to bend on anything.

I could be wrong about much of the above and some here would say that but I believe all of the above to be an accurate assessment of why this economy and job market is stuck in neutral.

[Clocker]

Since the mid 1970s the gap between rich and poor as gotten so wide that many in what was middle class now struggle to stay out of lower income brackets.

History shows that as government, bureaucracy, and regulation grows, income inequality grows in lock step. Adam Smith was one of the first to discuss this in "Wealth of Nations", and the process has continued down to the present day.

If the gap has been growing since the 70s, how much has government size and regulation (local, state, and federal) grown over that period? This is a bipartisan problem, because neither party has ever made serious efforts to stop the growth in the size of government. Reagan intended to do so, but failed because he could not get more than lip-service on the issue from the Republicans, let alone the Democrats. Everyone wants spending cuts as long as they aren't in my program or my district.

Why is the gap still growing under a president who says he is trying to fix the problem? Because he is part of the problem and doesn't understand the solution.

During the first three years of the Obama Administration, 106 new major federal regulations added more than $46 billion per year in new costs for Americans. This is almost four times the number—and more than five times the cost—of the major regulations issued by George W. Bush during his first three years. Hundreds more regulations are winding through the rulemaking pipeline as a consequence of the Dodd–Frank financial-regulation law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and the Environmental Protection Agency’s global warming crusade, threatening to further weaken an anemic economy and job creation.
Must not be true, because it is from Heritage (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/03/red-tape-rising-obama-era-regulation-at-the-three-year-mark).

The bureaucracy keeps growing, and the gap keeps widening. And the jobs get fewer and crappier.

[Thebart]

The economy is a very delicate equation of many variables and I didn't mean to imply that tax cuts or incentives are the only things that can affect it. And I wouldn't lose any sleep if a small increase was levied against the upper brackets. BUT, it would be foolish to assume that such a tax increase would have no negative effects on the overall job picture or economy. Of all the people and entities that feel the impact of such a tax increase, SOME will need to make adjustments in spending, hiring and other non-essential (to them) issues. Another notion that annoys me about the "income disparity" is that raising the minimum wage will help. While it may help those who don't get laid off as a result, it will hurt those who do either because the pie is only so big or they simply don't merit the new wage due to lack of ability, experience, work ethic, etc. Another danger of raising the minimum wage is the bad taste it would leave in the mouths of those who are already earning that new minimum wage and will not be getting a raise themselves to distinguish themselves from those below them in experience. Someone may have taken a year or more to get to that milestone and now all of a sudden trainees with no experience are being compensated equally. So where does that lead? Must they get proportional raises? And if they do, then what about those directly above them who will end up with that same bad taste. How far up the seniority chain do we go with these raises? Obviously the cut off will have to be somewhere and some people will feel like they got screwed. The wealth disparity increases for other reasons as well. Rich people just seem to have that ability to better themselves because of their intelligence and their investment acumen. But my main gripe is that 0bama seems unwilling to foster an atmosphere that will allow businesses to trust him enough to expand. He basically destroyed two entire industries with his "fat cats" comment and now these industries are more conscious of their bottom lines and less eager to take on new hires and consultants. Every time 0bama opens his mouth in these periodic televised rants against business they become more protective and less inclined to take risks. They will simply wait the three years he has left and hope for a more business friendly administration once he vacates the White House. To many, 0bama is an immature brat who isn't willing to bend on anything.

I could be wrong about much of the above and some here would say that but I believe all of the above to be an accurate assessment of why this economy and job market is stuck in neutral.

What are the two industries you believe Obama destroyed?

[Mike at A+]

What are the two industries you believe Obama destroyed?
Insurance and Investment Banking.

[Ocala Mike]

So, that would be insurance, as in AIG, and investment banking, as in Lehman Brothers?

[Thebart]

Insurance and Investment Banking.

Thinking those industries have been destroyed, much less that Obama did it, is such a huge stretch, that intelligent discussion is impossible.

At the beginning of October Forbes (of all places) reported that shares of Cigna up 63%, Wellpoint up 47%, United Healthcare up 28%. Kinda nixes the idea of a dying industry.

In July Daily Finance reported

Morgan Stanley says that second-quarter earnings beat analyst expectations, fueled by gains in its investment bank.

The bank says it earned $898 million after excluding the benefit of an accounting gain, a leap from $337 million a year earlier.

Here's an AP report from July 2013

BANKS: GETTING BETTER

U.S. banks reported surging profits after setting aside less money for bad loans. Major banks including Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase also profited from a boom in investment banking as recovering financial markets resulted in big increases in fees for underwriting stock and bond offerings. Rising interest rates also helped banks earn more from lending money.

The outlook for banks isn't as encouraging, however. There are signs that the boom in mortgage refinancing is starting to peter out. On the positive side, there weren't any nasty surprises of the kind banks have regularly handed investors in the years following the financial crisis. There was no mention of massive trading losses like JPMorgan's $6 billion "London whale" debacle last year, or settlements for mortgage-related lawsuits.

