American Politics during the Obama Presidency [Archive] - Page 18

Punter 127

06-10-13, 22:29

Obama Approval Makes 20-Point Negative Swing in 2013

It's a far cry from the "Obama scandal" and "The government is out to get you" narratives the right wing is trying to weave. Obama's steady approval ratings at 50% (Gallup) and 52% (Rasmussen) show that Americans aren't buying it.
[snip]

Hmmm, really? Since Esten is on the “must verify” list we better consider the following.

Pundits examining daily poll numbers to gauge the impact of current scandals on President Obama are missing a bigger trend. Even before recent revelations of misconduct by his Administration, Obama's approval ratings have been declining throughout the year. On Monday, Rasmussen reported that 47% of likely voters approved of Obama's handling of his job, while 51% disapproved. This is a massive 20 point negative swing since the first of the year.

At the end of 2012, 57% of voters approved of Obama, while just 41% disapproved. He garnered good will from voters following his reelection in November. Yet, in just 6 months, the post-reelection honeymoon is clearly over. His approval rating is even lower than President Bush as this point in his second term. In June 2005, 48% of voters approved of the job Bush was doing, while 47% disapproved. As fatigue over the Iraq war grew and conservatives felt alienated, Bush's approval ratings plummeted into the 30s by the time his term was complete.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/10/poll-obama-approval-makes-20-point-negative-swing-in-2013 Unlike progressives, numbers don't lie.

Esten

06-10-13, 23:40

I'm considering giving Punter a new nickname: Darrell. A brash but ineffective attack dog.

Obama Approval Makes 20-Point Negative Swing in 2013

At the end of 2012, 57% of voters approved of Obama

On Monday, Rasmussen reported that 47% of likely voters approved of Obama's handling of his jobUmmm, that's a 10% swing. Further, it's in comparison back to a post-election outlier of 57% approval. If you compare just before and after the recent so-called "scandals" broke, you'll see Obama's numbers are fairly steady, which has been widely reported in the media. Even the Breitbart article acknowledges as much; it doesn't challenge the recent steady trend, but rather attempts to deflect to a "bigger trend", by referencing an outlier from last year. And then it tries to double the 10% change, as if people wouldn't notice! If you fall for this right-wing crap you're just gullible.

Unlike progressives, numbers don't lie.This is hilarious. Punter is effectively calling me a liar, but the 50% and 52% approval ratings I referenced when I posted were absolutely steady when compared to just before the recent "scandals" broke. I would challenge him to point out my actual lie, but obviously there isn't one. And just like Darrell Issa, I doubt Punter has the decency to admit he falsely accused someone of lying.

Punter 127

06-11-13, 22:37

I'm considering giving Punter a new nickname: Darrell. A brash but ineffective attack dog.
Typical progressive arrogance, but as long as you don't call me Esten I can live with it. BTW I'd much rather be grouped with Darrell Issa than you, at least Issa respects the Constitution.

Ummm, that's a 10% swing. Further, it's in comparison back to a post-election outlier of 57% approval. If you compare just before and after the recent so-called "scandals" broke, you'll see Obama's numbers are fairly steady, which has been widely reported in the media. Even the Breitbart article acknowledges as much; it doesn't challenge the recent steady trend, but rather attempts to deflect to a "bigger trend", by referencing an outlier from last year. And then it tries to double the 10% change, as if people wouldn't notice! If you fall for this right-wing crap you're just gullible. ”Pundits examining daily poll numbers to gauge the impact of current scandals on President Obama are missing a bigger trend.”

The whole point of the article was to point out that just looking at recent numbers as you did is a mistake. The article said a 20 point negative swing not percentage, regardless the overall yearly trend is down. And you seem to ignore the fact that Obama's approval rating is even lower than President Bush at this point in his second term. This is just another time that you want people to look at your feel good numbers rather than the complete picture. Funny how when you don't like something it becomes "right-wing crap".

This is hilarious. Punter is effectively calling me a liar, but the 50% and 52% approval ratings I referenced when I posted were absolutely steady when compared to just before the recent "scandals" broke. I would challenge him to point out my actual lie, but obviously there isn't one. And just like Darrell Issa, I doubt Punter has the decency to admit he falsely accused someone of lying.Your queer way of interpreting things is not my problem. I didn't question your 50 & 52% numbers, I was pointing to the fact you didn't tell the whole story (again). Nor did I call you a liar, (in this post) I said progressives lie. I fail to see how that differs from some of the things you've said about Republicans, Conservatives, the NRA, and Fox News just to name a few. And just what the fuck would you know about decency anyway, your track record for the lack of honesty on this forum is legendary. I've pointed out your deceptiveness on many occasions, and your decrepit attempts to naysay my points has been feeble at best.

I have no time or desire to partake in challenges, one-upmanship, or any other dick measuring games with you. Anyone who follows this thread can decide for themselves who speaks the truth here. You find me funny, and I find you condescending, obnoxious, self centered, arrogant, and down right disgusting. So stick your challenge up your ass, and good luck getting it past your head.

Tiny12

06-12-13, 01:50

Perhaps my favorite news story last week, Obama appointed Susan Rice as national security adviser. Republicans took their approach of "accuse first, prove later", calling her a liar and part of a cover-up on Benghazi. When the facts came out, Republicans were proven wrong. Apparently Rice wasn't even called to testify, Republicans had plenty of opportunity to do so before this appointment, but likely knew it would hurt not help them. You would think a normal, mature response would be to acknowledge your bad form, admit you were wrong and apologize. Instead, Republicans are still negative about Susan Rice, because they invested so much political capital in their fraudulent thesis.

It's good to see justice prevail. The GOP politics of destruction failed to destroy this woman's career.

Susan Rice and Her Attackers
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/06/susan_rice_named_national_security_adviser_the_benghazi_investigation_proved.html

I have no idea whether Rice knew that what she was telling the press was a lie or whether the wool was pulled over her eyes. Maybe she was like Collin Powell when he went before the UN to describe WMD in Iraq, that is misled by the intelligence services. But she really doesn't give a sh_t about whether people live or die or about the best interests of the USA. She cares about kissing up to her boss and helping him achieve his political goals. Her comments about Benghazi were symptomatic of that. Like Obama she puts politics before good judgement.

Why did she advise Clinton to ignore the massacre of Tutsis in Rwanda? Because "if we use the word 'genocide' and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the November [congressional] election?" Why wouldn't she accept intelligence information from Sudan that could have helped find and eliminate bin Laden? Because it would have looked bad if the Clinton administration were engaging with the Islamic Sudanese military dictatorship.

I agree that Republicans should not have indicated they would block her from becoming Secretary of State. She's in a position now to do more damage as the National Security Adviser. She's got Henry Kissinger's old job.

Tiny12

06-12-13, 14:22

Esten, To put this more succinctly it's just possible that if Susan Rice had never been born, there would have been no 9/11, no war in Iraq, and no war in Afghanistan. And hundreds of thousands less lives lost in Rwanda.

Esten

06-13-13, 02:49

Glad to see Punter clarifies he did not call me a liar (this time). What he fails to appreciate, is the context. He didn't just say progressives lie, rather, he posted a quote of mine and then below it wrote that progressives lie. It certainly comes across as if my quote is being presented as an example of his claim. BTW, he's still on record for not withdrawing his last assertion that I lied, although I explained why he was incorrect. He seems to toss around the word 'lie' quite casually, without providing any evidence. That's nothing new from his end of the political spectrum.

Esten, To put this more succinctly it's just possible that if Susan Rice had never been born, there would have been no 9/11, no war in Iraq, and no war in Afghanistan. And hundreds of thousands less lives lost in Rwanda.Wow, I didn't realize how evil Susan Rice was until you explained it all so clearly!

If you've really done research on her, you'll know that both she and Clinton later expressed regret at how Rwanda was handled. That doesn't make it better, but it matters that they acknowledged such. She was a young staffer back in '94, and hardly the only reason why the US did not intervene. Further, Rice played a key role in pushing through a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing "all necessary measures" to protect Libyan civilians who rose up and eventually toppled dictator Moammar Gadhafi. She also helped get Russia and China to agree to tougher sanctions against Iran and North Korea over their nuclear programs.

We know the right is invested heavily in making Susan Rice look bad. When the facts came out, they got nothing on her on Benghazi, so they'll grasp at whatever they can to make it appear they weren't 1000% wrong. Tiny I didn't know you could be such a mud-slinger.

Esten

06-13-13, 03:31

Check the recent stories that Darrell Issa won't release testimony that contradicts the right-wing conspiracy on this so-called "scandal". Here's one:

Cincinnati IRS agents first raised Tea Party issues
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/11/how-irs-tea-party-targeting-started/2411515/

Shafer denied any political animus in those criteria. A self-described "conservative Republican," he told oversight committee staffers last week that he had no reason to believe the White House was involved in the targeting. "I do not believe that the screening of these cases had anything to do (with it) other than consistency and identifying issues that needed to have further development," he said.

The Cincinnati agents were apparently, simply trying to figure out how to handle these cases from a new party they didn't fully understand. Why won't Issa release these transcripts?

Tiny12

06-13-13, 20:14

Tiny I didn't know you could be such a mud-slinger.I would sling more mud at Wolfowitz or Rumsfield given the opportunity. If Rice et al had exercised good judgement, there's a good chance the neoconservatives would have never been in a position to start a war. See

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2002/01/osama200201?currentPage=1

From what I've read, she's arrogant, self-righteous, undiplomatic, and shoots from the hip, not exactly the person you'd want to be your country's top diplomat. Kerry was a better choice.

Punter 127

06-14-13, 09:21

Don't start no shit, there won't be no shit!

Glad to see Punter clarifies he did not call me a liar (this time). What he fails to appreciate, is the context. He didn't just say progressives lie, rather, he posted a quote of mine and then below it wrote that progressives lie. It certainly comes across as if my quote is being presented as an example of his claim.Could it be your guilty conscience? They say a wise man listens to his own conscience.

As I told you before your queer inability to comprehend is not my problem.

It's interesting how Esten always couches his words in a manner that attempts to guide the reader to his point of view, unfortunately he often does this by omitting information. Though somewhat trivial (this time) he nonetheless gives us an example above when he says “he posted a quote of mine and then below it wrote that progressives lie.” Esten's statement suggest to the reader that " progressives lie" was directly under his quote, but he omits the fact that there was other information between his quote and the "progressives lie", in fact there was a statement from me and another quote between them. For a long time I thought Esten was just another 'red diaper baby' but he is so good at this type of deception it really makes me wonder if he was trained to deceive. On the other hand he could be suffering from a psychopathological disorder of some type perhaps Megalomania? I'm not a doctor so I can't really say for sure.

BTW, he's still on record for not withdrawing his last assertion that I lied, although I explained why he was incorrect. He seems to toss around the word 'lie' quite casually, without providing any evidence. That's nothing new from his end of the political spectrum.
Assuming we are talking about the same post, it's simple, your explanation doesn't pass muster and I explained why in a previous post. I don't think I toss around the word lie anymore casually than you toss around deception. Perhaps you need to read the definition of a lie. Please read slowly and really try to grasp this.

A lie is a false statement to a person or group made by another person or group who knows it is not the whole truth, intentionally."A man is only as good as his word".

If Esten could find a shred of moral fiber within himself he would fess up to his deceptiveness and apologize to the members of this forum, that's the only way he will ever regain any resemblance of credibility.

Until then I stand by my previous post, and Esten remains on the must verify list. (like it or not).

Punter 127

06-15-13, 04:57

Looks like the Democrats are planning another attempt at subverting the Constitution.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/us/politics/democrats-quietly-renew-push-for-gun-measures.html?_r=0

Daddy Rulz

06-16-13, 05:00

Bruce Schneier is one of the worlds leading expert on electronic security. I think he has a demonstrable bias against the growing threat of a police state in the US but personally I think that opinion is informed by his expertise in information security and I also happen to agree with him on most of these issues. Why not? He, not I, is one of the worlds leading authorities on the subject.

Every reputable security guy that I know and I know more than a few subscribe to his blog. This is his series of articles on the Eric Snowden revelations and the state of US information gathering at the present time.

http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-1306.html

Because this thread can be so volatile I offer this advisory; I rarely post here, and I never read it, so flaming me about this stuff if you disagree will be waste of time because I'll never see it. I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything, I'm just offering a resource for anybody that is interested.

DR.

Don B

06-17-13, 20:45

Don B

06-18-13, 12:45

The latest poll has it 48 t0 48 on the king's honesty.

Thanks to goverment schools 48% still "think" Obamba is honest.

Think is the wrong word, goverment schools do not teach that.

Don B

Rev BS

06-18-13, 18:20

"President Obama and his family are planning to travel to Senegal, Tanzania, and South Africa this month and to spend up to $100 million of tax money on their trip. Essentially, a paid vacation and heritage tour, the trip will involve extensive federal expenditure at a time when federal employees are on furlough working four day weeks due to sequester.

"The Washington Post reports that:

"Hundreds of USA Secret Service agents will be dispatched to secure facilities in Senegal, South Africa and Tanzania. A Navy aircraft carrier or amphibious ship, with a fully staffed medical trauma center, will be stationed offshore in case of an emergency.

"Military cargo planes will airlift in 56 support vehicles, including 14 limousines and three trucks loaded with sheets of bullet¬proof glass to cover the windows of the hotels where the first family will stay. Fighter jets will fly in shifts, giving 24-hour coverage over the president's airspace, so they can intervene quickly if an errant plane gets too close.

The US is now a kingdom, if not in name, in practice.

Don BDon B aka El Alamo (maybe), propagandist supreme & soloist of nostalgic songs, in harmony with the AP glee club & chorus is back with the popular hit back a few years ago when Obama made a trip to India. Hey, the most powerful air force in the world is already active, no? Such childish grumblings only reveal a prejudice that goes beyond philosophy differences.

Europe's time is hanging out to dry. Asia is in for the this decade. South America made some samba noises but that Latin heritage only means self immolation. That leaves Africa, brimming with promise as the new frontier. The Chinese, no fools & very good poker players have made deep inroads into the African landscape. There is some grumblings now portraying the Chinese as the new colonizers. Obama's trip to Africa is badly needed. As for us, quite indifferent & still chewing on a blade of grass. Maybe you don't know, maybe you don't care, but Obama has incredible popularity in Africa and all emerging countries. In fact, everywhere in the world but Texas, the Bible belt & the cowboy states. Yes, he wears the coat of colors, and some of you, like Joseph's brothers, just cannot handle that.

Daddy Rulz

06-18-13, 22:46

"President Obama and his family are planning to travel to Senegal, Tanzania, and South Africa this month and to spend up to $100 million of tax money on their trip. Essentially, a paid vacation and heritage tour, the trip will involve extensive federal expenditure at a time when federal employees are on furlough working four day weeks due to sequester.

"The Washington Post reports that:

"Hundreds of USA Secret Service agents will be dispatched to secure facilities in Senegal, South Africa and Tanzania. A Navy aircraft carrier or amphibious ship, with a fully staffed medical trauma center, will be stationed offshore in case of an emergency.

"Military cargo planes will airlift in 56 support vehicles, including 14 limousines and three trucks loaded with sheets of bullet¬proof glass to cover the windows of the hotels where the first family will stay. Fighter jets will fly in shifts, giving 24-hour coverage over the president's airspace, so they can intervene quickly if an errant plane gets too close.

The US is now a kingdom, if not in name, in practice.

Don BI think his record on transparency is ABOMINABLE. I am curious though how these trips are any different than other Presidents (regardless of party) trips to Africa or any other place for that matter? Did the SS not send as many agents, cars, or limos. Was there not a carrier parked off the coast, did fighters not accompany AF 1?

It bothers me that while civil liberties continue to be lost in the US you guys are still arguing about Repubs good Dems bad and reversed. The Supremes just ruled that if you don't specifically evoke (invoke? Help me out on this) your 5th Amendment right then silence is tantamount to an admission of guilt http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/citizen-warrior/2013/jun/17/goodbye-5th-amendment-supremes-rule-silence-can-be/ and you guys are talking about the cost a trip to Africa? The silence in question here was BEFORE not after being arrested. So what they said was if you refuse to answer questions put forth by the police before you are officially placed into custody then that refusal can be used against you later in court.

Besides it's an Oligarchy not a Kingdom.

Don I'm not singling you out brother, I hijacked your post to make the point that all of this us v them is a diversion they (all media) use to distract people while they steal our country. Apologies if I offended you in any way.

Tiny12

06-18-13, 23:58

It bothers me that while civil liberties continue to be lost in the US you guys are still arguing about Repubs good Dems bad and reversed. Some of this is not clear cut. Take your two links as examples. A suspect is answering questions asked by law enforcement and then clams up when asked whether shotgun casings would match his gun. Can that be used as evidence in a court of law? Is that a violation of 5th amendment rights? I'm not sure. Or the other link - the NSA is spying on us. But is it preventing terrorist attacks by doing so?