Banks are forecast to post earnings growth of 24 percent in the second quarter, the best of any industry group in the S&P 500. Of the 39 financial companies that have posted earnings, 74 percent have beaten analysts' expectations for earnings. That's better than the 66 percent average for S&P 500 companies. In fact, if you strip out banks, overall earnings are forecast to rise only 0.5 percent, according to S&P Capital IQ.

"I suspect that over the next few quarters, to the extent that interest rates continue to rise, you may well continue to see financials outperform the broader market," said Joseph Tanious, a global market strategist at JPMorgan Funds.

The earnings have helped financial companies post the second-best returns in the S&P 500 this month. They're up 6.1 percent in July, compared with a 5.3 percent gain for the broader index. Financial stocks have gained 25.7 percent this year.

===================

Neither Investment banking or Insurance have been destroyed.

[fast4522]

Watching the new guy on the block to see where he comes from and its obvious he is not as lame as your average resident lefty here. The differences with most of the resident lefty's is the belief is that stupid should be rewarded, I have no compassion for stupid (none). My view of the country that I want with all my heart to be preserved is the imaginary staircase that anyone who is driven and is intelligent enough can climb to the very top. The problem is some are trying to remove rungs in that staircase so there is no way to ascend. Of course the Gates and Buffets and such prefer missing steps so the millionaires who are termed small business can not nip at their heels . But who does this really hurt, the intelligent driven guy who normally would be unstoppable. All things aside the President is not for the middle class at all, he is for the filthy rich and plenty of birdseed for the poor.

[thaskalos]

Watching the new guy on the block to see where he comes from and its obvious he is not as lame as your average resident lefty here. The differences with most of the resident lefty's is the belief is that stupid should be rewarded, I have no compassion for stupid (none). My view of the country that I want with all my heart to be preserved is the imaginary staircase that anyone who is driven and is intelligent enough can climb to the very top. The problem is some are trying to remove rungs in that staircase so there is no way to ascend. Of course the Gates and Buffets and such prefer missing steps so the millionaires who are termed small business can not nip at their heels . But who does this really hurt, the intelligent driven guy who normally would be unstoppable. All things aside the President is not for the middle class at all, he is for the filthy rich and plenty of birdseed for the poor.

You "righties" really have to work on your compliments. :)

[Clocker]

You "righties" really have to work on your compliments.

Are you saying that righties shouldn't use left-handed compliments? :confused:

[Mike at A+]

So, that would be insurance, as in AIG, and investment banking, as in Lehman Brothers?
I am referring to JOBS at those industries. I am retired from a career at both of those industries and still keep in close touch with people still working there and the word is that they are protecting their bottom lines and avoiding hiring whenever possible. Lots of businesses are doing great which explains why the stock market is by far outperforming the job market. I feel fortunate that I have invested well and have been compensated well by firms like Morgan Stanley and The Hartford when money was no object for them in times when they didn't feel threatened by an abusive socialist government referring to them as the enemy. There are much fewer people working today and it's all because of government intrusion and class warfare. The middle class is dwindling and 0bama refuses to give an inch on anything except handouts for his base of losers who sell their votes and sell their souls because he told them to punish their enemies. Well their enemies are also their meal ticket and when the shit hits the fan it is going to get real ugly real fast.

[Mike at A+]

Watching the new guy on the block to see where he comes from and its obvious he is not as lame as your average resident lefty here. The differences with most of the resident lefty's is the belief is that stupid should be rewarded, I have no compassion for stupid (none). My view of the country that I want with all my heart to be preserved is the imaginary staircase that anyone who is driven and is intelligent enough can climb to the very top. The problem is some are trying to remove rungs in that staircase so there is no way to ascend. Of course the Gates and Buffets and such prefer missing steps so the millionaires who are termed small business can not nip at their heels . But who does this really hurt, the intelligent driven guy who normally would be unstoppable. All things aside the President is not for the middle class at all, he is for the filthy rich and plenty of birdseed for the poor.
You hit the nail on the head! :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[NJ Stinks]

I am referring to JOBS at those industries. I am retired from a career at both of those industries and still keep in close touch with people still working there and the word is that they are protecting their bottom lines and avoiding hiring whenever possible. Lots of businesses are doing great which explains why the stock market is by far outperforming the job market. I feel fortunate that I have invested well and have been compensated well by firms like Morgan Stanley and The Hartford when money was no object for them in times when they didn't feel threatened by an abusive socialist government referring to them as the enemy. There are much fewer people working today and it's all because of government intrusion and class warfare. The middle class is dwindling and 0bama refuses to give an inch on anything except handouts for his base of losers who sell their votes and sell their souls because he told them to punish their enemies. Well their enemies are also their meal ticket and when the shit hits the fan it is going to get real ugly real fast.

Aside from being happy for your success, how many years is it now that you've been proclaiming "when the shit hits the fan it is going to get real ugly real fast"? :sleeping:

And how is the stock market doing? Are Obama same day speeches still killing the market that day as you proclaimed a few years ago? :rolleyes:

[Clocker]

And how is the stock market doing? Are Obama same day speeches still killing the market that day as you proclaimed a few years ago? :rolleyes:

The market has learned to ignore Obama because the market has realized that his speeches neither reflect nor influence the real world. The market is now entirely focused on, and reactive to, the Federal Reserve.

The interaction of the insane monetary policy of the Fed and the ineffective economic policy of the administration has so distorted reality that the market now goes down when good economic news is announced. Good news in the real world means bad news in the world of finance, because a stronger economy would mean a monetary easing at the Fed, which is bad for the market.

From Yahoo Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/dow-jones-industrial-average-did-215644889.html;_ylt=A2KLOzKGZ6FSwxAANkWTmYlQ):
The Dow Jones industrial average fell for a fifth straight day on Thursday after encouraging news on the economy prompted investors to speculate that the Federal Reserve is getting closer to reducing its stimulus program.

[NJ Stinks]

The market has learned to ignore Obama because the market has realized that his speeches neither reflect nor influence the real world. The market is now entirely focused on, and reactive to, the Federal Reserve.



If the stock market was down big time, no doubt you would blame it on Obama.

True or false?

[Clocker]

If the stock market was down big time, no doubt you would blame it on Obama.

True or false?

If the market was down big time I would blame it on what ever caused it.

Did you read my post? I said that the market was down because of the market's projection of the action of the Federal Reserve. I posted a link to main stream financial analysis that says the same thing. I blame this particular down-turn on the Fed, because the evidence points that way. You are aware, I trust, that the Fed is independent of the president?

If there was evidence to show that a market decline was due to Obama, I would blame him. This five day decline is not attributable to Obama and I didn't blame him, and I said so. Sorry if all that conflicts with your version of reality.

[newtothegame]

Clocker,
Really you're wasting your time...Lefties here don't understand that, we on the right, (and some independents) have NO PROBLEM either blaming our own or facing the reality of whatever is causing the particular problem. But, I do understand where they get the mindset from as right leaning politicians lie just as much as left. So, naturally those on the left attribute the same to us NON politicians.

Yet, you RARELY if ever see someone on the left hammer their own. It absolutely kills them that most of us right of center are independent thinkers.
You can't fault NJ for missing where you laid out the blame and where it should be applied....he just assumed you were going to blame Obama anyway....lol

[ArlJim78]

government stimulus creates inequality.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2013/12/Household%20Income%20DC%20vs%20US_2.jpg

[Mike at A+]

Aside from being happy for your success, how many years is it now that you've been proclaiming "when the shit hits the fan it is going to get real ugly real fast"? :sleeping:

And how is the stock market doing? Are Obama same day speeches still killing the market that day as you proclaimed a few years ago? :rolleyes:
Come on now, you HAVE heard of QE right? As for the market performance during 0bama speeches, I stopped tracking it long ago when the results became obvious. Hey, you can start tracking the same info now if you like. Maybe you can post your results after several dozen speeches like I did.

[Tom]

That is because there are so few liberals here. That being said, I have been critical of Obama on a few things. For example his giving up too quickly on taxing the rich. And He has been in Afghanistan far too long. I think should reduce the number of troops in Europe. I think he has stuck with incompetent generals too long. He should regulate the banks more. He should be pushing for more regulation on "machine guns".

There were a lot more libs here back then.
Go back and read the archives.
I was dueling 8-10 people every day! :D

[Clocker]

Come on now, you HAVE heard of QE right?

They still think that QE II is Queen Elizabeth the Second. :rolleyes:

[Clocker]

Really you're wasting your time...Lefties here don't understand that, we on the right, (and some independents) have NO PROBLEM either blaming our own or facing the reality of whatever is causing the particular problem.

I am an independent, so no one is "my own side".

We have a two party system, the stupid party and the evil party, and I blame which ever party is responsible. Both parties bear long term responsibility for the mess we are in. But the evil party is in power, and is making it worse. So as long as they keep screwing up, they get the blame.

[TJDave]

They still think that QE II is Queen Elizabeth the Second. :rolleyes:

It's a ship, doofus.

[Thebart]

government stimulus creates inequality.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2013/12/Household%20Income%20DC%20vs%20US_2.jpgb

Amazing how those K Street Lobbyist incomes drive up the median.

[Clocker]

It's a ship, doofus.

No ship! It is also a nice old lady that lives in a big house across the sea. I purposely made no distinction to cover all bases.

[Thebart]

I am referring to JOBS at those industries. I am retired from a career at both of those industries and still keep in close touch with people still working there and the word is that they are protecting their bottom lines and avoiding hiring whenever possible. Lots of businesses are doing great which explains why the stock market is by far outperforming the job market. I feel fortunate that I have invested well and have been compensated well by firms like Morgan Stanley and The Hartford when money was no object for them in times when they didn't feel threatened by an abusive socialist government referring to them as the enemy. There are much fewer people working today and it's all because of government intrusion and class warfare. The middle class is dwindling and 0bama refuses to give an inch on anything except handouts for his base of losers who sell their votes and sell their souls because he told them to punish their enemies. Well their enemies are also their meal ticket and when the shit hits the fan it is going to get real ugly real fast.