Generally, I believe you're right. Government is big and intrusive and mean, and these are the sorts of tools it uses to fuck us over. You can't smoke dope or visit a prostitute without risking jail. There are a ton of felonies that involve things you probably don't know are illegal. You've been an expat for 20 years and forgot to report that foreign bank account on Treasury Form TDF 90-22.1 and IRS Form 8938? Go to jail and be forced into bankruptcy. You're a businessman who imported lobsters, a few percent of which were pregnant, in cardboard boxes? Go to jail for 8 years. (That literally happened). You've got some certain minority of law enforcement officials and regulators who are going to enforce laws like these as aggressively as they can or otherwise make life a living hell for people they don't like. I'm reluctant to make it easier for them to persecute others by making it easier for them to violate our civil liberties. And some of them are going to leak confidential information. I can imagine Esten being stopped cold in his bid for a US Senate seat someday by someone at the NSA leaking his participation in www.argentinaprivate.com.

It pisses me off that the government has access to all my Email and the history of web sites I've viewed. Am I going to accidentally look at a photo of a naked underage woman on the internet and then be thrown in jail for viewing child porn?

Finally I wonder about the wisdom of how the government uses some of this information. Drone strikes are an example. Maybe they're worth it if you can knock off a terrorist with minimal collateral damage. But it sounds like a lot of innocent people have died and the US is incurring a lot of ill will.

Esten

06-19-13, 00:58

The pissing match with Punter has been so pleasant and deeply meaningful (cough, cough), but I will give it a rest for awhile, after these observations.

When he previously quoted me and stated that progressives lie, numbers don't, I called him out on effectively calling me a liar. He then believes I tried to deceive by implying his statement was directly below the quote, but this is ridiculous because it doesn't make a difference. I can re-state it differently: Punter posted a quote of mine, then a quote of some numbers (with a brief comment in between). After the two quotes he concluded that progressives lie, numbers don't. The conclusion (or implication) is obvious.

His smear efforts are pretty weak, I doubt he could even get a job at Fox News.

Assuming we are talking about the same post, it's simple, your explanation doesn't pass muster and I explained why in a previous post. This is in reference to when I ignored him for a few weeks (which I did). He called me a liar, apparently he thinks his crap is so irresistible I could not resist reading it for even a moment. His only proof (which he says he 'explained') is that "Simply put, I don't believe you, I think you have read all my post." That's his proof. LMAO!! Fox News would laugh him out the door. But he went to all that effort finding and posting those upside-down pinnochios, I understand how he might cling to his false accusation.

Perhaps you need to read the definition of a lie. Please read slowly and really try to grasp this. "A lie is a false statement to a person or group made by another person or group who knows it is not the whole truth, intentionally."

Looks like the Democrats are planning another attempt at subverting the Constitution.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/us/politics/democrats-quietly-renew-push-for-gun-measures.html?_r=0Oh boy. And finally, an amazing display of self-sabotage and embarassment. Punter posts a definition of a lie, as if trying to educate us, and then proceeds in his very next post to demonstrate the definition he had just posted. LOL! Punter knows very well that background checks (the subject of the article he linked) are constitutional. He knows they do not subvert the Constitution; it's not a matter of opinion, but of court judgement. So he just demonstrated his own definition of a lie. Amazing!

When it comes to bad form and questionable board ethics, Punter needs to look in the mirror.

Esten

06-19-13, 01:34

I am curious though how these trips are any different than other Presidents (regardless of party) trips to Africa or any other place for that matter? Did the SS not send as many agents, cars, or limos. Was there not a carrier parked off the coast, did fighters not accompany AF 1? Hey DR. Let me offer a simple explanation, FWIW. When you see one guy refer to King Obama (or an equivalent reference), and five other guys 'THANK' him, what you are witnessing is simple Conservative bonding. Picture 6 older white guys in a room, sitting in chairs smoking cigars, and one guy quips about King Obama and the others go "yeah!" and "yuk yuk yuk" and take a puff on their stogies. That's what's going on, only virtually. They surely know past presidents have made similar trips, at high costs due to security. George Bush and his wife made a combined 7 trips to Africa. They're not outraged, they're joking and bonding. I don't begrudge them their little pleasure, but it's amusing to watch.

28796

Punter 127

06-19-13, 11:41

The pissing match with Punter has been so pleasant and deeply meaningful (cough, cough), but I will give it a rest for awhile, after these observations.
28799(Big Yawn) Sure we believe you.:rolleyes: LOL.

When he previously quoted me and stated that progressives lie, numbers don't, I called him out on effectively calling me a liar. He then believes I tried to deceive by implying his statement was directly below the quote, but this is ridiculous because it doesn't make a difference. I can re-state it differently: Punter posted a quote of mine, then a quote of some numbers (with a brief comment in between). After the two quotes he concluded that progressives lie, numbers don't. The conclusion (or implication) is obvious.
When in the past have I hesitated to call Esten out when I thought he was being less than honest? Please note the word "progressives" is plural and was not aimed solely at one progressive, but hey if the shoe fits.

This is in reference to when I ignored him for a few weeks (which I did). He called me a liar, apparently he thinks his crap is so irresistible I could not resist reading it for even a moment. His only proof (which he says he 'explained') is that "Simply put, I don't believe you, I think you have read all my post." That's his proof. LMAO!! Fox News would laugh him out the door. But he went to all that effort finding and posting those upside-down pinnochios, I understand how he might cling to his false accusation.
I don't have to prove anything to Esten, the members who follows this thread can decide for themselves. Everybody knows about Estens smoke and mirror tactics.

Punter knows very well that background checks (the subject of the article he linked) are constitutional. He knows they do not subvert the Constitution; it's not a matter of opinion, but of court judgement. So he just demonstrated his own definition of a lie. Amazing!
Please tell us which Supreme Court ruling upholds "expanded background checks", tell us which ruling says it's ok to link mental health records to background checks, and tell us when the Supreme Court started ruling on legislation before it becomes law?

Speaking of legislation I believe the recent failed gun bill was more than just background checks, if not a lot of time was wasted debating and voting on "amendments", but progressives never lets facts get in way.

Punter 127

06-19-13, 12:48

I think his record on transparency is ABOMINABLE.Hey Daddy, thanks for sharing your feelings, I'm sure you are very disappointed. And it looks like you're not alone, "Obama's approval rating dropped 8 percentage points over the past month to 45%, the lowest rating in more than 18 months." And a big part of that decline was from his base of younger Americans.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/17/politics/obama-poll-decline

I am curious though how these trips are any different than other Presidents (regardless of party) trips to Africa or any other place for that matter? Did the SS not send as many agents, cars, or limos. Was there not a carrier parked off the coast, did fighters not accompany AF 1? Your thinking is on the mark, but the problem is the cost just keeps going up and we simple can't afford it anymore. The fact that prior administrations wasted money does not justify this administration wasting money. I question the need for the trip, especially considering all the problems we have right now. Perhaps the Presidents time would be better served working on problems here at home.

It bothers me that while civil liberties continue to be lost in the US you guys are still arguing about Repubs good Dems bad and reversed.Agreed, civil liberties have been on the decline for a long time, the Patriot act of 2001 and Patriot Sunsets Extension Act of 2011 have fueled an increase in the rate of decline. Unfortunately the bigger the government gets the more opportunity there is for abuse of power and that leads to a government out of control.

The Supremes just ruled that if you don't specifically evoke (invoke? Help me out on this) your 5th Amendment right then silence is tantamount to an admission of guilt http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/citizen-warrior/2013/jun/17/goodbye-5th-amendment-supremes-rule-silence-can-be/ and you guys are talking about the cost a trip to Africa? The silence in question here was BEFORE not after being arrested. So what they said was if you refuse to answer questions put forth by the police before you are officially placed into custody then that refusal can be used against you later in court. I feel your pain but at the same time I can appreciate Tiny's point. Sadly it seems the best policy is to only let an attorney speak for you. Here is a link to a video of a law school professor and former criminal defense attorney explaining why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police. It's a shame things are the way they are but I think you'll find the video interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

I hijacked your post to make the point that all of this us v them is a diversion they (all media) use to distract people while they steal our country. Apologies if I offended you in any way.I again agree with you, but by the same token we can't let those who try to distract us with propaganda go unchecked for fear they will pull the wool over the eyes of the American people.

Jackson

06-19-13, 14:21

Some of this is not clear cut. Take your two links as examples. A suspect is answering questions asked by law enforcement and then clams up when asked whether shotgun casings would match his gun. Can that be used as evidence in a court of law? Is that a violation of 5th amendment rights? I'm not sure.If he invoked his 5th amendent rights at that point, then (presuming that his attorney later filed the required motion) his refusal to answer the question cannot be mentioned or even inferred to in any way at trial.

Daddy Rulz

06-19-13, 15:08

Here is a link to a video of a law school professor and former criminal defense attorney explaining why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police. It's a shame things are the way they are but I think you'll find the video interesting.

If he invoked his 5th amendent rights at that point, then (presuming that his attorney later filed the required motion) his refusal to answer the question cannot be mentioned or even inferred to in any way at trial.No he hadn't specifically invoked (thanks Jax) his 5th amendment right, he just stopped talking when the cop asked him about his shotgun. I think it's pretty obvious that the guy did the killing. The point the Supremes made (as best I can make out, I'm not a lawyer) is that unless you SPECIFICALLY invoke that right then not answering questions becomes evidence. The other germane point is that all of that happened before he was arrested or advised of his rights. The video (I've seen it and agree) needs to be modified to say, as soon as a police officer asks you any questions you must answer with "I'm exercising my 5th amendment right and not answering.

Esten

06-19-13, 23:46

I looked up the recent Supreme Court decision on the 5th Amendment. I don't have a strong feeling about it, I can see both sides. But I did notice one interesting thing. The vote was split 5:4, with the five conservative justices voting the majority opinion, and the four liberal justices voting the dissenting opinion.

I found this very interesting, since as some would have us believe, conservatives are the supposed champions of individual rights and protections, while liberals are the supposed champions of government power. This Supreme Court decision is a clear example of just the opposite.

Rev BS

06-21-13, 19:39

But why are the Republicans digging deeper than that with the Immigration Bill. If they keep insisting on all the triggers about border security that could delay legal status pathways, they might as well start wearing black tomorrow. Nothing but delaying tactics. When the House goes Democract, blame yourself. When Sarah Palin can still be significant, is there hope? Jimmy Swagget for President!

There is no clamoring for prosecution of business & individuals hiring of illegal immigrants. Why? It is business, especially small business (chamber of commerce) that has fought legislation of temporary & seasonal workers for the last few decades. And so here we are, with the problem so rampant that we now have 12 million illegal immigrants even after amnesty in the 80's, There is not enough resources to prosecute Americans, whether it is gun laws, tax laws, or hiring of illegal immigrants.

As a society, Americans have also developed a mentality that they are never guilty of anything, anyway. Example: Skilling & Enron. Forget about shame, nothing like that exist! Illegal immigrants, illegal drugs, damn those Mexicans & Colombians! You ever think about boycotting a restaurent with an illegal working in it.

You may think I am walking around angry & disillusioned. No, not really. Only for stubborn people. Just wanted to make the point, that when there is a problem, best you look in the mirror, and ask whether you are contributing to it in some way.

Punter 127

06-22-13, 03:36

I love it when Democrats try to give Republicans advise, they never seem to tire of telling other people what to do.

But why are the Republicans digging deeper than that with the Immigration Bill. If they keep insisting on all the triggers about border security that could delay legal status pathways, they might as well start wearing black tomorrow. Nothing but delaying tactics. When the House goes Democract, blame yourself.I'd be willing to bet you a buffet lunch at the Pattaya Hilton that the Democrats don't take the house in 2014.

When Sarah Palin can still be significant, is there hope?Yes, that's a very good sign of hope for America. LOL.

Jimmy Swagget for President! You got something against a monger being President?

There is no clamoring for prosecution of business & individuals hiring of illegal immigrants. Why?Perhaps it's the same reason the left is not "clamoring" to enforce current gun laws. Why isn't the left "clamoring" to secure the borders?

It is business, especially small business (chamber of commerce) that has fought legislation of temporary & seasonal workers for the last few decades. And so here we are, with the problem so rampant that we now have 12 million illegal immigrants even after amnesty in the 80's,Didn't Bush support a guest worker program that the left stood in the way of, saying it was something along the lines of legalized slavery?

There is not enough resources to prosecute Americans, whether it is gun laws, tax laws, or hiring of illegal immigrants. If we don't have the resources to enforce current law why would you support wasting resources on new gun laws that we can't afford to enforce? Maybe we should use some of the resources wasted on trips to Africa and resources wasted on spying on the American people and resources wasted profiling and targeting groups of Americans. How about we use the resources we did not spend on security or answering the distress call at Benghazi. We could also save some resources if we stop arming rebels in countries that we have no vital interest in, like Libya and Syria. I would also include giving weapons to Mexican drug cartels in order to gin up a phony gun crisis in order to push a anti-Second Amendment agenda as a waste of resources.

As a society, Americans have also developed a mentality that they are never guilty of anything, anyway. Example: Skilling & Enron. Forget about shame, nothing like that exist! Illegal immigrants, illegal drugs, damn those Mexicans & Colombians! You ever think about boycotting a restaurent with an illegal working in it.In some parts of the country you would never eat in a restaurant. I agree with you on the "never guilty of anything mentality" just look at Obama, Clinton, Holder, Shulman, and (Fifth Amendment) Lerner, none of these people are guilty of anything and none of them are even responsible for the actions of their subordinates. Right?

You may think I am walking around angry & disillusioned. No, not really. Only for stubborn people.I think you're just frustrated by stubborn folks like me that won't let folk like you turn America into something it's not, and was never intended to be.

Just wanted to make the point, that when there is a problem, best you look in the mirror, and ask whether you are contributing to it in some way.I'll get in the queue right behind you and the Obama team.

Why do you think 12 million illegal immigrants deserve a legal status pathway? Some of us think they deserve a legal pathway back to their home.

Daddy Rulz

06-24-13, 01:00

An ACLU card carrying liberal East Coast elitist, savaging the Obama administration for their persecution of whistleblowers while supporting someone Fox and Friends says deserves the death penalty. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/22/snowden-espionage-charges.

Esten

06-26-13, 10:25

Looks like Obama, the king of socialism, has returned the US to the mecca of capitalism.

US tops confidence survey on foreign investment, displaces China
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/26/us-fdi-survey-idUSBRE95P05X20130626

(Reuters) - After a 12-year hiatus, the United States reclaimed first place among top executives in a survey on foreign direct investment sentiment, displacing China as it makes progress toward sustainable and steady economic growth, a study showed on Wednesday.

Tiny12

06-27-13, 01:47

Looks like Obama, the king of socialism, has returned the US to the mecca of capitalism.

US tops confidence survey on foreign investment, displaces China
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/26/us-fdi-survey-idUSBRE95P05X20130626Yep, during the reigns of Obama and Bush the dollar has weakened and middle class wages have fallen. Meanwhile the renminbi and Chinese wages have been on a tear. China is more expensive, the USA is cheaper, thanks in no small part to the king of socialism. It's not too long before "Made in the USA" will replace "Made in China" as the mark of a true bargain.

Esten

06-27-13, 12:30

It's no surprise Chinese wages have risen more than other countries. But still, an average worker in China makes the equivalent of $8,700 a year, compared with $47,000 for a USA Counterpart. Obama is pushing for an increase in the federal minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $9 by 2015.

What we all have to be concerned about is Wall Street and Corporatism. The only thing between us and further exploitation by large corporations is government. Countries have to work together on this. Without proper regulation, the global economic pie will increasingly go to fewer, larger corporations and we'll all be working for low wages.

Tiny12

06-27-13, 22:24

What we all have to be concerned about is Wall Street and Corporatism. The only thing between us and further exploitation by large corporations is government. Countries have to work together on this. Without proper regulation, the global economic pie will increasingly go to fewer, larger corporations and we'll all be working for low wages.Good advice for the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Also for Congressmen who pander to big banks and provide welfare to corporations. But if you're going to blame someone, blame large government, not large corporations. Government is responsible for providing proper laws and regulations and implementing them. And at the federal level in the USA it sometimes fails miserably.

The largest corporations by market cap are Apple, ExxonMobil, Berkshire Hathaway, PetroChina, WalMart, GE, Microsoft, IBM, Nestle, and Chevron. On the whole the world is a much better place because of them and their competitors. And on the whole people who work for them are well-paid.

WorldTravel69

06-28-13, 03:05

Tiny12

06-30-13, 22:43

But, Some of your White Southern States, including the White Old Men in the right wing Supreme Court, just put our Country of the United States back a hundred years by Suppressing the right to Vote.

Sounds like the Nazis are back.

Jackson, Let's have a Pole on how we feel about this?

!As to your "pole", here's how I feel about this. You and other elitist lefties from California and the Northeast are a lot like white supremacists of the 1950's. As exhibited in this and other posts, you have contempt for and want to suppress southerners. The KKK and others had contempt for and wanted to suppress Black Americans.