My first job out of high school was with a Wall Street brokerage firm. I fondly remember the subway ride downtown, the walk down Wall to Water St, and the monring stop for Chock Full of Nuts coffee and a whole wheat doughnut. I knew the turf.

Well, I knew is many years ago. I am well aware that back in 1992 when Ross Perot was opposing NAFTA and that giant "sucking sound" of jobs leaving the USA it was being supported by virtually all Republicans, and a decent number of Democrats, which included Clinton and Gore.

The free-marketers can howl all they want, that law and others like it, cost us thousands, of jobs. Now it's happening again with Obama's proposal for the Asian Pacific treaty.

We can all go back and fourth and cite various statistics and other data to prove a point. But the reality is really quite simple. The middle class has been losing ground steadily since the early 1980s. Instead of funding a better lifestyle with rising incomes, they are losing because the jobs are being shipped off shore in a mad dash to find low wages. It has very little do with regulation. Well, maybe it does if we're not talking about tax regulation, but non-existent sweatshop standards and sinfully low wages in third-world countries.

I would be the first to criticize union excesses in this country. But that doesn't and shouldn't have meant that all unions are bad and that all workers are better off without them. If entrepreneurs and corporations can join together under the banner of Chambers of Commerce and other groups to advance their agenda and interests, working people - white and blue collar including supervisory - have every right in the word to organize and bargain as a group. It is the competitive struggle between management/ownership and the workforce that when responsibly carried out, can lead to compromise, fair agreements, rising standards of living for the workers, and fair profits for the owners.

Unfortunately the top part of that equation has used the weak labor force which basically has to take what it's offered that has led the very top part to suck all the increased profits out of the equation. The result has been that the middle class is now saddled with rising debt from home equity loans, credit cards backed by home equity lines of credit, college loans that can never be discharged in bankruptcy. All because instead of a rising standard of living, we have to "fund" our lives by borrowing heavily.

It's not the America we inherited after WWII and Korea.

I think all owners and managers in this country should be concerned about their business, about government policy toward their business and they too certainly have the right to get officials see things their way. But you show me a corporate executive in this country who loses sleep out of fear that we have an "abusive socialist government" I will show you someone who is quite delusional. With Wall Street profits and the market at record highs, it appears few actually share this fear. Finally, there are crazies all over the place. For everyone who calls corporate bigwig the enemy there's someone referring to "union thugs" or the Islamic socialist Kenyan thug in the whitehouse." The name calling is all over the place. It's not a one-sided deal.

[Mike at A+]

Finally, there are crazies all over the place. For everyone who calls corporate bigwig the enemy there's someone referring to "union thugs" or the Islamic socialist Kenyan thug in the whitehouse." The name calling is all over the place. It's not a one-sided deal.
While that is true, it carries a bit more clout when the president himself is doing the name calling. If someone cites "union thugs" after viewing an assault captured on video, that does nothing to the job market and doesn't last long in the news cycle. When the policy maker in chief calls specific industries "fat cats", decisions are made in board rooms all across the country that affect hiring and typically last until a more friendly signal is sent. And as the saying goes, "don't hold your breath".

[ArlJim78]

b

Amazing how those K Street Lobbyist incomes drive up the median.
especially amazing how those incomes skyrocketed beginning in 2007.

[Thebart]

While that is true, it carries a bit more clout when the president himself is doing the name calling. If someone cites "union thugs" after viewing an assault captured on video, that does nothing to the job market and doesn't last long in the news cycle. When the policy maker in chief calls specific industries "fat cats", decisions are made in board rooms all across the country that affect hiring and typically last until a more friendly signal is sent. And as the saying goes, "don't hold your breath".

You mean to tell me hard-nosed corporate executives lose sleep when they hear themselves referred to as "fat-cats." Me thinks thou doth protest too much.

I know both sides have loud mouths who spew useless venom. But from day-one of Obama's presidency the right wing hasn't engaged in playing the traditional role of the "loyal opposition." They have played the role of trying to de-legitimize the President as not even being an American. As not being "one of us" or not understanding "our values."

On the evening of the very day Obama took his first oath of office and was celebrating at the various Inaugural Balls, Marco Rubio and other right wing Republicans were secretly meeting to plot a strategy to block everything he might propose. All it took was the Republicans and one or two scared Ds to keep him from getting 60 votes in the Senate. Then, while they brought most progress to a total halt - particularly after 2010 - they blamed him for failing to get anything done. How clever.

Worse yet, the stupid media - the same guys you fellows think are liberal pawns - buys into the "gridlock" baloney. There's no gridlock in Washington. There's a Republican roadblock to prevent votes even on things that would otherwise pass.

But, you think your friends in business are stressed out because someone called them "fat cats?" If you stood behind a donkey and said that out loud it would kick you in the head. Honestly, corporate tycoons shivering in their britches because someone called them fat-cats?

By the way. There was nothing more humorous in the 2008 Republican Primary campaign than watching guys like Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich suddenly go populist and accuse Romney of being a cruel fat-cat, disloyal and a whole bunch of other things. I guess desperate Republicans do desperate things.