The Supreme Court decided that it's no longer desirable for the federal government to have veto power over changes in the nine southern states' voting laws, because now black turnout in elections is higher in places like Mississippi than it is in places like Massachusetts. And there are laws on the books that bar discriminatory voting practices and that will be enforced if they're violated, regardless of whether they occur in the north, in the west, or in the specific southern states that are named in the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Your belief that Texas should be treated any differently from California or New York is discriminatory and insulting.

Stinger

07-07-13, 03:32

Agree with you Tiny!

Jackson

07-07-13, 07:46

But, Some of your White Southern States, including the White Old Men in the right wing Supreme Court, just put our Country of the United States back a hundred years by Suppressing the right to Vote.WT,

I understand that "White Old Men" are the only remaining minority group against which liberals and their media accomplices may openly target with hate speach, however...

Has it ever occurred to you that you are a White Old Man?

Thanks,

Jax.

Rev BS

07-07-13, 11:23

WT,

I understand that "White Old Men" are the only remaining minority group against which liberals and their media accomplices may openly target with hate speach, however...

Has it ever occurred to you that you are an old white man?

Thanks,

Jax.Me thinks, WTO is not in the "Angry" old white men category. I take it back, he seem pretty upset all the time.

Esten

07-09-13, 00:15

I didn't care too much about the SC decision on the Voter Rights Act. The country has come a long way since the Act. I agree with Tiny, I could be wrong, but I believe there are anti-discrimination laws that will be enforced in Southern states. And democrat groups will no doubt stay on top of it.

Another story is worth much more attention, and that is the continuing obsession of Republicans with anti-abortion legislation. A couple weeks ago the House, by a mostly party-line vote, passed the "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act." Another symbolic vote House Republicans know won't go anywhere, but they timed it to capitalize on the publicity surrounding recent murder convictions of a Philadelphia abortion doctor. Sounds similar to when Republicans claimed Democrats were capitalizing on the Newtown shooting. The difference as I see it, Democrats want to protect the born, Republicans want to protect the unborn.

The most egregious legislation though, is at the state level where Republican-controlled states are passing laws requiring ultrasound. Wisconsin passed a bill last week requiring any woman seeking an abortion to get an ultrasound. The technician would have to point out the fetus' visible organs and external features. Republicans openly state the bill is not based on medical necessity, but to help the woman bond with the fetus and convince her to save it. This is Republican-sponsored government interference in the private lives of women, to promote one group's moral and religious beliefs.

Tres3

07-09-13, 02:17

Rev BS

07-09-13, 12:37

Are you a socialist if you collect social security benefits, and is enroll in the medicare program?

Don B

07-10-13, 19:51

Are you a socialist if you collect social security benefits, and is enroll in the medicare program?The plan is socialist but the participants may or may not be.

Don B

Rev BS

07-11-13, 18:14

The plan is socialist but the participants may or may not be.

Don BNow, I can sleep better, and be able to spent my pocket money from Uncle Sam without going to confession. But can you imagine where America's retirees' survival rates would be if not for SS & Medicare? Try hunting for squirrels and rabbits for food when your eyesight is bad and your knees are locking up on you! Not to mention almost shooting your neighbor by accident like Cheney did. The poor guy was only about 30 feet away.

Daddy Rulz

07-11-13, 18:24

This just in, look how he abused this poor little boy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBy0UAO5r70

Member #4112

07-11-13, 20:37

Yep that's real child abuse, get a grip.

Obama's numbers are headed for the cellar, he pulls back ObamaCare so the 2014 mid-terms don't make the 2010 mid-terms look like a cake walk, spent $100 M going to Africa (I was all for it until I heard he was coming back), declares a war on coal for the environment when that is at the bottom of the list of what the American people are worried about, has 11 million people out of work, the IRS debacle, the NSA / Snowden debacle, the Benghazi debacle, I could go on but why belabor the point. No wonder the liberals only want to talk about accepting social security which you paid into as socialism and a kid getting bonked on the nose.

Daddy Rulz

07-12-13, 02:11

As an apathest (a member of the apathetic party) I could honestly care less. When I said Fox News hates kids and linked to the video it was sarcastic commentary about the substance that either party generally uses to cast aspersions on the other in what passes for news media in the USA.

It is obvious that the reporter was trying to engage the child in a playful manner and clearly didn't intend to cause him harm, and to his credit was just as obviously mortified far having accidentally done so.

DR.

WorldTravel69

07-12-13, 03:27

The politicians wanted changes.

Here are some of the problems.

http://vod.fxnetworks.com/watch/thebridge

Watch Out Jackson's spell checker is not working correctly.

Esten

07-13-13, 17:00

I thought it was funny DR.

I guess some folks just don't have a sense of humor (Doppel LOVES telling me that) ;)

Esten

07-13-13, 17:15

Are you a socialist if you collect social security benefits, and is enroll in the medicare program?If you like / support government programs like SS and Medicare, you at least partly support socialism. That includes most Conservatives in the US. I think some of them get conflicted when you point this out.

Member #4112

07-15-13, 18:11

Welcome back Esten, thought you had gotten lost amid Obama's falling poll numbers and whatever scandal de jure has come up last.

Of course Medicare, Medicaid (let's not forget that one) and Social Security are socialist concepts as well as the entire "safety net" concept at the federal level. If such programs should exist they should be created at the state level where they would be more efficient and cost effective. Each state's voters could determine just how much "safety net" they could afford and tailor it to their individual needs instead of the "one size fits all" federal approach. But then that would diminish the Democrats hold on national politics. While you are at it lets close the Dept of Energy, reduce the EPA by 75%, go to a flat or consumption tax and reduce the IRS by 90%, militarize the boarder and secure it once and for all.

I would propose the funds paid in by the employee and employer for Medicare and Social Security would be more efficiently used if allocated to each specific individual's account and when it's gone that's it. Take care of yourself, self reliance, all that sort of thing. Let the charities take care of what's left with VOLUNTARY donations.

Hey Esten, how about Obama being told to shove it about Snowden by China and Russia; not to mention the little debacle over Evo's return trip home; Obama's lack luster trip to Africa where he had to follow in the footsteps of the man who really did something to help the folks there with his aids program – that would be George Bush, not Obama of all talk and no action.

I'm loving the ObamaCare thing, the Democrats past it all by their little selves and now they are so afraid of the damage it will do during the 2014 mid-terms they want to shelve part of it to keep 2014 making 2010 look like a Sunday school pick nick. The Dem's set up the time line with YEARS to get going and now Obama wants to refuse to enforce the LAW the Dem's passed?

If calling Social Security and Medicare socialist is the best game you got, the Dem's are in deep deep Sh*t.

Welcome back big guy, glad to have you back in the fray.

Rev BS

07-16-13, 10:20

That's what is going on in Congress today. Like the fat kid in the playground who try to block people's path or tried to trip people that tried to go around him. For no good reason than to spoil your day, and to attract the attention that he crave. Since he never gets pick for any games, and is kind of shut-out of any group. Does not want to change, just taking up space. No new idea, just wearing that same dirty baggy shirt everyday. A poor loser.

Esten

07-16-13, 23:57

Doppel, I'm very impressed how you keep recycling all those lame right wing swipes at Obama. Do you watch Fox News with a pad and paper?

BTW, I don't recall seeing where you thanked Obama for helping keep your business afloat (via the broader economy), and saving you thousands in your recent and future tax bills. How about a little gratitude, instead of all the hate.

Member #4112

07-17-13, 05:02

Esten, what planet are you on. Obama's falling poll numbers are generated by Fox? The FBI, NSA, IRS, DOJ et al are products of my imagination? By the way did you happen to notice the Inspector General, who just happened to be black, has new charges regarding the IRS and the DOJ's failure to prosecute.

No hate here just tired of the joke we have for a president and all his dumb ass cronies.

Texas is doing better than most of the nation because Republican's are running it and it is a business friendly state with no personal income tax. While I have not gone out of business, many of my clients have yet to recover to the point at which they were Pre 2008, including myself, not because of Obama but in spite of his policies. Remember we are an energy state.

I'm sure the 11 Million unemployed folks are just as impressed with Obama's economic recovery, or lack thereof, as I am.

Tax break, what the hell are you talking about? I paid more in 2012 than Obama with less income.

Please pull you head out of your rectal orifice. It's a whole new world out here and your boy and the Democrats are not looking too good as their grand plans continue to collapse.

Esten

07-18-13, 00:20

Tax break, what the hell are you talking about? I paid more in 2012 than Obama with less income.The payroll tax cuts and Bush tax cuts extension up until 2012, likely helped Doppel's bottom line by tens of thousands of dollars.

The 400 K limit on ending the Bush tax cuts, beginning 2013, will also likely help Doppel's bottom line by almost as much, minus a 0.9% Medicare surtax on income above 250 K. He still comes out ahead compared to what would have happened if all the Bush tax cuts had been allowed to expire.

But Doppel can't acknowledge how Obama has helped keep his taxes down. Instead he's got some crock about "But I paid more than Obama". What a joke. I would advise Doppel to take his own advice and pull his head out of his ass, but what he really probably needs is professional deprogramming.

Tiny12

07-18-13, 00:38

But Doppel can't acknowledge how Obama has helped keep his taxes down. I don't know about Doppel's situation, but Obama has helped keep my taxes down this year. Now that the federal government is taking 43.4% of what I make I'm not busting ass anymore. Instead I'm sitting on it. My income is lower and I will pay less income tax. Thank you Mr. Obama!

Member #4112

07-18-13, 05:26

Esten, are you taking something or just making this up as you go along since you don't seem to know a thing about payroll taxes nor about pass through of IRS defined "taxable profit". Nor do you have the remotest idea what my firm's net income before taxes is nor do you have any idea what my income is beyond the fact I made much less in 2012 than POTUS, which is $400 K / year.

The only thing the tax holiday did was put 2% back in peoples pay checks. Even you should be able to do the math. If you can't then it would take over $500 K to just benefit by $10 K much less the multiples of $10 k you stated, but then since you don't understand payroll tax then you don't seem to know about the employer's matching payment which did not get a holiday. You also don't seem to understand small business tax law as well.

While you are bringing up the Tax Holiday, all working American's were forced to take a 2% cut in pay while the Obama administration was whining about cutting the Federal Budget by about the same amount and trying to figure out ways to make it as painful on the American taxpayer as possible to punish the Republican's for standing by the sequester.

Obama has not "given" anyone anything. Far from it, he has been taking money out of the economy via one tax hike after another in multiple guises.

Member #4112

07-18-13, 19:14

Esten, as you like to trumpet Obama's "recovery" read this article from a former top number cruncher for the WBLS.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/18/ex-dc-labor-statistics-head-jobs-numbers-dont-provide-accurate-reading-on/?test=latestnews

I think this about sums up the "recovery" for the unemployed.

What a crock Esten, your boy Obama is a near total failure. Even his signature program ObamaCare is falling apart and he can not get it work years after enacting it.

Esten

07-19-13, 00:04

Nor do you have the remotest idea what my firm's net income before taxes is nor do you have any idea what my income is beyond the fact I made much less in 2012 than POTUS, which is $400 K / year.

I earn over $250K, own my own business, employ 22 accountants / CPAs / office staff, drive a 5 year old car and an 11 year old truck, live in a nice home LOL, you're tripping over your own bullshit Doppel. Contrary to your claim, you yourself have posted plenty of details about your own finances, enough to estimate how much taxes you've saved because of Obama. Also don't think we didn't notice your dodgy attempt to focus on the 2% payroll tax holiday, and ignore the Bush Tax Cuts extension.

110K(0.02) + 250K(0.03)(a simplification but close) X 2(tax years 2011,2012) =
$19,400 Doppel saved thanks to Obama

After you thank Obama for helping your bottom line, you can apologize for falsely accusing me of lying.

Daddy Rulz

07-19-13, 01:26

I found this cool website you guys could use here http://www.pangloss.com/seidel/Shaker/index.html?.

Click the button and get an insult written by Shakespeare himself.

Member #4112

07-19-13, 06:35

LOL, you're tripping over your own bullshit Doppel. Contrary to your claim, you yourself have posted plenty of details about your own finances, enough to estimate how much taxes you've saved because of Obama. Also don't think we didn't notice your dodgy attempt to focus on the 2% payroll tax holiday, and ignore the Bush Tax Cuts extension.

110K(0.02) + 250K(0.03)(a simplification but close) X 2(tax years 2011,2012) =
$19,400 Doppel saved thanks to Obama

After you thank Obama for helping your bottom line, you can apologize for falsely accusing me of lying.First of they were the Bush TAX CUTS not Obama's and he has increased the tax on individuals and small business every time there was an opportunity, such as the last deal in December 2012.

Second your numbers are wrong to start with, the "Holiday" reduced FICA ie Social Security from 6.2% to 4.2% and was effective for tax years 2011 and 2012 which is 2% not 3%.

The wage limit for 2011 on FICA taxable wages was $106,800 and in 2012 it was $110,100.

Now lets do the REAL MATH.

2011 Tax holiday savings = $2,136 [($106,800 X 0.062) - ($106,800 X 0.042)]

2012 Tax holiday savings = $2,202 [($110,100 X 0.062) - ($110,100 X 0.042)]

Total for 2 years = $4,338 NOT $19 K+ as you stated so it's a lie.

And just in case you did not notice the wage limit for FICA keeps creeping up year after year as evidenced by the increase between 2011 and 2012 from $106,800 to $110,100. As a matter of fact the 2011 to 2012 increase amounted to $3,300 or a 3% increase from 2011 to 2012 which pretty much wiped out the "Holiday". While the rate did not change the upper limit did increase meaning you paid more tax, ie a TAX INCREASE. The same bullshit Christina and Company are pulling in Argentina with the income tax floor.

Esten your ignorance of both payroll tax and business tax is astounding. What part of I paid more tax than Obama in 2012, who made $400 k + perks worth many times that amount, on less income than Obama don't you get.

Yep your lying and posting just another BS reply. You have no idea what you are talking about, this discussion is over your head.

Tres3

07-19-13, 16:54

The President has spoken publicly about the Zimmerman acquittal. All he did was add fuel to the fire. He should have kept his mouth shut or let someone white say his thoughts for him. A jury has spoken, and as Obama has said many times before, we are a nation of laws.

Tres3.

Member #4112

07-19-13, 18:49

Obama has spoken again and it's pretty clear he is not for the rule of law.

Obama said that Martin could have been him 35 years ago. All I can say is I'm sorry it wasn't, it would have saved us all a lot of problems.

According to the latest poll, the most racists group in the United States are Blacks.

Wild Walleye

07-20-13, 00:33

It would be disturbing if the president's comments could be passed off as idle musings or banter. However, the POTUS (this one or any other of recent vintage) doesn't say two words that haven't been vetted and bounced off a sounding board. Please feel free to go back to my posts from 2008 and see what I thought of him then, someone who is more than happy to divide and destroy the country. As that is a fundamental tenant to what he is.

It is unf*cking believable what this POS is able to get away with. I wish I could become a self-described-white-negro and lie, cheat and steal with impunity (BTW for any dimwits, it is Obama (a self-described white negro) exploiting his racial status, not me).

Wild Walleye

07-20-13, 00:36

Esten

07-20-13, 00:51

Doppel, everyone sees through your blustering bullshit. I love watching you scramble to avoid crediting Obama. I have no idea what I'm talking about? LMAO!! Really, who do you think you're fooling?

Your calculation of $4,338 corresponds to the 110K(0.02)X2 part of my equation. Notice I used 2% not 3% as you claimed, liar. But that's the payroll tax part only. The Bush Tax Cuts had a sunset provision and were to expire at the end of 2010. Surely you know this. If action had not been taken, your income tax would have increased about 3%. That action was taken in the form of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010.

Doppel, do you know which American president signed this Act into law on December 17, 2010, thereby ensuring your income taxes would not increase by 3% for 2011 and 2012 ?

Esten

07-20-13, 01:03

There's another thread for the Zimmerman story, could we please keep it there. Some of us couldn't care less.

BTW welcome back, Walleye. Hope you've had some good mongering since we last saw you.

Don B

07-20-13, 01:40

Tres3

07-20-13, 01:52

There's another thread for the Zimmerman story, could we please keep it there. Some of us couldn't care less.There are also those of us who could not care less about your incessant rantings. This thread is about Politics during the Obama Presidency. At my last observation, Obama was still President of the USA. Because he is President, every time he opens his mouth in public, it is political. This thread is not a private forum for you, Esten, so if you do not like something that someone says about Obama, say what it is that you do not like. Otherwise, keep your mouth shut and your keyboard turned off.

Tres3.

Member #4112

07-20-13, 04:33

LOL, you're tripping over your own bullshit Doppel. Contrary to your claim, you yourself have posted plenty of details about your own finances, enough to estimate how much taxes you've saved because of Obama. Also don't think we didn't notice your dodgy attempt to focus on the 2% payroll tax holiday, and ignore the Bush Tax Cuts extension.

110K(0.02) + 250K(0.03)(a simplification but close) X 2(tax years 2011,2012) =
$19,400 Doppel saved thanks to Obama

After you thank Obama for helping your bottom line, you can apologize for falsely accusing me of lying.Still twisting in the wind I see. Sorry the bullshit just won't fly in the face of facts.

First:

Ok Esten here is your quote again; obviously you don't bother to read what you write. You clearly referenced tax years 2011 and 2012 to which I responded.

Second:

Tax brackets were $200 K for SINGLE filers and $250 K for MARRIED / JOINT filers, get it! The rate goes up if you are filing single and made more than $200 K.

Third:

The great Obama Lie about so called "tax cuts" – the only person who cut income taxes was GEORGE Bush not Barack Obama. Since when is maintaining CURRENT tax rates a CUT? Is this another "I voted for it before I voted against it" moment Esten?

I urge you to consult a dictionary for the meaning tax cut:

Noun 1. Tax cut. The act of reducing taxation; "the new administration's large tax cut was highly controversial".

Cut. The act of reducing the amount or number; "the mayor proposed extensive cuts in the city budget".

The only thing Obama cut was FICA by 2% for two years, what a brilliant move to cut Social Security Tax contributions as the fund continues to trundle down the road to insolvency.

Member #4112

07-20-13, 04:44

Doppel, do you know which American president signed this Act into law on December 17, 2010, thereby ensuring your income taxes would not increase by 3% for 2011 and 2012 ?Just what I'm talking about, since when is maintaining current rates a "CUT" and signing a veto proof bill passed by the House and Senate to maintain current rates stopping an "INCREASE"?

That's the same as saying every year tax rates remain the same is both a "CUT" and prevented an "INCREASE"

Member #4112

07-20-13, 04:51

Esten

07-21-13, 15:37

Esten, if harping on Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare are socialists programs and trying to convince people they need to kneel down to the new MASTER in the White House for his endless bounty, his most transparent administration in history, his 17 Trillion debt, and scandals galore you've got a real problem.No need to kneel or call anyone MASTER, Doppel. Simply to give credit where credit is due. Obama helped you save approximately $19,400 in taxes over 2011-12. In other words, you would have paid this much more in taxes without the legislation he signed.

Here's some more numbers for you, the latest Gallup approval numbers. Why do you think Republican approval numbers are in the toilet?
Obama: 48%
Congressional Democrats: 34%
Congressional Republicans: 26%

BTW, you were crowing about how well Texas is doing. Texas ranks #18 in unemployment (6.5%, better than national average), but #46 in poverty (16.2%, worse than national average). Texas has the dubious distinction of having the second-highest percentage of minimum wage jobs. Race-to-the-bottom capitalism doesn't lead to prosperity.

Member #4112

07-21-13, 16:30

Esten you are so full of it.

I owe Obama nothing as he has done nothing except raise taxes. I suppose the increase of the FICA taxable limit in 2011, again in 2012 and now to $113,700 in 2013 is not a tax increase?

You simply don't understand taxes or choose not to understand to maintain your personal dogma.

Rave on Esten, few are listening and fewer still believe you.

As for Texas, while I doubt your stats, at least we are attracting industry and creating jobs. What is you answer to the 11 million without jobs, to Chicago, Detroit, and the other collapsing liberal bastions drowning in debt?

Your idea of racing to prosperity is the Nanny State? The only equality there is everyone is equally poor and dependent upon the government.

Tiny12

07-21-13, 16:59

No need to kneel or call anyone MASTER, Doppel. Simply to give credit where credit is due. Obama helped you save approximately $19,400 in taxes over 2011-12. In other words, you would have paid this much more in taxes without the legislation he signed.

BTW, you were crowing about how well Texas is doing. Texas ranks #18 in unemployment (6.5%, better than national average), but #46 in poverty (16.2%, worse than national average). Texas has the dubious distinction of having the second-highest percentage of minimum wage jobs. Race-to-the-bottom capitalism doesn't lead to prosperity.

Esten is not stupid, he knows exactly what he's doing. His obfuscations are in the same league as master politicians, like Bill "I-did-not-have-sexual-relations-with-that-woman" Clinton. Obama is largely responsible for a big tax hike on high-earners and successful small businesses that went into effect January 1, 2013. But because he didn't prevent legislation that delayed the hike for 2 years he saved Doppelganger lots of money, according to Esten.

Adjust income in Texas for purchasing power and taxes and the state starts to look better than California.

And about "race-to-the-bottom capitalism," it's actually race to the top. Look at Hong Kong and Singapore. Look at European countries that have dropped marginal tax rates on businesses far below our level -- they've learned while we're going the other way.

Don B

07-21-13, 17:31

Esten is not stupid, he knows exactly what he's doing. His obfuscations are in the same league as master politicians, like Bill "I-did-not-have-sexual-relations-with-that-woman" Clinton. Obama is largely responsible for a big tax hike on high-earners and successful small businesses that went into effect January 1, 2013. But because he didn't prevent legislation that delayed the hike for 2 years he saved Doppelganger lots of money, according to Esten.

Adjust income in Texas for purchasing power and taxes and the state starts to look better than California.

And about "race-to-the-bottom capitalism," it's actually race to the top. Look at Hong Kong and Singapore. Look at European countries that have dropped marginal tax rates on businesses far below our level -- they've learned while we're going the other way.Esten, Obama, etal are either stupid or evil. Obama is certainly evil and since you think Esten is not stupid, well...

I disagree with Paul Ryan on a lot of issues. For example, during the Republican convention he said; "President Obama is not a bad man, he is a bad President".

Don B

Esten

07-21-13, 17:57

Esten is not stupid, he knows exactly what he's doing. His obfuscations are in the same league as master politicians, like Bill "I-did-not-have-sexual-relations-with-that-woman" Clinton. Obama is largely responsible for a big tax hike on high-earners and successful small businesses that went into effect January 1, 2013. Tiny you need to look in the mirror.

Obama is not responsible for the recent tax hike for incomes above $400K (or, only responsible in the sense he did not act to stop it). That is a Bush tax increase. The Bush Tax Cuts were temporary, when they went into effect they were a tax cut, and when they expired they were a tax increase. The legislation responsible for that increase was signed by Bush. If you're affected by this increase, blame Bush. It's the same as with Obama's temporary payroll tax cuts. A cut when they went into effect, and an increase when they expired. Your claim that Obama is largely responsible for the tax hike on $400K+ earners is an obfuscation, if not an outright lie.

Esten

07-21-13, 18:02

I owe Obama nothing as he has done nothing except raise taxes. Obama has both raised and lowered taxes. You can keep repeating your lies over and over, but that doesn't make them true.

Tiny12

07-21-13, 19:33

Okay, I understand. Bush is responsible for the additional tax on income from the Affordable Care Act. Or maybe you'd argue that's not an income tax, it's something else. That would be a real stretch BTW, like something out of Orwell's 1984.

Forgetting about the Affordable Care Act, I assume you'd agree that Obama and Democrats passed a bill that resulted in maintenance of the status quo for certain taxpayers while allowing rates to increase for high earners. And Republicans pushed hard to continue 2012 rates for all taxpayers. And thus saying Obama et al are responsible for the tax hike on high earners is a lie? Again, it's Bush's fault?

Your reasoning is similar to that of Congressmen, both Democrats and Republicans, who consider a 4% or 5% increase in spending to be a "cut." It makes no sense.

Rev BS

07-21-13, 20:30

Tiny12

07-21-13, 21:02

It has been said that "ideology can be a manifestation of personality disorders". If you are puzzled by that, it just means that often, ideology, religion, patriotism, etc. can locked an individual's mindset where they pre-determined an issue or a person. We can say that our esteemed colleague, Toyman, would be a prime example of that trait.So should society treat the personality disorders to correct the person's ideology? That's been tried, with a good deal of success, in China, Cambodia and the USSR.

Esten

07-22-13, 01:33

Tiny, I simply say look at the tax legislation, and assign credit / blame based on who passed the legislation.

Obama is responsible for the taxes in the Affordable Care Act (BTW, kudos for using the correct name). Obama is also responsible for the tax provisions in the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010.

Bush is responsible for the Bush Tax Cuts. They were temporary and expired. BTW, I inferred the tax hike you referred to had to be the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts, because the legislation I claim saved Doppel money was the legislation extending these cuts (plus the payroll tax legislation).

Obama never passed legislation to raise income taxes on $400K+ incomes. Those rates rose due to the sunset provision in Bush's legislation, but you want to pin the blame on Obama?

BTW, I think Obama gave too much away with the $400K threshold. He should have stuck to his original $200K point, or even gone down to $100K, or let them all expire. I understand why he didn't do the latter though, because it would have been coincident with the payroll tax holiday expiration, a double whammy. He should have found a way to stagger them. I'm glad he achieved a net shift in the tax burden to the wealthy, but we still have a lot to do to reduce the deficit.

Rev BS

07-22-13, 02:00

So should society treat the personality disorders to correct the person's ideology? That's been tried, with a good deal of success, in China, Cambodia and the USSR.Your know the jihadists dosn't need much to get stirred up. Just mentioned America, and the froth & hate starts to flow. So it is with the name Obama, it unleashes name-calling like Evil and Satan. Notice the similarities.

Member #4112

07-22-13, 12:23

Esten, you critical reasoning when assigning "blame / credit" is so convoluted it boggles the mind. No twist or turn of logic or outright lie is too much so long as you end at a predetermined point.

In your view Obama can do no wrong regardless of scandals, unemployment, out of control spending and back tracking on his signature legislation to avoid the slaughter that will be 2014.

You are entitled to your opinion but I believe you are seeing not many are agreeing.

Don B

07-22-13, 23:50

[QUOTE=DonB;434667]Esten, Obama, etal are either stupid or evil. Obama is certainly evil and since you think Esten is not stupid, well...

I disagree with Paul Ryan on a lot of issues. For example, during the Republican convention he said; "President Obama is not a bad man, he is a bad President".

Don B[/QUOTE

Ok, so Obama is evil. I did not know that you knew him that well. Today, I read that your buddy, Tavis Smiley was smacking him. But what I am interested is, compared to Dick Cheney, who is more evil. I already know who you will pick, but just give me a couple of reasons why.

It has been said that "ideology can be a manifestation of personality disorders". If you are puzzled by that, it just means that often, ideology, religion, patriotism, etc. can locked an individual's mindset where they pre-determined an issue or a person. We can say that our esteemed colleague, Toyman, would be a prime example of that trait.

One reason why I think Obama is evil>
"Indeed, the scary part is that Detroit is what Obama
wants to fundamentally transform America into: a place
where wealth is redistributed, not created, and where
government picks winners and losers in an economy in
which we all ultimately lose."

A quote from:
http://news.investors.com/print/ibd-editorials/071913-664483-detroit-bankruptcy-caused-by-unions-government.aspx

How about citing your quote and I never heard of Tavis Smiley. Cheney has nothing to do with my opinion of Obama.
Don B

Esten

07-23-13, 01:43

Once upon a time, there was a man named "D" who lived in a rainy town. D walked to work each day, and sometimes he got wet when he forgot his umbrella. One rainy day, a stranger approached D as he was walking to work.

"Dear Sir", said the stranger. "I notice you don't have an umbrella, and you're getting wet from the rain. I am walking down this street for the next 5 blocks. Would you like to walk under my umbrella ?" What great luck D thought, and replied "Yes thank you that would be great! I'm going the same direction". So the two men walked the next 5 blocks, staying dry under the umbrella, until they reached a corner where the stranger had to go into a building. D thanked the stranger, who replied he was sorry that D would get wet for the remainder of his walk to work.

As luck would have it, another stranger standing right next to them overheard the conversation, and invited D to walk under his umbrella for the next few blocks, which would be enough for D to reach his workplace. So D moved under the new stranger's umbrella, not getting a drop wet, and both men continued walking. When they arrived at D's workplace, having noticed that D had not yet expressed any thanks, the new stranger asked, "Sir, I hope you appreciate that you were able to continue walking under my umbrella, so that you never got wet."

To which D replied, "Listen buddy, I was fine before you came along. All you did was continue what the first guy did, so I don't owe you anything."

The second stranger shook his head, turned around and walked away, muttering 'What a $#@%$#!'.

Member #4112

07-23-13, 13:09

Esten, you are dealing in parables now?

There is a great difference between individuals voluntarily offering assistance to others and “government” forcing individuals to pay for assistance the “government” deems necessary, so your parable falls a bit flat.

Some of us have the good sense to come in out of the rain, do you?

Need I say where the umbrella should be placed?

Have a great day Esten.

Tiny12

07-24-13, 03:20

When they arrived at D's workplace, having noticed that D had not yet expressed any thanks, the new stranger asked, "Sir, I hope you appreciate that you were able to continue walking under my umbrella, so that you never got wet.""Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business—you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

And that somebody is Barack Hussein Obama. Thank you President Obama. Thank you for taxing my income at 43.4%. While I also pay state and local taxes amounting to an additional 15% of my income, the federal taxes warm my heart, because I'm giving and receiving nothing in return. This has caused me to achieve true enlightenment. Thank you for all the government forms that I enjoy filling out. Thank you for the tens of thousands of pages of federal regulations and laws, especially the senseless ones and the ones that can send me away to jail for a year or two if I don't know about them, for they keep me excited and at my sharpest. Thank you dear President, for you bend me over and you fuck me in the ass, and I love you for it.

O.K., parables aside, what President Obama really wants to do is take "this unbelievable American system" and make it just like Europe, complete with high unemployment and stagnant economic growth. He wants to screw over the successful small businessman, because like Esten he thinks the guy will spend his free cash flow on yachts, champagne and Cadillacs instead of reinvesting it. And President Obama also believes a dollar flushed down the toilet by Washington is much more valuable than a dollar invested in the private sector. Unless of course it's government that's directing where that dollar goes within the private sector, like growing corn for ethanol or loaning money to homeowners that can't afford their monthly mortgage payments.

Rev BS

07-24-13, 05:40

"Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business—you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

And that somebody is Barack Hussein Obama. Thank you President Obama. Thank you for taxing my income at 43.4%. While I also pay state and local taxes amounting to an additional 15% of my income, the federal taxes warm my heart, because I'm giving and receiving nothing in return. This has caused me to achieve true enlightenment. Thank you for all the government forms that I enjoy filling out. Thank you for the tens of thousands of pages of federal regulations and laws, especially the senseless ones and the ones that can send me away to jail for a year or two if I don't know about them, for they keep me excited and at my sharpest. Thank you dear President, for you bend me over and you fuck me in the ass, and I love you for it.

O.K., parables aside, what President Obama really wants to do is take "this unbelievable American system" and make it just like Europe, complete with high unemployment and stagnant economic growth. He wants to screw over the successful small businessman, because like Esten he thinks the guy will spend his free cash flow on yachts, champagne and Cadillacs instead of reinvesting it. And President Obama also believes a dollar flushed down the toilet by Washington is much more valuable than a dollar invested in the private sector. Unless of course it's government that's directing where that dollar goes within the private sector, like growing corn for ethanol or loaning money to homeowners that can't afford their monthly mortgage payments.It seems you are hurting real bad, tell us what is was like under Clinton, then Bush. Or even before that. If you are at that level of taxation, you are not hurting for your basic needs? Or are you? I may be wrong, but people with high incomes were being taxed at close to 50% once upon a time. Tax shelters galore sprang up. So, enlighten us who are not in your oxygen deprived orbit.

By the way, I favor a flat tax. For most of my working life, I paid around 27-29%.

Rev BS

07-24-13, 05:54

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;434674]

One reason why I think Obama is evil>
"Indeed, the scary part is that Detroit is what Obama
wants to fundamentally transform America into: a place
where wealth is redistributed, not created, and where
government picks winners and losers in an economy in
which we all ultimately lose."

A quote from:
http://news.investors.com/print/ibd-editorials/071913-664483-detroit-bankruptcy-caused-by-unions-government.aspx

How about citing your quote and I never heard of Tavis Smiley. Cheney has nothing to do with my opinion of Obama.
Don B

About your psychological make-up. Forget about Tavis Smiley, he is not worth your time. It is just to note you are not the only one Obama is making sucidal.

Back to point #1, so Detroit went bankrupt because of Obama? In that same vein, 9-11 was Bush's fault. That is your premise? Yeah, right. Wish they would have lined up all those bankers in front of a firing squad.

Tres3

07-24-13, 10:30

It people with high incomes were being taxed at close to 50% once upon a time. You are wrong. At one time people with high incomes were being taxed at a 90% marginal rate.

Tres3

Rev BS

07-24-13, 11:18

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;434721]It people with high incomes were being taxed at close to 50% once upon a time.
[QUOTE]

You are wrong. At one time people with high incomes were being taxed at a 90% marginal rate.