[Mike at A+]

You mean to tell me hard-nosed corporate executives lose sleep when they hear themselves referred to as "fat-cats." Me thinks thou doth protest too much.

Actually it is the threat (from the highest office in America) of punitive legislation because they make more than he sees fit. And maybe even a little payback thrown in to show him they will not play his game.

I know both sides have loud mouths who spew useless venom.

What you DON'T seem to know is that the "loudmouths" on the right are largely pundits with no legislative power while the loudmouths on the left are elected officials who can pass laws.

But from day-one of Obama's presidency the right wing hasn't engaged in playing the traditional role of the "loyal opposition." They have played the role of trying to de-legitimize the President as not even being an American. As not being "one of us" or not understanding "our values."

Again, largely PUNDITS.

On the evening of the very day Obama took his first oath of office and was celebrating at the various Inaugural Balls, Marco Rubio and other right wing Republicans were secretly meeting to plot a strategy to block everything he might propose.

Well if his proposals include giving away the rightful earnings of one group to another group simply because they sold their votes, then yeah, that "plotting" is justified. Rewarding failure is about as arrogant as one can get.

All it took was the Republicans and one or two scared Ds to keep him from getting 60 votes in the Senate. Then, while they brought most progress to a total halt - particularly after 2010 - they blamed him for failing to get anything done. How clever.

You ARE aware how ACA passed? Google "Scoot Brown". Google the "Cornhusker Kickback". Google the "Louisiana Purchase". Google "if you like your plan you can keep it". Google "it's not a tax".

Worse yet, the stupid media - the same guys you fellows think are liberal pawns - buys into the "gridlock" baloney. There's no gridlock in Washington. There's a Republican roadblock to prevent votes even on things that would otherwise pass.

Google "Harry Reid".

But, you think your friends in business are stressed out because someone called them "fat cats?" If you stood behind a donkey and said that out loud it would kick you in the head. Honestly, corporate tycoons shivering in their britches because someone called them fat-cats?

Not "shivering in their britches". Just refusing to hire because the PRESIDENT is engaging in unpresidential and very immature rhetoric.

By the way. There was nothing more humorous in the 2008 Republican Primary campaign than watching guys like Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich suddenly go populist and accuse Romney of being a cruel fat-cat, disloyal and a whole bunch of other things. I guess desperate Republicans do desperate things.

Google "Candy Crowley"!
.

[delayjf]

As not being "one of us" or not understanding "our values."

For me it's not a matter of if he undestands "our values", the issue is he disagrees with our values. President Obama is at heart a socialist or at the very least a big government liberal. Like all conservative I disagree with his progressive view of this country, so your damn right I will oppose him and his agenda whenever possible - in short, I hope he fails.

[Clocker]

On the evening of the very day Obama took his first oath of office and was celebrating at the various Inaugural Balls, Marco Rubio and other right wing Republicans were secretly meeting to plot a strategy to block everything he might propose.

OMG!!! Why weren't they arrested? Did Eric Holder know about this? How did the NSA not listen in on this nefarious and dastardly plot to commit treason?

[Mike at A+]

OMG!!! Why weren't they arrested? Did Eric Holder know about this? How did the NSA not listen in on this nefarious and dastardly plot to commit treason?
And I'm sure it was all because he was ... GASP ... BLACK!

[Thebart]

Replying to

Originally Posted by Thebart
You mean to tell me hard-nosed corporate executives lose sleep when they hear themselves referred to as "fat-cats." Me thinks thou doth protest too much.

Actually it is the threat (from the highest office in America) of punitive legislation because they make more than he sees fit. And maybe even a little payback thrown in to show him they will not play his game.

I know both sides have loud mouths who spew useless venom.

What you DON'T seem to know is that the "loudmouths" on the right are largely pundits with no legislative power while the loudmouths on the left are elected officials who can pass laws.

But from day-one of Obama's presidency the right wing hasn't engaged in playing the traditional role of the "loyal opposition." They have played the role of trying to de-legitimize the President as not even being an American. As not being "one of us" or not understanding "our values."

Again, largely PUNDITS.

On the evening of the very day Obama took his first oath of office and was celebrating at the various Inaugural Balls, Marco Rubio and other right wing Republicans were secretly meeting to plot a strategy to block everything he might propose.

Well if his proposals include giving away the rightful earnings of one group to another group simply because they sold their votes, then yeah, that "plotting" is justified. Rewarding failure is about as arrogant as one can get.

All it took was the Republicans and one or two scared Ds to keep him from getting 60 votes in the Senate. Then, while they brought most progress to a total halt - particularly after 2010 - they blamed him for failing to get anything done. How clever.

You ARE aware how ACA passed? Google "Scoot Brown". Google the "Cornhusker Kickback". Google the "Louisiana Purchase". Google "if you like your plan you can keep it". Google "it's not a tax".

Worse yet, the stupid media - the same guys you fellows think are liberal pawns - buys into the "gridlock" baloney. There's no gridlock in Washington. There's a Republican roadblock to prevent votes even on things that would otherwise pass.

Google "Harry Reid".