Tres3

Thanks, I am just a youngster, I don't go that far back.

Esten

07-24-13, 11:25

There is a great difference between individuals voluntarily offering assistance to others and “government” forcing individuals to pay for assistance the “government” deems necessary, so your parable falls a bit flat.Slippery like an eel, trying to change the subject from tax cuts to taxes.

Just like with the umbrella, the Bush Tax Cuts and their extension were provided and accepted without force, at least for people who want tax cuts. In your case Doppel, the extension over 2011-12, along with the payroll tax holiday, saved you approximately $19,400 compared to what you would have paid without Obama's legislation.

How about acknowledging, yes you appreciate that Obama did that.

Member #4112

07-24-13, 11:50

It was in the 50's and 60's we had rates that high and it was John Kennedy who reduced them.

Obama is not necessarily evil but believes the United States is too powerful and should be "equal with other nations" and not superior to them. He likes the European model as a way to put the United States in our "place".

While Obama is not responsible for Detroit going into bankruptcy, Detroit is a classic case demonstrating what Obama's dream for America will be.

Obama reminds me a lot of Chauncey Gardner from Being There.

Tres3

07-24-13, 12:52

[QUOTE=Tres3;434724][QUOTE=BlackShirt;434721]It people with high incomes were being taxed at close to 50% once upon a time.

Thanks, I am just a youngster, I don't go that far back.

I guess I am guilty of showing my age. Ugh! At least back then I was young enough and did not earn enough to pay the 90% rate.

Tres3

Tiny12

07-24-13, 13:14

It seems you are hurting real bad, tell us what is was like under Clinton, then Bush. Or even before that. If you are at that level of taxation, you are not hurting for your basic needs? Or are you? I may be wrong, but people with high incomes were being taxed at close to 50% once upon a time. Tax shelters galore sprang up. So, enlighten us who are not in your oxygen deprived orbit.

By the way, I favor a flat tax. For most of my working life, I paid around 27-29%.Apparently this parable stuff Esten started doesn't work worth a crap, because your conclusion is the same as mine. When the marginal federal + state income tax rate on small business is 50%, like it is now, or 90% or whatever, money is channeled from its most productive uses into things like tax shelters. The marginal tax rate on large U.S. corporations is around 40%, depending on the state, but they on average actually only pay 16%. That's because they have armies of tax attorneys and accountants and lobbyists. I guess it's good they do since the US corporate rate is the highest in the world and otherwise they couldn't compete. But how does small business, the engine of American entrepenuership, compete with that, without the legions of lawyers and lobbyists? Your flat tax solution sounds good to me.

Rev BS

07-24-13, 17:17

Apparently this parable stuff Esten started doesn't work worth a crap, because your conclusion is the same as mine. When the marginal federal + state income tax rate on small business is 50%, like it is now, or 90% or whatever, money is channeled from its most productive uses into things like tax shelters. The marginal tax rate on large U.S. corporations is around 40%, depending on the state, but they on average actually only pay 16%. That's because they have armies of tax attorneys and accountants and lobbyists. I guess it's good they do since the US corporate rate is the highest in the world and otherwise they couldn't compete. But how does small business, the engine of American entrepenuership, compete with that, without the legions of lawyers and lobbyists? Your flat tax solution sounds good to me.As Tres3 pointed out, at an earlier point, it is possible you were paying even more taxes. Yet America and you were able to thrive and be successful. And the prosperity of America was the resultant middle class that is the envy of the world. Now that world is shrinking. So you want to blame Obama, fine. He is not perfect, he is not the Messiah. I do not agree with all his policies. But he is just trying his best, and not too many people want to help him. They only want to benefit themselves. He is not trying to destroy America, Americans are destroying themselves quite well, thank you.

But what I don't get is that intensity of hate that to me is so unjustified & unreal. So much so, he has been called Evil, Communist, Racist, Muslim and more. Yet the same people are doing well, have more than enough for a good life, and is not hurting. Amazing. I don't want to dig too deep here, it might reveal some real ugliness.

Member #4112

07-24-13, 17:49

Slippery like an eel, trying to change the subject from tax cuts to taxes.

Just like with the umbrella, the Bush Tax Cuts and their extension were provided and accepted without force, at least for people who want tax cuts. In your case Doppel, the extension over 2011-12, along with the payroll tax holiday, saved you approximately $19,400 compared to what you would have paid without Obama's legislation.

How about acknowledging, yes you appreciate that Obama did that.Esten, you sound like a broken record.

I'm wasting my breath / typing on a person who deems maintaining current tax rates is a "cut".

As I have already demonstrated your $19+K number is total BS.

With your boy bouncing from scandal to scandal I guess this is the best you've got.

Tres3

07-24-13, 18:45

Tiny12

07-24-13, 20:02

As Tres3 pointed out, at an earlier point, it is possible you were paying even more taxes. Yet America and you were able to thrive and be successful. And the prosperity of America was the resultant middle class that is the envy of the world. Now that world is shrinking. So you want to blame Obama, fine. He is not perfect, he is not the Messiah. I do not agree with all his policies. But he is just trying his best, and not too many people want to help him. They only want to benefit themselves. He is not trying to destroy America, Americans are destroying themselves quite well, thank you.

But what I don't get is that intensity of hate that to me is so unjustified & unreal. So much so, he has been called Evil, Communist, Racist, Muslim and more. Yet the same people are doing well, have more than enough for a good life, and is not hurting. Amazing. I don't want to dig too deep here, it might reveal some real ugliness.Tres, Unbelievable. Now I'm a racist. I'm no defender of Bush, he's the second or third worst US President during my adult life. But you don't think those on the left came after him every bit as hard as those on the right have gone after Obama? So why didn't you vote for Obama? Maybe you're a racist too?

Black Shirt, Now thanks to Obama I will pay less in taxes, because I'm not working. Why work 12 hours a day and reinvest in my business when 50% of my incremental income goes to the federal and state governments. Plus 40% of what I own when I die plus 8% of what I purchase plus 2-1/2% per year of the value of any real estate I own. The effective tax rate on my income is however now approximately 20% higher than it was under any previous president. I actually don't begrudge state and local governments getting their take, because they provide value for the money. Nor do I think Clinton was a bad president. Yes he raised the federal marginal rate to 39.6% (versus 43.4% now). However he balanced the budget, unlike Obama who has flushed massive quantities of money down the toilet.

There's no point in arguing, you believe Singapore is a basket case while I perceive it as an economic miracle. I don't think Obama or you are evil. You both exhibit smug, misplaced moral superiority because you think you're right and you think people like me are greedy. I'm tempted to say in another time you and he would be happy fellow travelers, following in the footsteps of other Bolsheviks and Maoists. But it's really a matter of degree. You and Obama actually are more like left of center Europeans, and your policies fortunately would just result in economic stagnation, not starvation.

Rev BS

07-24-13, 22:52

There's no point in arguing, you believe Singapore is a basket case while I perceive it as an economic miracle. I don't think Obama or you are evil. You both exhibit smug, misplaced moral superiority because you think you're right and you think people like me are greedy. I'm tempted to say in another time you and he would be happy fellow travelers, following in the footsteps of other Bolsheviks and Maoists. But it's really a matter of degree. You and Obama actually are more like left of center Europeans, and your policies fortunately would just result in economic stagnation, not starvation.America is about diversity, but we are so fragmented today. There is so much mistrust, even hatred. The misunderstanding between you & me can easily be taken care of over a cup of coffee.

Greed is a component we meet every day, more often than not, I am greedy myself. Like cholesterol, there is good greed and bad greed. I would say, 99% of our actions & thoughts are based on self benefit and greed. So I think the biggest issue with you & Obama is "distribution of wealth". Here in Bangkok, when Thais get together, and when the bill gets a little excessive, the better-off people would take care of the larger portion of the bill. Nothing has to be said, no face is left a little red. When we come to Americans, well, end of story.

Singapore, of course, is a miracle story. Once upon a time in a gone-forever Singapore, I lived in a house with no flushing toilet, electricity, paved road, garbage collection, not to mention, money. I looked upon this time with fondness and nostalgia, life was so simple. And now walking down bustling Orchard Road, as I said before, the only thing left in Singapore to do for free, is fart.

And so, our debate is not about our ability to solve any issue, it is to create dialogue that can show that we have more in common than otherwise.

Esten

07-24-13, 23:22

I'm wasting my breath / typing on a person who deems maintaining current tax rates is a "cut".I love this topic Doppel. It's the perfect example of Republican bullshit! How small business owners like yourself actually benefitted from Obama's tax legislation.

Forget about semantics and definitions of "tax cuts". Just tell us this: How much more in taxes would you have paid over 2011-12 without the legislation Obama signed?

Esten

07-25-13, 00:47

He wants to screw over the successful small businessman, Yeah, I guess that's why Obama signed legislation that saved small businessmen like Doppel tens of thousands of dollars.

Thank you President Obama. Thank you for taxing my income at 43.4%. While I also pay state and local taxes amounting to an additional 15% of my income, the federal taxes warm my heart, because I'm giving and receiving nothing in return. This has caused me to achieve true enlightenment. Thank you for all the government forms that I enjoy filling out. Thank you for the tens of thousands of pages of federal regulations and laws, especially the senseless ones and the ones that can send me away to jail for a year or two if I don't know about them, for they keep me excited and at my sharpest. Thank you dear President, for you bend me over and you fuck me in the ass, and I love you for it. Tiny sounds more like Whiny.

The 43.4% figure is presumably from adding the 39.6% top income tax rate to the 3.8% Medicare surtax on investment income in PPACA. But these rates don't kick in until 400K and 200K, respectively. Also, these are different types of income. While the incomes are combined to determine if the surtax applies, the tax rates are not additive. For example the top dividend tax rate is 20%; adding the 3.8% surtax (for high incomes only) gives a top rate of 23.8%.

Tiny, could you please explain how you pay a 43.4% tax rate. Thanks

Esten

07-25-13, 00:57

Your know the jihadists dosn't need much to get stirred up. Just mentioned America, and the froth & hate starts to flow. So it is with the name Obama, it unleashes name-calling like Evil and Satan. Notice the similarities.It's called Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS).

Member #4112

07-25-13, 09:41

I agree with Esten regarding Obama Derangement Syndrome except I would submit it is the liberal state of mind calling black white, no change in rates a "cut" or "saved from a raise" and ignoring true economic facts.

Quite frankly Esten, Obama did not save me a dime. When taken in total his polices and regulations were more costly and reduced the bottom line of many of my clients as well as my own. Sorry Esten, just because you keep saying it does not make it true. You simply don't know what you are talking about.

I have a great idea Esten, as you seem to be so tuned in on everyone's financial status why don't you publish your financials, full tax return with all schedules and supplements, as well as you CV to show us what a great guy you are and the depth of your infinite knowledge so we may all tremble before your great intellect?

By the way your boy sounded really whiny yesterday trotting out all the same old campaign slogans and again blaming Bush.

Esten

07-27-13, 02:50

All your Obama blame is getting real tired, Doppel. Like we can believe a Serial Obama Denigrator will give a fair assessment of Obama's impact on their business. Right! LOL You simply don't have much credibility here, Doppel. I suggest you look deeper into how other factors, including capitalism itself, have affected small business in the US. Here's some more reading.

Obama's 18 small business tax cuts - explained
http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/24/smallbusiness/obama-tax-cuts/index.html

Here's what we know about Doppel:
He's failed to provide a concrete example of how Obama hurt his business.
He's provided information that allows a calculation of saving approximately $19,400 in his taxes over 2011-12, due to tax legislation Obama signed.

Doppel would like to hide behind the facade of "My business is too complicated for you to understand, take my word for it." But an income and payroll tax calculation is a simple matter of multiplication. His lack of appreciation for the help he has received is astounding.

Esten

07-27-13, 03:02

Here's an example of how capitalism hurts small business.

New Study: Wal-Mart Means Fewer Jobs, Less Small Businesses, More Burden on Taxpayers
http://pubadvocate.nyc.gov/news/2011-01-11/new-study-wal-mart-means-fewer-jobs-less-small-businesses-more-burden-taxpayers

Some interesting findings:
- Wal-Mart store openings kill three local jobs for every two they create by reducing retail employment by an average of 2.7 percent in every county they enter.
- Chain stores, like Wal-Mart send most of their revenues out of the community, while local businesses keep more consumer dollars in local economy: for every $100 spent in locally owned businesses, $68 stayed in the local economy while chain stores only left $43 to re-circulate locally.

Member #4112

07-27-13, 13:11

Here's what we know about Doppel:
He's failed to provide a concrete example of how Obama hurt his business.
He's provided information that allows a calculation of saving approximately $19,400 in his taxes over 2011-12, due to tax legislation Obama signed.

Doppel would like to hide behind the facade of "My business is too complicated for you to understand, take my word for it." But an income and payroll tax calculation is a simple matter of multiplication. His lack of appreciation for the help he has received is astounding.Don't you ever get tired of being wrong Esten?

First your calculations are wrong, remember the $200 K break point? Second, just because you plug a percentage into a number does not make your answer correct or even relevant. I never said my financials were too complicated, I said you don't know what you are talking about since you don't even know what they are.

I could say Esten save $100 K under Obama's "tax cuts" in addition to another $100 K in direct government benefits. But that does not make the statement true as I have no real information about Esten. Even if the $250 K number were still accurate, you don't know the composition or source of the funds.

Esten, you are like the child who asks the same stupid question over and over. Go stand in the corner, your in time out.

As far as Wal-Mart and mom & pop businesses, Wal-Mart delivers more products at lower cost than their competition that's just the way it is unless your a liberal and want to control everything for everyone's "best interest". I think we are back at the "Liberal Elite" discussion.

What out of the corner already?

Rev BS

07-30-13, 19:55

Obama met with Hilary Clinton for lunch, and the begging question is, did they talk about 2016? Now, you can draw your own conclusions. But like an athlete aiming for the Olympics, you really need to start your preparations early. Physically, which she is doing right by resigning that exhaustive job of Secretary of State. And then doing the rounds of maintaining her profile in the public eye, being current and relevant, and integrating among the adoring faithful supporters and donors. Perhaps, another book? Her ambition to be president is quite extraordinary, the knocks and sacrifices that she has taken in the personal and public arenas is no less than many Olympic gold medal winners.

Will she be a formidable candidate? I think I can hear the knees knocking and trembling already across the aisle. Young gunslingers like Rubio & Cruz might think they are the fastest guns in the west, but will they survive High Noon. With Bill Clinton hovering by her side, she could win with Barbara Streisand as her VP. Or maybe, by then, Sarah Palin might have switch sides.

Member #4112

07-30-13, 23:06

BlackShirt, Bill Clinton as "first lady" is to horrible to even think about. Running around the White House feeling up the female staff and "starching" their clothing for them.

They would need to replace the desk chair in the oval office for a double wide as well.

I think if the Republican's can come up with a young viable candidate it should be an interesting election cycle which the Republican's should win. Obama will be leaving such a mess by the end of his term folks will be looking for leadership and let's face it Hillary and Bill by then will be has beens, I hope.

Never under estimate Hillary, but she was the anointed one for the 2008 election and got her ass kicked by a young upstart with little experience and a slick tongue. Democrats are not very forgiving of losers, so we will see.

WorldTravel69

08-02-13, 16:11

An interesting article on Lifesaving options.

Rev BS

08-03-13, 08:10

Member #4112

08-03-13, 10:06

Black Shirt, be careful what you wish for. You might get it. Since Obama took office the number of unemployed has skyrocketed, the number of people on Food Stamps has skyrocketed, the number of people on Welfare has increased considerably and now we want Government HealthCare ie ObamaCare.

Any person who believes he will be better off and prosper with the government taking care of him should take a good look at the last group of people the government "took care of", Native Americans.

Nuf said.

WorldTravel69

08-03-13, 12:08

Don't you love all those Indian Casinos?

The unemployment started under Bush.

Oh, how we forget!

Black Shirt, be careful what you wish for. You might get it. Since Obama took office the number of unemployed has skyrocketed, the number of people on Food Stamps has skyrocketed, the number of people on Welfare has increased considerably and now we want Government HealthCare ie ObamaCare.

Any person who believes he will be better off and prosper with the government taking care of him should take a good look at the last group of people the government "took care of", Native Americans.

Nuf said.

Spirit Rider

08-03-13, 12:09

And finally, we have come to the edge of the cliff, and desperation is setting in upon the opponents of ObamaCare. Not too different to the Civil Rights of 1964. We have a core of people who will have to be drag screaming and kicking into an new era. I often wonder how the Chinese Cultural Revolution can distort & controlled the mindset of what seem to normal and reasonable people. And here we are in 2013, history repeats itself.

Is ObamaCare perfect, no. Of course, it can be improve as the system work it's kinks out. Did Obama took advantage of Congress to pass the law, of course, he is not stupid! I am just watching Hannity on Fox, and the ranting and claims are just outrageous. Most of the audience seem to be educated, have full time jobs, or within Medicare in the near future. I don't think any of them are even going to be affected, they will be cover by their jobs or even able to afford to buy individually. I see irrational fear among the audience, 90% of them, Whites. Hannity, the shameless manipulator of disinformation and fear while raking in the millions. Only in America.Actually, VERY different from the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was passed as a bipartisan measure with 80% Republican support. Medicare is a much better analogy and it to was a bipartisan measure with 50% Republican support and support of a sound majority of the American public.

ObamaCare was a rabidly partisan measure that had absolutely 0% Republican support and lacked the support of the American people. Today, it continues to be opposed by an overwhelming majority of the American people. The last CBS News poll show Americans oppose ObamaCare 54% to 36%.

You obviously haven't been paying attention to the catastrophic disruptions that have been occurring. Companies left and right (including liberal governments and universities) have been changing jobs to part-time are reducing all part-time jobs to below 30 hours. We haven't even begun to see the effects of increased mandates that will sky-rocket company's insurance premiums. Many companies will seriously look to drop insurance and pay the penalties.

Rev BS

08-03-13, 17:31

Actually, VERY different from the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was passed as a bipartisan measure with 80% Republican support. Medicare is a much better analogy and it to was a bipartisan measure with 50% Republican support and support of a sound majority of the American public.

ObamaCare was a rabidly partisan measure that had absolutely 0% Republican support and lacked the support of the American people. Today, it continues to be opposed by an overwhelming majority of the American people. The last CBS News poll show Americans oppose ObamaCare 54% to 36%.

You obviously haven't been paying attention to the catastrophic disruptions that have been occurring. Companies left and right (including liberal governments and universities) have been changing jobs to part-time are reducing all part-time jobs to below 30 hours. We haven't even begun to see the effects of increased mandates that will sky-rocket company's insurance premiums. Many companies will seriously look to drop insurance and pay the penalties.Yet, you could be wrong. Nobody really knows. Too much shouting and fear-mongering to allow for a good debate. Most people agree we need medical reform, but there has been zero initiatives from across the aisle. 70% of bankruptcies comes from medical outcomes. So we know we have a broken system. Vested interests have strong-arm Congress into inaction. But most opposition have come because it is an Obama plan, that's it. They are so afraid of him achieving any kind of success. Very sad.

I happen to have one of the best medical coverage but I never get to use it as I live overseas. $5 co-pay for all visits, procedures, prescription, etc. Been paying out of pocket for minor problems and dental work. All I can say, it must be scary feeling not to have any insurance.

TejanoLibre

08-03-13, 18:05

WorldTravel69

08-03-13, 18:09

20 Republicans voted for it.

http://www.senateconservatives.com/site/post/2021/20-republicans-vote-to-fund-obamacare

Actually, VERY different from the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was passed as a bipartisan measure with 80% Republican support. Medicare is a much better analogy and it to was a bipartisan measure with 50% Republican support and support of a sound majority of the American public.

ObamaCare was a rabidly partisan measure that had absolutely 0% Republican support and lacked the support of the American people. Today, it continues to be opposed by an overwhelming majority of the American people. The last CBS News poll show Americans oppose ObamaCare 54% to 36%.

You obviously haven't been paying attention to the catastrophic disruptions that have been occurring. Companies left and right (including liberal governments and universities) have been changing jobs to part-time are reducing all part-time jobs to below 30 hours. We haven't even begun to see the effects of increased mandates that will sky-rocket company's insurance premiums. Many companies will seriously look to drop insurance and pay the penalties.

Esten

08-03-13, 19:02

Republicans still ranting about the Affordable Care Act, voting on one symbolic repeal bill after another. What a waste, but that's what the Republican Party largely is today.

The ACA is a great step forward for US Health Care. Obama ran on health care reform and he delivered. Support for ACA was pretty evenly split at the time, with some opposed in fact wanting the legislation to do more. The lack of bipartisan support means absolutely nothing, zero, because it's well-known that from the moment Obama was elected, Republicans strategized to oppose him. That continues today, there have been several examples where Republicans voted against Obama, not so much because they disagreed, but because they feared giving him a win. The ACA is actually based on a Conservative vision of health care reform, where more people have to pay their way rather than freeload off the system. Republican voters overwhelmingly support many key provisions in ACA. While there are likely to be some legitimate negative effects for some people, this is likely to be limited in scope. And dwarfed by the benefits. Remember how Darden's experiment to cut worker hours failed. Those employers who fail to provide good health insurance options for their workers will be at a competitive disadvantage. The market works both ways. While Republicans keep their myopic focus on every little negative angle they can find, keep in mind the many positive things about ACA.

- Millions more Americans will have health insurance.
- Insurance companies can no longer impose lifetime coverage limits on your insurance.
- Insurance companies will have limitations on annual caps.
- Insurers can no longer tell kids with preexisting conditions that they'll insure them except for the preexisting condition.
- Insurance companies can't drop you when you get sick.
- You can stay on your parents' insurance until you're 26.
- Seniors get $250 towards closing the "doughnut hole" in their prescription drug coverage.
- No more co-pays for preventative services in Medicare.
- Small businesses get big tax credits—up to 50 percent of premium costs—for offering health insurance to their workers.
- Insurers with unusually high administrative costs have to offer rebates to their customers, and every insurance company has to reveal how much it spends on overhead.

Esten

08-03-13, 19:10

I am just watching Hannity on Fox, and the ranting and claims are just outrageous. Most of the audience seem to be educated, have full time jobs, or within Medicare in the near future. I don't think any of them are even going to be affected, they will be cover by their jobs or even able to afford to buy individually. I see irrational fear among the audience, 90% of them, Whites. Hannity, the shameless manipulator of disinformation and fear while raking in the millions. Only in America.You got that 1000% correct! Hannity is an entertainer on Faux News, nothing else.

Punter 127

08-03-13, 19:15

Don't you love all those Indian Casinos?

The unemployment started under Bush.

Oh, how we forget!Did you forget the "Prince of Hopenchange" was supposed to fix the unemployment problem? Who knew his plan was to shrink the workforce?

Punter 127

08-03-13, 19:26

All Aboard for the Obamacare Train Wreck

- Millions more Americans will have health insurance.
- Insurance companies can no longer impose lifetime coverage limits on your insurance.
- Insurance companies will have limitations on annual caps.
- Insurers can no longer tell kids with preexisting conditions that they'll insure them except for the preexisting condition.
- Insurance companies can't drop you when you get sick.
- You can stay on your parents' insurance until you're 26.
- Seniors get $250 towards closing the "doughnut hole" in their prescription drug coverage.
- No more co-pays for preventative services in Medicare.
- Small businesses get big tax credits—up to 50 percent of premium costs—for offering health insurance to their workers.
- Insurers with unusually high administrative costs have to offer rebates to their customers, and every insurance company has to reveal how much it spends on overhead.Montana Senator Max Baucus, who led the effort in Congress to pass Obamacare, is now referring to it as a "coming train wreck".

Whom to believe?

Jackson

08-03-13, 20:03

I am just watching Hannity on Fox, and the ranting and claims are just outrageous...Hannity, the shameless manipulator of disinformation and fear while raking in the millions. Only in America.I agree, which is why I don't watch Hannity.

However, your description also applies to a lot of liberal leftists out there, i.e.

I am just watching Hannity Al Sharpton on Fox MSNBC, and the ranting and claims are just outrageous...Hannity Al Sharpton, the shameless manipulator of disinformation and fear while raking in the millions. Only in America.

Jackson

08-03-13, 20:07

Obama ran on health care reform and he delivered.Really? Because during his 1st presidential campaign I don't remember him even mentioning that he was going to completely rework the country's health care system once in office.

Esten

08-03-13, 21:28

Really? Because during his 1st presidential campaign I don't remember him even mentioning that he was going to completely rework the country's health care system once in office.Obama supported universal coverage, uniform national rules, and expanding employer's role in providing health benefits. Maybe you missed it. It's not a complete re-work because it's still based on private insurance, Medicaid and Medicare.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/Fund-Reports/2008/Oct/The-2008-Presidential-Candidates-Health-Reform-Proposals--Choices-for-America.aspx

BTW, kudos on not watching Hannity. And I mostly agree with you about Sharpton.

Montana Senator Max Baucus, who led the effort in Congress to pass Obamacare, is now referring to it as a "coming train wreck".

Whom to believe?Not folks like Hannity and Punter, that's for sure. Both use misapplied quotes to spread deception. The context of Baucus' quote was in the funding shortfall (due to Republicans) to promote awareness during implementation. Not the bill itself. Sibelius is pursuing an alternate route for this funding.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/05/24/the_secret_history_of_max_baucus_s_train_wreck_quote.html

Member #4112

08-03-13, 21:54

WT69, are you really going to stand there and tell me because a few tribes have casinos the Native American population has prospered under the benevolent care of the Federal Government? Have you ever visited a reservation and I don't mean the casino?

WT69, lets not be disingenuous, 0 Republicans in either the House or the Senate voted for ObamaCare when it passed in both chambers. The vote you refer to was in 2013 regarding funding and NOT the original bill.

Black Shirt, where did you get the idea that 70% of bankruptcies were caused by healthcare coverage. I would like to see some supporting data. I never heard of that as a cause for filing for bankruptcy protection. Normally it is under capitalization.

Esten, your boy has reduced unemployment from 7.6% to 7.4% in July by creating 168,000 jobs, of course what he did not mention was 986,000 people dropped out of the labor pool because they could not find a job. What a great guy Obama is. The only reason the unemployment rate went down was not because the economy is improving but because of the number of people unable to find a job and dropping out of the workforce. Might explain the increase in welfare and food stamps. Yep, get them out of a job and on the federal plantation.

By the way 100% of employee healthcare costs to small business is currently deductible. Wow what a guy he is going to CUT small business to only 50%.

ObamaCare will never work for one simple reason. Young people are not going to purchase healthcare insurance with the new higher premiums to underwrite older people's health care costs. This is a cost shifting scheme which will not work. Not to mention the IRS will simply not have the ability to track down and collect the penalty from all those younger folks. So where is all the funding going to come from and they cut one funding mechanism for this monster after another?

Many companies have successfully cut working hours to the 30 hour limit. Liberal's seem to forget, companies are not like the government, when they run out of money they go out of business, while when the government runs out it just prints more.

I thank when the new IRS chief stands before the House sub-committee and says thanks but no thanks I'll keep my government plan rather than go on ObamaCare for myself and my employees pretty much says it all.

FYI, Esten & Black Shirt, have you noticed federal employees are not going to be affected by ObamaCare, they get to keep their federal healthcare plan. It is only the dumb masses who get it shoved down their throats, while the liberal favorites get waivers.

If ObamaCare is good enough for the every day citizen then it's good enough for everyone, federal employees, The House, The Senate and the Prez, NO WAIVERS.

Punter 127

08-03-13, 22:05

Not folks like Hannity and Punter, that's for sure. Both use misapplied quotes to spread deception. The context of Baucus' quote was in the funding shortfall (due to Republicans) to promote awareness during implementation. Not the bill itself. Sibelius is pursuing an alternate route for this funding.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/05/24/the_secret_history_of_max_baucus_s_train_wreck_quote.htmlThe reason is irrelevant, a train wreck is still a train wreck.

http://townhall.com/columnists/davidspady/2013/08/02/all-aboard-for-the-obamacare-train-wreck-n1655364

Rev BS

08-04-13, 00:00

Black Shirt, where did you get the idea that 70% of bankruptcies were caused by healthcare coverage. I would like to see some supporting data. I never heard of that as a cause for filing for bankruptcy protection. Normally it is under capitalization.

FYI, Esten & Black Shirt, have you noticed federal employees are not going to be affected by ObamaCare, they get to keep their federal healthcare plan. It is only the dumb masses who get it shoved down their throats, while the liberal favorites get waivers.

If ObamaCare is good enough for the every day citizen then it's good enough for everyone, federal employees, The House, The Senate and the Prez, NO WAIVERS.The 70%, I can't seem to track it down. But a study released in 2007 by a joint study by Harvard Law & Medical Schools, reported 62.1 of bankruptcies were medically related. Just google it. Many credit card bankruptcies are actually people maxing out their credit cards for medical reasons.

I agree with your other points, but it is abuse that BOTH sides are responsible.

In general, my opinion and my experience is that society in America has gone from a being generous, big hearted and friendly to one where people have become fearful, distrustful, and selfish. This is where the self destruction begins as families and communities have become divisive and dysfunctional. It may be that it is a natural self-inflicted evolutionary cycle. And like any type of healing process, nothing can get going until the victim (us) is willing to admit that they are sick and needs help. And ObamaCare is a good example of where we are at this point. We have a serious problem, we are sick, everybody knows it, yet we can only shout and call each other names. At the core, we just don't want be be responsible for others, we don't want to share. People who are doing well pretends that there is only one world, theirs.

"Don't knock on my door, I don't want to be bother. Leave me alone, it's my money".

In Los Angeles, I live in a very nice upper middle-class neighborhood, Clean, quiet, beautiful landscape gardens, at least 2/3 cars in every garage. A wave from afar, a quick hello, when walking the dog. But you get the vibes, " I'm busy and I really don't have the time to know you well. I have everything I need, You have cancer, sorry, too bad but I have no time for your problems. No, I cannot walk your dog while you are away".

Where did we go wrong? A new kind of barbarian.

WorldTravel69

08-04-13, 11:53

I do not see a train wreck in Massachusetts.

So, why does their health care work for all?

The reason is irrelevant, a train wreck is still a train wreck.

http://townhall.com/columnists/davidspady/2013/08/02/all-aboard-for-the-obamacare-train-wreck-n1655364

Member #4112

08-04-13, 14:25

Black Shirt I agree there is plenty of blame to go around but I think the Dems / Liberals get more than half IMHO.

As far as what went wrong, it started when liberals wanted to have the government start taking care of people and removing those functions from the local folks. Of course when they did that they took the money as well as the control and pretty soon the people making the decisions regarding what "needed to be done" and who "needed help" was being made by people with no idea of what was really needed locally.

People at the local level, and I'm not talking about government at the local level, know what is needed better than some politician at the national level looking to fill his pockets, hand out favors and get re-elected.

The federal government needs to get our of "helping people" and turn it back over to the private sector. Term limits would be a great thing was well and a VAST REDUCTION in the federal government agencies as well. We don't need the Dept. Of Energy, Dept. Of Education, and only need a very scaled back version of the EPA just to start.

The era I grew up in we did not lock the doors to our homes when we left to go shopping; if you wanted the keys to the car they were either in the ignition or over the visor; we learned science, math and English in school; if you acted up in school you got paddled and when you got home it was even worse; we respected our elders; the use of curse words (this for Davie) were only spoken by low class people and if used in polite company you could get smacked; and I was fourteen years old before I realized damn yankee was two words. The churches, charities and shelters took care of the indigent and there were not nearly as many as today. We had lazy bums back then not "misunderstood" or "challenged" people. If you did not work there was something wrong with you unless you were old enough to retire. It was very different back then, even Jack Kennedy told the nation "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country". Times have changed and not for the better.

Member #4112

08-04-13, 14:29

I do not see a train wreck in Massachusetts.

So, why does their health care work for all?WT, first of all take a look at the increase in cost for healthcare which is being paid and not everyone has health insurance in the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts.

Don B

08-04-13, 15:32

Esten

08-04-13, 16:53

The federal government needs to get our of "helping people" and turn it back over to the private sector. In healthcare, the private sector has come up short. It leaves tens of millions uninsured because they can't afford health insurance, and shuts out people with pre-existing conditions. Millions of Americans go bankrupt trying to pay their medical bills.

Where is the logic in keeping a system where we wait until people have medical emergencies, and then need costly interventions that cost taxpayers $$$$$.

Member #4112

08-04-13, 21:08

In healthcare, the private sector has come up short. It leaves tens of millions uninsured because they can't afford health insurance, and shuts out people with pre-existing conditions. Millions of Americans go bankrupt trying to pay their medical bills.

Where is the logic in keeping a system where we wait until people have medical emergencies, and then need costly interventions that cost taxpayers $$$$$.Esten, you make my point for me in such elegant terms.

Under ObamaCare millions will still be without "affordable" healthcare. Affordable for whom? It is not going to be "affordable" for those younger Americans whose insurance premiums will rise in some cases 300%. How exactly is it the Federal Government's place to decide what is "affordable" or the Federal Government's place to intervene when people place themselves in bankruptcy for failing to adequately prepare. What's next, you spend more than you earn and declare bankruptcy and now it's the Fed's "duty" come rescue you. Every heard the term personal responsibility? Funny I never saw anything in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States or in the Bill of Rights guaranteeing healthcare much less "affordable" healthcare to the populace.

Time for the history lesson AGAIN:

Esten, the private system was working fine until the mid to late 1960's when the federal government involved itself in healthcare with the advent of Medicare and Medicaid.

At the time we had a three tier healthcare delivery system:

Physician offices and small clinics were the first or primary tier and the least expensive level of care for common problems.