But, you think your friends in business are stressed out because someone called them "fat cats?" If you stood behind a donkey and said that out loud it would kick you in the head. Honestly, corporate tycoons shivering in their britches because someone called them fat-cats?

Not "shivering in their britches". Just refusing to hire because the PRESIDENT is engaging in unpresidential and very immature rhetoric.

By the way. There was nothing more humorous in the 2008 Republican Primary campaign than watching guys like Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich suddenly go populist and accuse Romney of being a cruel fat-cat, disloyal and a whole bunch of other things. I guess desperate Republicans do desperate things.

=====================

You strike me as another one with "blinkers on."

Why would any corporate bigwig be worried about punitive legislation - when their guys have TOTAL CONTROL of the House? What do they fear? That is just downright stupid.

The ideal the the harsh rhetoric on the left comes from the President and Democratic elected officials while the obnoxious stuff on the the right comes for talk shows and entertainers is just more baloney

The last time I checked Congressman Steve King - tons of Obama has foreign values, not American, Birthers might be right rhetoric come from him. Or how bout the time he said "the vast majority of undocumented immigrants are 130 pound drug runners "with calves the size of cantaloupes." Such classy remarks as so inspiring the vast majority of undocumented immigrants are “130-pound” drug runners with “calves the size of cantaloupes.”

How bout Bachmann "with we need to investigate Congress to see if it's pro-America or Anti America. Or people will die from health care reform." Or HPV vaccination may cause mental retardation." Maybe this Bachmann claim floats your boat: She claimed that Obama gave aid to Al Qadea which proves we are living in the end times. You agree with this stuff from ELECTED OFFICIALS.

Rep. Michele Bachmann accused President Obama of giving aid to Al Qaeda, which she said is proof that we are living in the Last Days.

Louie Gohmert perhaps the biggest moron ever elected to the U.S. House said Republican John McCain supported Al Qaeda. Louie ain't no talk show host. He's one of your genius congressman from Texas. Louie is so dumb he makes Rick Perry look smart.

On the night Obama took office the only legislative proposal he had ready to go was the Lilly Ledbetter equal pay act. There was no socialist agenda, no totalitarian proposals. Just a Republican House caucus that wanted to block anything and everything with his name on it.

The Health Care Reform act started with the Heritage Foundation and was the model Mitt Romney followed in Massachusetts. You Better get ready because if you guy get power Paul Ryan's Medicare Reform proposal calls for vouchers and sending seniors off to guest what? Another on-line provider exchange where they can go pick private policies. Bet you'll change your tune then.

I just gets so tiring to expose right wing lies because they are so blatant. I certainly don't claim the left is perfect either. But gosh, the right's ability to create hate, accuse opponents of disloyalty, class warfare, invent a fake reality, and God knows what else nothing short of amazing.

[Thebart]

And I'm sure it was all because he was ... GASP ... BLACK!

You see there's where you place the race card. I never said or even suggested that. But now, what am I to think?

[Mike at A+]

You strike me as another one with "blinkers on."

Why would any corporate bigwig be worried about punitive legislation - when their guys have TOTAL CONTROL of the House? What do they fear? That is just downright stupid.

Executive orders perhaps? There have been a few of those you know right?

The ideal the the harsh rhetoric on the left comes from the President and Democratic elected officials while the obnoxious stuff on the the right comes for talk shows and entertainers is just more baloney

The last time I checked Congressman Steve King - tons of Obama has foreign values, not American, Birthers might be right rhetoric come from him. Or how bout the time he said "the vast majority of undocumented immigrants are 130 pound drug runners "with calves the size of cantaloupes." Such classy remarks as so inspiring the vast majority of undocumented immigrants are “130-pound” drug runners with “calves the size of cantaloupes.”

You are comparing undocumented immigrants to Americans?

How bout Bachmann "with we need to investigate Congress to see if it's pro-America or Anti America. Or people will die from health care reform." Or HPV vaccination may cause mental retardation." Maybe this Bachmann claim floats your boat: She claimed that Obama gave aid to Al Qadea which proves we are living in the end times. You agree with this stuff from ELECTED OFFICIALS.

Rep. Michele Bachmann accused President Obama of giving aid to Al Qaeda, which she said is proof that we are living in the Last Days.

She was clearly referring to the fact that we were sending aid to the middle east and have no way of verifying where it actually ends up.

Louie Gohmert perhaps the biggest moron ever elected to the U.S. House said Republican John McCain supported Al Qaeda. Louie ain't no talk show host. He's one of your genius congressman from Texas. Louie is so dumb he makes Rick Perry look smart.

Ever hear of Alan Grayson? Debbie Wasserman-Schultz? Al Franken? HARRY REID? NANCY PELOSI? Do you really want to talk about "dumb"?

On the night Obama took office the only legislative proposal he had ready to go was the Lilly Ledbetter equal pay act. There was no socialist agenda, no totalitarian proposals. Just a Republican House caucus that wanted to block anything and everything with his name on it.

The Health Care Reform act started with the Heritage Foundation and was the model Mitt Romney followed in Massachusetts. You Better get ready because if you guy get power Paul Ryan's Medicare Reform proposal calls for vouchers and sending seniors off to guest what? Another on-line provider exchange where they can go pick private policies. Bet you'll change your tune then.