Community hospitals and large clinics were the second or secondary tier providing services for more serious injuries require surgery or more advanced treatment or intervention, while not as inexpensive as the first tier still within the budget of most people at the time.

Large hospitals, university hospitals and teaching hospitals were the third or tertiary tier providing the most advance care and at the greatest cost.

Enter the all-knowing, all-seeing federal government, to wit Medicare and Medicaid, ivory tower types decided it was less expensive to provide services in rural settings than more urban settings and discounted payments by these federal systems accordingly. For some strange reason they thought the cost of a syringe, bandage, iodine, and other normal supplies cost less to purchase from the same vendors in an rural setting than an urban setting which was totally false. They were not as all-knowing as his majesty Obama I guess.

The result of this error was the near total destruction of the first two tiers of medical service delivery, which left only the third tier for delivery of all services which was the most expensive level of care.

The federal folks finally figured out they had made an error in reimbursement policy but about 5 years too late.

Esten, it's not the government's responsibility to provide "affordable healthcare" or any healthcare, except for those in the service who the fed directly employs. The fed is the reason we have the problem we have now. It is impossible to provide the level of healthcare the liberals want to every American, not withstanding those who refuse care, at a cost which will not bankrupt the nation.

If you can afford it then you can have it, if you can't you don't. The federal government has no business in healthcare. Time to get back to the thing which built this country - self reliance and personal responsibility. I have no wish to live in the Peoples Republic of American.

Punter 127

08-05-13, 00:49

'Cheapest' ObamaCare Plans Aren't So Cheap After All

http://news.investors.com/politics/080213-666235-cheap-obamacare-twice-as-costly-as-existing-plans.htm

Did someone say “Affordable Care Act”.

WorldTravel69

08-05-13, 02:32

They costs Came in Lower than what was predicted.

What right wing shit are you reading?

FOX!

California is already Set Up!

The States that are using S.S., the most don't Want It.

WFT!

http://news.investors.com/politics/080213-666235-cheap-obamacare-twice-as-costly-as-existing-plans.htm

Did someone say “Affordable Care Act”.

WorldTravel69

08-05-13, 02:41

Here are few laws they are trying to pass in the Worst Congress' History.

Punter 127

08-05-13, 11:49

http://news.investors.com/politics/080213-666235-cheap-obamacare-twice-as-costly-as-existing-plans.htm

Did someone say “Affordable Care Act”.

They costs Came in Lower than what was predicted.

What right wing shit are you reading?

FOX!

California is already Set Up!

The States that are using S.S., the most don't Want It.

WFT!Did you even read it? The link is an INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY editorial, not Fox. I ask you before and I'll ask you again, what's wrong with Fox News? Isn't Fox still the #1 rated cable news channel?

Have we reached a point where I need to request a list of approved reading comrade?

Esten

08-05-13, 11:51

Esten, the private system was working fine until the mid to late 1960's when the federal government involved itself in healthcare with the advent of Medicare and Medicaid.

At the time we had a three tier healthcare delivery system:

Physician offices and small clinics were the first or primary tier and the least expensive level of care for common problems.

The result of this error was the near total destruction of the first two tiers of medical service delivery, which left only the third tier for delivery of all services which was the most expensive level of care.Has anyone seen a doctor at a physician office or small clinic in the US?

According to Doppel, they've been pretty much wiped out.

Don B

08-05-13, 12:35

Did you even read it? The link is an INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY editorial, not Fox. I ask you before and I'll ask you again, what's wrong with Fox News? Isn't Fox still the #1 rated cable news channel?

Have we reached a point where I need to request a list of approved reading comrade?WT69. Did you read the link? Yes or no? If not why not? If yes what did you not understand?

What is your source of rebuttal?

Put up or shut up.

Don B.

Rev BS

08-05-13, 12:45

When health care in America started going corporate with the advent of Health Maintenance Organizations, the for-profit business model destroyed private practice in the traditional way. And the community based hospitals also came under more pressure financially. As I remembered it, starting in the 80's, there were a flurry of smaller hospitals closings or mergers. Hospital Administration became a real sought after college major. And so now, even if you love your doctor, you could not go to him as he might not be on your insurance carrier's list.

And thus the death of the private practitioner. No more house calls, no more bartering of payments. As Vegas would say, keep the slots ringing.

Rev BS

08-05-13, 12:50

Did you even read it? The link is an INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY editorial, not Fox. I ask you before and I'll ask you again, what's wrong with Fox News? Isn't Fox still the #1 rated cable news channel?

Have we reached a point where I need to request a list of approved reading comrade?Fox News is #1 in the same way that National Enquirer is #1 in the tabloid sensational gossipy print news. No, feel free to watch Fox, a lot of busty women presenters there, buttons bursting and low cleavage blouses.

Don B

08-05-13, 13:40

WorldTravel69

08-05-13, 13:48

And these also.

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-obamas-affordable-care-act-will-cost-consumers-2012-6

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/16/1224215/-Delaying-Affordable-Health-Care-Act-costs-lives#

http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/healthpolicy/calculator/

WT69. Did you read the link? Yes or no? If not why not? If yes what did you not understand?

What is your source of rebuttal?

Put up or shut up.

Don B.

Jackson

08-05-13, 15:07

Fox News is #1 in the same way that National Enquirer is #1 in the tabloid sensational gossipy print news. No, feel free to watch Fox, a lot of busty women presenters there, buttons bursting and low cleavage blouses.Read'em and weap.

Same Day Cable News Daily Ratings for Thursday, August 1, 2013.
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2013/08/02/cable-news-ratings-for-thursday-august-1-2013/195240/

Ratings up for Fox News, CNN and HLN and down for MSNBC.
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jul/02/entertainment/la-et-ct-cable-news-ratings-20130702

Fox News Crushes MSNBC in Ratings During Zimmerman Trial Verdict.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/danieldoherty/2013/07/15/fox-news-crushes-msnbc-in-ratings-during-zimmerman-verdict-n1641058

Cable News Ratings: Rachel Maddow Sinks With MSNBC, CNN Rebounds, But Fox News Is Still Untouchable.
http://www.ibtimes.com/cable-news-ratings-rachel-maddow-sinks-msnbc-cnn-rebounds-fox-news-still-untouchable-1333745

Q2 2013 Ratings: Fox News #1 for 11 1/2 Years.
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/q2-2013-ratings-fox-news-1-for-11-12-years_b186570

Fox News Wins The George Zimmerman Verdict Ratings Battle.
http://www.businessinsider.com/george-zimmerman-not-guilty-verdict-ratings-fox-news-cnn-msnbc-2013-7

Don B

08-05-13, 16:39

Read'em and weap.

Same Day Cable News Daily Ratings for Thursday, August 1, 2013.
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2013/08/02/cable-news-ratings-for-thursday-august-1-2013/195240/

Ratings up for Fox News, CNN and HLN and down for MSNBC.
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jul/02/entertainment/la-et-ct-cable-news-ratings-20130702

Fox News Crushes MSNBC in Ratings During Zimmerman Trial Verdict.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/danieldoherty/2013/07/15/fox-news-crushes-msnbc-in-ratings-during-zimmerman-verdict-n1641058

Cable News Ratings: Rachel Maddow Sinks With MSNBC, CNN Rebounds, But Fox News Is Still Untouchable.
http://www.ibtimes.com/cable-news-ratings-rachel-maddow-sinks-msnbc-cnn-rebounds-fox-news-still-untouchable-1333745

Q2 2013 Ratings: Fox News #1 for 11 1/2 Years.
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/q2-2013-ratings-fox-news-1-for-11-12-years_b186570

Fox News Wins The George Zimmerman Verdict Ratings Battle.
http://www.businessinsider.com/george-zimmerman-not-guilty-verdict-ratings-fox-news-cnn-msnbc-2013-7

But wouldn't you rather watch Rachel Maddow than Megan Kelly?

Don B.

Artisttyp

08-05-13, 17:03

Meanwhile the DEA under the Obama Administration is raiding state approved Medical Marijuana Clinics throughout the nation.

Pluck Obama!

Punter 127

08-05-13, 17:42

No, feel free to watch Fox, a lot of busty women presenters there, buttons bursting and low cleavage blouses.If you don't like busty women in button bursting low cleavage blouses please feel free to watch (no cleavage, wish I had a penis) Rachel Maddow, and if you really want a thrill up your leg you can watch the Ed show. BTW It's easy to get Mr Ed and the Ed show mixed up, one was a talking horse, the other is a talking jackass.

Punter 127

08-05-13, 17:47

False Promises

"Obama drummed two unambiguous promises into the public consciousness: "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your current health insurance plan you can keep it." Without these two presidential pledges, Obama Care would have stood no chance." Nancy Pelosi's website is still telling these lies.

"Now anyone who calls for Obama Care's repeal is branded a right wing, wild-eyed partisan-obstructionist, not worthy of a second thought. However, if customers had bought a product under similar false assurances, they would be entitled under fraud laws to return it. Not so with Obama Care, claim its supporters.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2013/08/05/airbrushing-away-the-numerous-false-promises-of-obama-care/

WT 69 I'm still waiting for your answers to the Fox News questions.

WorldTravel69

08-05-13, 18:26

I don't like FOX because of their slanted (lies) views. And the lack of coverage.
Like this one:

http://www.policymic.com/articles/40811/13-benghazis-happened-under-president-bush-and-fox-news-said-nothing

Here is California's health care costs. The costs will be lower than now.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/23/california-health-insurance-premiums_n_3328110.html

Did you even read it? The link is an INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY editorial, not Fox.
I ask you before and I'll ask you again, what's wrong with Fox News? Isn't Fox still the #1 rated cable news channel?

Have we reached a point where I need to request a list of approved reading comrade?

Esten

08-05-13, 23:36

Fox "News" is popular mainly because it has a corner on the market for conservative views. If liberal and mainstream networks consolidated into one, that network would have much higher numbers too. Fox likes to tout they are the most trusted name in news, but what they don't tell you is they are also the least trusted.

Can Fox Be Both the Least Trusted Name in News, and the Most Trusted? Apparently, Yes
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/02/07/ppp_fox_news_poll_americans_viewing_habits_polarized_pbs_only_tv_source.html

Least Trusted News Outlet
ABC 5%
CBS 5%
CNN 13%
Comedy Central 12%
Fox 39%
MSNBC 14%
NBC 3%
PBS 1%
Someone else / Not sure 9%

Fox further ups its ratings by playing on base emotions. Attractive / sexy women, phony scandals, fake outrage, lies and wild accusations, etc. Real, balanced news just isn't as compelling. I watch/listen to Fox, but not because I think they are credible. I find them curiously entertaining, and enjoy following their efforts at mass programming, like a cult.

Esten

08-06-13, 00:09

Esten, it's not the government's responsibility to provide "affordable healthcare" or any healthcare, except for those in the service who the fed directly employs. The fed is the reason we have the problem we have now. It is impossible to provide the level of healthcare the liberals want to every American, not withstanding those who refuse care, at a cost which will not bankrupt the nation.

If you can afford it then you can have it, if you can't you don't. The federal government has no business in healthcare. Time to get back to the thing which built this country - self reliance and personal responsibility. I have no wish to live in the Peoples Republic of American.Wrong again. The role of the government is whatever the people decide. What part of that don't you understand? If the private sector cannot or will not address an important need, then the people still have a means via their government.

We can absolutely have a better healthcare system without bankrupting the nation. Not ideal, but better. The reason US healthcare costs are so high is because of the profit motive in capitalism. ACA takes a few reasonable measures to tackle this. Personal responsibility is good, but even the most responsible get sick, have accidents, are genetically pre-disposed to disease and need medical attention, including preventive care and counsel.

Along with your absurd claim that doctor offices and clinics have been nearly destroyed because of Medicare and Medicaid, you have pretty much cemented your reputation here as King of Crapola. You are blinded by your ideology to only see what you want to see.

Don B

08-06-13, 01:01

Wrong again. The role of the government is whatever the people decide. What part of that don't you understand? If the private sector cannot or will not address an important need, then the people still have a means via their government.

We can absolutely have a better healthcare system without bankrupting the nation. Not ideal, but better. The reason US healthcare costs are so high is because of the profit motive in capitalism. ACA takes a few reasonable measures to tackle this. Personal responsibility is good, but even the most responsible get sick, have accidents, are genetically pre-disposed to disease and need medical attention, including preventive care and counsel.

Along with your absurd claim that doctor offices and clinics have been nearly destroyed because of Medicare and Medicaid, you have pretty much cemented your reputation here as King of Crapola. You are blinded by your ideology to only see what you want to see."The role of the government is whatever the people decide.

This, like virtually everything Esten spews, is disgusting.

The only legitimate purpose of government is the protection of individual rights.

I have the right to live my life as I see fit as long as I don't infringe upon others' rights.

He claims others are blinded by their ideology, he is corrupted by his.

Intelligent discourse is impossible with his ilk.

From now on I am refraining from any and all discussions on this site that do not have to do with its primary purpose.

Don B.

Tiny12

08-06-13, 02:02

Real, balanced news just isn't as compelling. I watch/listen to Fox, but not because I think they are credible. I find them curiously entertaining, and enjoy following their efforts at mass programming, like a cult.

If you don't like busty women in button bursting low cleavage blouses please feel free to watch (no cleavage, wish I had a penis) Rachel Maddow, and if you really want a thrill up your leg you can watch the Ed show. BTW It's easy to get Mr Ed and the Ed show mixed up, one was a talking horse, the other is a talking jackass.Real, balanced news just isn't as compelling. I watch / listen to MSNBC, but not because I think they are credible. I find them curiously entertaining, and enjoy following their efforts at mass programming, like a cult. And Ed Shultz makes me really horny. I'm pissed they kicked him to the sidelines to showcase Chris Hayes. Nobody seems to appreciate a hot, older JAILF these days. For me he's particularly intriguing because my first exposure to sex was when my father took me to a donkey show in Nuevo Laredo when I was 8 years old. It must be something Freudian.

Member #4112

08-06-13, 11:26

Wrong again. The role of the government is whatever the people decide. .....

We can absolutely have a better healthcare system without bankrupting the nation......

Along with your absurd claim that doctor offices and clinics have been nearly destroyed because of Medicare and Medicaid, you have pretty much cemented your reputation here as King of Crapola. You are blinded by your ideology to only see what you want to see.Esten, according to your first statement ObamaCare should be repealed since the latest polls show over 50% of the people don't want it and only 36% of the people do.

Your response?

According to your second statement, I agree we could and at one time did have a better healthcare system until the government got involved, the answer is GET THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF HEALTHCARE.

Esten it is not a claim it is history. Do a little research and you will find what I described is exactly what happened. The primary and secondary providers are gone leaving us with only the tertiary level of medical care to deal will all healthcare problems at the most expensive level of cost.

Esten, according to you if the "people" want it then others can be FORCED against their volition to preform any service or deliver any good.

Perhaps you wish to live in the Peoples Republic of American but I prefer capitalism and the United States of America.

Jackson

08-06-13, 11:46

Wrong again. The role of the government is whatever the people decide.Wasn't that the creed for the Nazi Party?

The reason US healthcare costs are so high is because of the profit motive in capitalism.The only thing that costs more than "the profit motive in capitalism" is the "who gives a fuck, we can't be fired" motive in every government bureaucracy. It's just human nature, but as a "True Believer" you just don't get that, do you Esten?

Personal responsibility is good, but even the most responsible get sick, have accidents, are genetically pre-disposed to disease and need medical attention, including preventive care and counsel.Esten, when clear thinking individuals talk about "personal responsibility" in this regard, we're not talking about the personal responsibility to make healthy lifestyle choices and to try to avoid injuring oneself. What we're talking about is taking the personal responsibility to pay for your own fucking health insurance needs.

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

"Liberal solutions will always fail because they are based on fundamentally inaccurate models of human behavior."

WorldTravel69

08-06-13, 12:30

99% of the people wanted Gun background checks, what happened to that?

Esten, according to your first statement ObamaCare should be repealed since the latest polls show over 50% of the people don't want it and only 36% of the people do.

Your response?

According to your second statement, I agree we could and at one time did have a better healthcare system until the government got involved, the answer is GET THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF HEALTHCARE.

Esten it is not a claim it is history. Do a little research and you will find what I described is exactly what happened. The primary and secondary providers are gone leaving us with only the tertiary level of medical care to deal will all healthcare problems at the most expensive level of cost.

Esten, according to you if the "people" want it then others can be FORCED against their volition to preform any service or deliver any good.

Perhaps you wish to live in the Peoples Republic of American but I prefer capitalism and the United States of America.

Member #4112

08-06-13, 13:24

99% of the people wanted Gun background checks, what happened to that?WT, Esten is making that argument not me.

By the way we have a background check system in place just in case you did not notice.