Massachusetts and the entire country are two very different entities.

I just gets so tiring to expose right wing lies because they are so blatant. I certainly don't claim the left is perfect either. But gosh, the right's ability to create hate, accuse opponents of disloyalty, class warfare, invent a fake reality, and God knows what else nothing short of amazing.

PUNISH YOUR ENEMIES? Seriously? Turning Americans against Americans?

.

[Tom]

Smart people were planning how to stop long before he took the oath.
It was blatantly obvious what he is....and he has proven it.
He came into office with no experience, and now he is an expert......at losing.
the hum is either a liar of an idiot...take your pick, but when the most powerful man in the world knows nothing at all that has gone on during his reign of terror, he is one of the other.

[reckless]

Replying to

Originally Posted by Thebart
You mean to tell me hard-nosed corporate executives lose sleep when they hear themselves referred to as "fat-cats." Me thinks thou doth protest too much.

Actually it is the threat (from the highest office in America) of punitive legislation because they make more than he sees fit. And maybe even a little payback thrown in to show him they will not play his game.

I know both sides have loud mouths who spew useless venom.

What you DON'T seem to know is that the "loudmouths" on the right are largely pundits with no legislative power while the loudmouths on the left are elected officials who can pass laws.

But from day-one of Obama's presidency the right wing hasn't engaged in playing the traditional role of the "loyal opposition." They have played the role of trying to de-legitimize the President as not even being an American. As not being "one of us" or not understanding "our values."

Again, largely PUNDITS.

On the evening of the very day Obama took his first oath of office and was celebrating at the various Inaugural Balls, Marco Rubio and other right wing Republicans were secretly meeting to plot a strategy to block everything he might propose.

Well if his proposals include giving away the rightful earnings of one group to another group simply because they sold their votes, then yeah, that "plotting" is justified. Rewarding failure is about as arrogant as one can get.

All it took was the Republicans and one or two scared Ds to keep him from getting 60 votes in the Senate. Then, while they brought most progress to a total halt - particularly after 2010 - they blamed him for failing to get anything done. How clever.

You ARE aware how ACA passed? Google "Scoot Brown". Google the "Cornhusker Kickback". Google the "Louisiana Purchase". Google "if you like your plan you can keep it". Google "it's not a tax".

Worse yet, the stupid media - the same guys you fellows think are liberal pawns - buys into the "gridlock" baloney. There's no gridlock in Washington. There's a Republican roadblock to prevent votes even on things that would otherwise pass.

Google "Harry Reid".

But, you think your friends in business are stressed out because someone called them "fat cats?" If you stood behind a donkey and said that out loud it would kick you in the head. Honestly, corporate tycoons shivering in their britches because someone called them fat-cats?

Not "shivering in their britches". Just refusing to hire because the PRESIDENT is engaging in unpresidential and very immature rhetoric.

By the way. There was nothing more humorous in the 2008 Republican Primary campaign than watching guys like Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich suddenly go populist and accuse Romney of being a cruel fat-cat, disloyal and a whole bunch of other things. I guess desperate Republicans do desperate things.

=====================

You strike me as another one with "blinkers on."

Why would any corporate bigwig be worried about punitive legislation - when their guys have TOTAL CONTROL of the House? What do they fear? That is just downright stupid.

The ideal the the harsh rhetoric on the left comes from the President and Democratic elected officials while the obnoxious stuff on the the right comes for talk shows and entertainers is just more baloney

The last time I checked Congressman Steve King - tons of Obama has foreign values, not American, Birthers might be right rhetoric come from him. Or how bout the time he said "the vast majority of undocumented immigrants are 130 pound drug runners "with calves the size of cantaloupes." Such classy remarks as so inspiring the vast majority of undocumented immigrants are “130-pound” drug runners with “calves the size of cantaloupes.”

How bout Bachmann "with we need to investigate Congress to see if it's pro-America or Anti America. Or people will die from health care reform." Or HPV vaccination may cause mental retardation." Maybe this Bachmann claim floats your boat: She claimed that Obama gave aid to Al Qadea which proves we are living in the end times. You agree with this stuff from ELECTED OFFICIALS.

Rep. Michele Bachmann accused President Obama of giving aid to Al Qaeda, which she said is proof that we are living in the Last Days.

Louie Gohmert perhaps the biggest moron ever elected to the U.S. House said Republican John McCain supported Al Qaeda. Louie ain't no talk show host. He's one of your genius congressman from Texas. Louie is so dumb he makes Rick Perry look smart.

On the night Obama took office the only legislative proposal he had ready to go was the Lilly Ledbetter equal pay act. There was no socialist agenda, no totalitarian proposals. Just a Republican House caucus that wanted to block anything and everything with his name on it.

The Health Care Reform act started with the Heritage Foundation and was the model Mitt Romney followed in Massachusetts. You Better get ready because if you guy get power Paul Ryan's Medicare Reform proposal calls for vouchers and sending seniors off to guest what? Another on-line provider exchange where they can go pick private policies. Bet you'll change your tune then.

I just gets so tiring to expose right wing lies because they are so blatant. I certainly don't claim the left is perfect either. But gosh, the right's ability to create hate, accuse opponents of disloyalty, class warfare, invent a fake reality, and God I just gets so tiring to expose right wing lies because they are so blatant. I certainly don't claim the left is perfect either. But gosh, the right's ability to create hate, accuse opponents of disloyalty, class warfare, invent a fake reality, and God knows what else knows what else nothing short of amazing.

After reading this twice, just to make sure I read it right the first time, all I can say pertaining to this inane drivel is that this silly post only shows you to be a real creator of hate.

[Mike at A+]

Here's the bottom line. This president is blatantly UNPRESIDENTIAL. His immaturity is astounding for someone holding the highest office in the land. Presidents just don't talk like this guy. And when he goes off teleprompter he shows how uninformed he really is which leads me to believe he is not in control at all and just basically telling his handlers what he wants to do to America and they put the sentences together for reading off the teleprompter. The middle class (mostly very talented and experienced individuals with excellent work ethic) are hurting badly for lack of GOOD jobs. Instead he wants to raise minimum wage for jobs mainly occupied by his voters who fell for the whole hope and change schtick. And meanwhile his rich supporters in Hollywood and in sports are laughing all the way to the bank while the middle class gets screwed. And he jokes about it all as he goes off on multi-million dollar vacations with his family and friends paid for by the taxpayers. And now they're floating a plan to double the federal gasoline tax. This guy is clearly the worst excuse for a president in my lifetime and that includes Carter. If you're lucky enough to have a government job or belong to one of the unions he supports you have it made. Everyone else can go to hell.

[cj's dad]

Here's the bottom line. This president is blatantly UNPRESIDENTIAL. His immaturity is astounding for someone holding the highest office in the land. Presidents just don't talk like this guy. And when he goes off teleprompter he shows how uninformed he really is which leads me to believe he is not in control at all and just basically telling his handlers what he wants to do to America and they put the sentences together for reading off the teleprompter. The middle class (mostly very talented and experienced individuals with excellent work ethic) are hurting badly for lack of GOOD jobs. Instead he wants to raise minimum wage for jobs mainly occupied by his voters who fell for the whole hope and change schtick. And meanwhile his rich supporters in Hollywood and in sports are laughing all the way to the bank while the middle class gets screwed. And he jokes about it all as he goes off on multi-million dollar vacations with his family and friends paid for by the taxpayers. And now they're floating a plan to double the federal gasoline tax. This guy is clearly the worst excuse for a president in my lifetime and that includes Carter. If you're lucky enough to have a government job or belong to one of the unions he supports you have it made. Everyone else can go to hell.

This is, possibly, the most well written post I have ever read on this forum.

cj's dad

[Clocker]

Instead he wants to raise minimum wage for jobs mainly occupied by his voters who fell for the whole hope and change schtick.

The minimum wage demonstrations against McDonalds and other firms were largely led by labor unions like SEIU, a union Obama did work for years ago, and that strongly supported him for president.

SEIU and other unions are pushing for higher minimum wages because many union contracts have their cost of living adjustments (COLAs) indexed to the minimum wage. Even though SEIU members make well above minimum wage, many would get a big COLA raise if the minimum wage was increased.

[Mike at A+]

The minimum wage demonstrations against McDonalds and other firms were largely led by labor unions like SEIU, a union Obama did work for years ago, and that strongly supported him for president.

SEIU and other unions are pushing for higher minimum wages because many union contracts have their cost of living adjustments (COLAs) indexed to the minimum wage. Even though SEIU members make well above minimum wage, many would get a big COLA raise if the minimum wage was increased.
Or as the saying goes ... follow the money. It's ALL about the money.

[redshift1]

Here's the bottom line.


To be clear it's your bottom line and merely a concatenation of conservative dysphemisms.

I support an IQ test for all voters take your pick Stanford Binet or WAIS qualifying score of high average and above. Should apply to all presidents as well eliminating the nepotistic and titular reign of recent history.

.

[PaceAdvantage]

I support an IQ test for all voters take your pick Stanford Binet or WAIS qualifying score of high average and above. Should apply to all presidents as well eliminating the nepotistic and titular reign of recent history.

.You know, nobody held a gun to anyone's head and forced them to vote for Bush or Obama. And that's the real bottom line.

As Joseph de Maistre pointed out a long time ago (and yes, I had to Google him), "In a democracy people get the leaders they deserve."

[Mike at A+]

To be clear it's your bottom line and merely a concatenation of conservative dysphemisms.

I support an IQ test for all voters take your pick Stanford Binet or WAIS qualifying score of high average and above. Should apply to all presidents as well eliminating the nepotistic and titular reign of recent history.

.
I agree 100% on IQ testing voters. Make that 1,000%.

[fast4522]

You "righties" really have to work on your compliments. :)

Forget about what a particular President's legacy might be after 25 years, yours is one that will strip his own progeny from opportunity, the best health care in the world, and individual right's going forward. In short, less than you enjoyed.