Punter 127

08-06-13, 14:52

I don't like FOX because of their slanted (lies) views. And the lack of coverage.
Like this one:
http://www.policymic.com/articles/40811/13-benghazis-happened-under-president-bush-and-fox-news-said-nothing
Aren't you the guy that told us we should watch Bill Maher? I'm sure his remarks are not slanted, right?

Aren't you the guy that's always telling us to watch this movie or that documentary? We all know Hollywood is not biased, just the facts ma'am, right?

If you read the discussion at the end of your link you will find that its validity is in question, I don't have the time or desire to check it out.

I have said it before and I'll say it again, in todays world all news media are propagandist to one degree or another. They all couch their reports in a way that attempts to lead the viewer to their desired conclusion.

If I thought you were really concerned about "slanted" reporting I would join in the outcry, but you, Blackshirt, and a few other members are to quick to slam Fox News, why only Fox News? Would you have us believe other media doesn't "slant" their reports or participate in selective reporting?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2013/03/18/pew-study-finds-msnbc-the-most-opinionated-cable-news-channel-by-far/

Remember the 911 call that NBC edited to make Zimmerman look racist? Where were you guys then, not one f'ing word from you, why?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/07/17/Legal-Analysts-Zimerman-Case-likely-to-cost-nbc-millions

There was a time I thought you and Blackshirt were above this kind of thing, but now it appears to me you guys have been infected with Esten syndrome and now the end justifies the means. Sadly it appears you couldn't care less about truthful reporting as long as it supports your agenda.

Here is California's health care costs. The costs will be lower than now.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/23/california-health-insurance-premiums_n_3328110.htmlYour link is several months old and only speaks of California, my link is recent and looks at a eight state average, believe it or not the area between the left coast and the right coast is part of the United States.

http://news.investors.com/politics/080213-666235-cheap-obamacare-twice-as-costly-as-existing-plans.htm

Rev BS

08-06-13, 22:54

Real, balanced news just isn't as compelling. I watch / listen to MSNBC, but not because I think they are credible. I find them curiously entertaining, and enjoy following their efforts at mass programming, like a cult. And Ed Shultz makes me really horny. I'm pissed they kicked him to the sidelines to showcase Chris Hayes. Nobody seems to appreciate a hot, older JAILF these days. For me he's particularly intriguing because my first exposure to sex was when my father took me to a donkey show in Nuevo Laredo when I was 8 years old. It must be something Freudian.Interesting story, what else did he expose you to. For me, as schoolboys, we would make the detour to the football stadium via the red light alleys. Peering at the sitted women through the doorways, we would be yelled and hissed at. Sometimes, we would be brave enough to even approach a loitering woman to enquire the pricing, curses would fly and we would scamper. Also, the punters that were jostling around did not like us in our school uniforms making them feel like perverts. All this with only a dollar and change in our pockets, the dollar for the game and the rest for the bus and some snacks.

Rev BS

08-07-13, 01:06

Who is this guy? He is reported the richest man in Los Angeles, and no, he is not from China. He is from South Africa and now an American, the new kind of American. Posted on 4/18/2013 from the Los Angeles Magazine.

You pledged $100 million to help reopen Martin Luther King Jr. hospital in South LA. Shut down in 2007 because of severe mismanagement, it’s a place that many others had given up on. Why did you want to get involved?

Martin Luther King said that medical care is actually a human right and that the greatest insult to humanity is to not provide care to people who really need it. When Martin Luther King hospital was shut down, it just bothered me. I read in the newspaper that this Hispanic lady went to the hospital and ended up having to call 911 from the emergency room and later died. So I went down there afterward to talk to the doctor and walk the halls, and I said, “Show me, just show me what happened.” This was a little island that was ignored in our own community. Here there is wealth and knowledge and information, and nobody wanted to take this on. So I went to UCLA leadership and said we must help them. Working with [CountySupervisor] Mark Ridley-Thomas, we took on this fight. We tried to shame institutions into helping. It emerged that there was this big financial risk that no one wanted to take. So I said, “I’ll take the risk.” Hopefully the hospital will open again soon.

Esten

08-07-13, 01:07

The recent posts and arguments from conservatives here are among the weakest and delusional I've seen in a long time. What's up guys? I don't know whether to feel sad or laugh.

- Word substitutions to flip arguments around (how unoriginal).
- Claims that all healthcare is now delivered through the tertiary level (large hospitals). I guess those physician clinics I drive by are all imaginary.
- Comparing low-cost healthcare plans with ACA-level coverage, to low-cost plans with flimsy coverage (apples to oranges).
- Considering the idea of people determining the role of their government to be "disgusting" and nazi-esque.
- Claims that high healthcare costs are driven by lazy government bureaucrats.
- Calls for personal responsibility and paying for your own health insurance, while ignoring the fact the ACA has an individual mandate, a concept that has a long history of Republican support for these very reasons.

Man, you guys are a mess.

WorldTravel69

08-07-13, 12:23

But, not at the Gun Shows.

Bill Mayer is a comedian so he makes fun of the dumb politicians.

WT, Esten is making that argument not me.

By the way we have a background check system in place just in case you did not notice.

TejanoLibre

08-07-13, 12:59

But, not at the Gun Shows.

Bill Mayer is a comedian so he makes fun of the dumb politicians.Private Sales are Exempt but.

Licensed dealers are required to perform a background check for ALL gun sales including gun shows but Joe Blow can rent a table at a gun show and sell 1000 guns to ANYBODY without even asking their name.

I did it for years in Texas. This is one of the things that they want to change.

TL.

This is my rifle and this is my gun! This one's for fighting and this one's for fun!

Punter 127

08-09-13, 00:33

Major Health Insurers Abandon ObamaCare Exchanges

"Anthem Blue Cross, Aetna, United Health Group, and Humana have all decided against participating in various states' ObamaCare health insurance exchanges. The exchanges, which are scheduled to begin operation on October 1st, will be the only place Americans can purchase health insurance using federal subsidies granted by President Obama's signature healthcare reform law."

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/08/08/Major-Health-Insurers-Abandon-ObamaCare-Exchanges

I hear the train a comin'.

Big Boss Man

08-09-13, 11:32

Punter 127

08-09-13, 17:49

It looks like the Democrats won this one. They always wanted a Single Payer system. Republicans fought to include the private insurers.Sadly I agree, it appears ObamaCare was designed to fail in order to get a Single Payer system, and complete government control of the health care system.

Unfortunately the American people will be the losers, not the Republicans.

Esten

08-09-13, 21:28

There's a (structured) profit motive built into the Affordable Care Act to support private insurer participation. But not every insurer is necessarily going to participate in every state. Aetna for example, is not participating in the exchanges in three states. One of them being California where Aetna never planned to participate in the first place.

Is California stuck without Aetna? Not at all, there are 12 private insurers with plans that meet ACA standards (Ref. www.coveredca.com):

Alameda Alliance for Health
Anthem Blue Cross of California
Blue Shield of California
Chinese Community Health Plan
Contra Costa Health Plan
Health Net
Kaiser Permanente
L.A. Care Health Plan
Molina Healthcare
Sharp Health Plan
Valley Health Plan
Western Health Advantage

The entire US healthcare system has been and continues to prepare for ACA. The myopic propaganda from Republicans and right-wing media (Faux News, Investors Business Daily, Breitbart, etc) is a tiny sliver of what's going on -- and not to be trusted or taken as representative.

Punter 127

08-12-13, 03:21

Looks like Harry Reid also agrees with you.

It looks like the Democrats won this one. They always wanted a Single Payer system. Republicans fought to include the private insurers."Reid: ObamaCare Just a Step Towards Single-Payer System.

Reid also said that ObamaCare was "a step in the right direction" and that America has to "work our way past" insurance-based health care.

"Single-payer" is a deceptive term that means "socialized medicine." Insurance companies are put out of business and the government takes over as the sole payer of all health care costs."

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/08/10/Reid-obamacare-first-step-towards-single-payer

Rev BS

08-12-13, 06:23

Jackson

08-12-13, 14:04

When I came back from different continents and countries, and told people and even show them pictures of wondrous mongering encounters at fast food prices, they would really get excited. Yet when the time came to join me, they had a thousand reasons for staying home and suffering the same old shit.

Now the medical system in America is broken except for the people with good jobs and good benefits. It is a system that caters to the big players who have been screwing the masses like the big financial companies do. Yet when the time came to explore new avenues to solve a very important issue, many Americans will not take the step. Whilst ObamaCare might not be the perfect system, we can surely work our way to that goal once we get the show on the road. Just like mongering, eh!

I was looking at the Civil War Map. Lo & behold, it looks exactly the same as the ObamaCare map. I think Florida has since defected?That's all bullshit.

First, the American people did not have a health crisis before ObamaCare as 85% of American citizens were covered by a medical plan, including every person under the age of 18 and every person over the age of 65.

Second, many Americans were ready "to explore new avenues" like tort reform and allowing insurers to compete across state lines, but the liberals weren't interested in improving the health care delivery system as their actual goal was to foster more government dependency for their own political aggrandizement.

Thanks,

Jax.

WorldTravel69

08-12-13, 17:13

Here are some facts.
That you wouldn't find on FOX.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/21/uninsured-americans-2012_n_2918705.html

That's all bullshit.

First, the American people did not have a health crisis before ObamaCare as 85% of American citizens were covered by a medical plan, including every person under the age of 18 and every person over the age of 65.

Second, many Americans were ready "to explore new avenues" like tort reform and allowing insurers to compete across state lines, but the liberals weren't interested in improving the health care delivery system as their actual goal was to foster more government dependency for their own political aggrandizement.

Thanks,

Jax.

Rev BS

08-12-13, 21:30

That's all bullshit.

First, the American people did not have a health crisis before ObamaCare as 85% of American citizens were covered by a medical plan, including every person under the age of 18 and every person over the age of 65.

Second, many Americans were ready "to explore new avenues" like tort reform and allowing insurers to compete across state lines, but the liberals weren't interested in improving the health care delivery system as their actual goal was to foster more government dependency for their own political aggrandizement.

Thanks,

Jax.That is what going to a hospital in America is if you do not have insurance. Yeah, it might work for a few people, but it's a rip-off. And health care in America is a rip off. You know it, and everybody's grandmother knows it.

Health Care & Education should be basic citizen rights. Most GOP reform plans do not touch private insurers. Obama did something, workable or not, we will find out. But doing nothing, and trying to defeat it by calling it socialism is just selfish. We already know how Congresss work, they are not for the people. And too many of Americans are like sheep, easily sway by fear and right-wing jihardists.

Jackson

08-13-13, 13:48

Health Care & Education should be basic citizen rights.How noble, except your plan requires a system wherein money is taken at gunpoint from people who earned it for themselves, to be used to buy medical services for strangers who do not wish to pay for their own medical needs.

That's morally repugnant.

Thanks,

Jax

Member #4112

08-13-13, 17:29

Jackson

08-13-13, 19:19

"Democracy in America is doomed when the people learn to vote themselves money from the public trough."

Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (1835)

Rev BS

08-13-13, 20:49

How noble, except your plan requires a system wherein money is taken at gunpoint from people who earned it for themselves, to be used to buy medical services for strangers who do not wish to pay for their own medical needs.

That's morally repugnant.

Thanks,

JaxBut you earned your money, you earned the right to spent it anyway you like, or even hide it. So where can you go where you don't have to pay taxes. Monaco, Luxembourg, Cayman Islands, Argentina? Perhaps, only you know.

But there is one thing we know. The powerful will always oppress the powerless, and the rich will earn it on the backs of the poor. And they will do all they can to preserve that advantage. Why are we proud to be Americans? We advocate human dignity. Otherwise, we are no better than Zimbabwe.

Rev BS

08-13-13, 21:01

"The Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who are not."

Thomas Jefferson.

Jackson, I think Thomas Jefferson got it right over 200 years ago.

Trying to explain this to a liberal is like the old Harley saying, "if I have to explain it to you, you will never understand".

Same thing here.

We are currently spending $200,000,000 more than we take in every hour of every day!That will take care of the anti tax crusaders as well as give empowerment for those who contribute. There will always be free loaders, unfit for society but that comes with the masses. You will find them in your family, office, backyard, there is no avoiding them. You just have to go on.

Esten

08-14-13, 11:41

I see the conservatives here continue to promote distorted views, to justify their own positions.

Healthcare was a key election issue in 2008. There were 46 million uninsured Americans, and few thought the system should be left alone. Americans elected the Democratic party, who delivered on their election promise. Americans had an opportunity again in 2012 to make a choice on healthcare, and chose to continue with the Affordable Care Act. Contrary to false claims posted here, the motive for healthcare reform was not to get more votes. Democrats (and most Americans) actually believe the system needed reform, to work better for more people.

The Democratic philosophy is not about giving people handouts. It's about giving people a hand, so that by their own effort and hard work they have a better shot at improving their life. Nobody rises out of poverty into the middle class by government programs; their own effort is always required.

And guess what, when the middle class is stronger, everyone does better including those at the top.

WorldTravel69

08-14-13, 12:36

Jackson does not like the Socialist System of Health Care in Argentina, so he goes back to the USA And pays the Capitalist rates for it in the USA.
Sure, he does?

How noble, except your plan requires a system wherein money is taken at gunpoint from people who earned it for themselves, to be used to buy medical services for strangers who do not wish to pay for their own medical needs.

That's morally repugnant.

Thanks,

Jax

Jackson

08-14-13, 14:16

Jackson does not like the Socialist System of Health Care in Argentina, so he goes back to the USA And pays the Capitalist rates for it in the USA.
Sure, he does?Actually, I like the system here in Argentina. A network of free public hospitals where the treatment is commensurate with what you pay, and private hospitals for those who would prefer to pay to be treated by doctors who weren't trained in Cuba.

However, the most important point here is that I'm not handing my bill for my health insurance to you and expecting you to pay it.

Get it?

Thanks,

Jax

Tiny12

08-14-13, 17:07

Esten, Black Shirt and WT69, You're smart enough to realize that our government has screwed up healthcare big time. We pay 17% of GDP for health. No other country except Sierra Leone pays over 12%. Yet overall outcomes (longevity, infant mortality, etc) are better in countries that spend much less. Singapore spends 4.5% and people live longer.

You can blame greedy doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, and malpractice lawyers. But it's government that allows them to engage in anti-competitive practices, to manipulate Medicare, to sue for no reason, etc.

What exactly did the Affordable Care Act do to improve this, in a substantive way? It's a 2000 page bill that no one understands and that was passed without any member of Congress reading its contents. Apparently the Obama administration recognizes that parts are unworkable, at least on the schedule as stated in the bill. Health expenditures as a % of GDP will almost certainly continue to go up.

I'm very curious what your response will be to Jackson's comment, which offers an actual solution to the problem, instead of just throwing more money into a failed system:

Actually, I like the system here in Argentina. A network of free public hospitals where treatment is commensurate with what you pay, and private hospitals for those who would prefer to pay to be treated by doctors who weren't trained in Cuba.

Esten

08-15-13, 01:28

What exactly did the Affordable Care Act do to improve this, in a substantive way? It's a 2000 page bill that no one understands and that was passed without any member of Congress reading its contents. You can't expect to be taken seriously with bullshit like this. Do your research.

Esten

08-15-13, 01:43

How noble, except your plan requires a system wherein money is taken at gunpoint from people who earned it for themselves, to be used to buy medical services for strangers who do not wish to pay for their own medical needs.

That's morally repugnant.Some people would say that denying healthcare to those who cannot afford it, or who have pre-existing conditions, is morally repugnant.

Actually, I like the system here in Argentina. A network of free public hospitals where the treatment is commensurate with what you pay
, and private hospitals for those who would prefer to pay to be treated by doctors who weren't trained in Cuba.

However, the most important point here is that I'm not handing my bill for my health insurance to you and expecting you to pay it.So when a poor person in Argentina receives medical treatment, who pays for it?

WorldTravel69

08-15-13, 03:44

In the last ten years Not Obama, both parties, before our / your time. Obama is trying to help You and Me.

What is so hard for some of you to seeeeeeee that / He does not care what Color you Are.

He cares for All of US.

What can't some of you not SEE?

Tiny read the act. "but it did not sink in."
It is not the greatest, it is a Start, to help the needy In This Country.
S.S, needed changes, but the Republicans have not offered any changes in health care over the last 7-8 years, on howt they would help Our Country.

But, I agree on not sending our hard earned Money to Foreign Countries that hate us...

Over the last 10 years I went to the German Hospital and never paid more than US$35. for each visit.
My Dentist bill was $150. to replace my bridge.

Esten, Black Shirt and WT69, You're smart enough to realize that our government has screwed up healthcare big time. We pay 17% of GDP for health. No other country except Sierra Leone pays over 12%. Yet overall outcomes (longevity, infant mortality, etc) are better in countries that spend much less. Singapore spends 4.5% and people live longer.

You can blame greedy doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, and malpractice lawyers. But it's government that allows them to engage in anti-competitive practices, to manipulate Medicare, to sue for no reason, etc.

What exactly did the Affordable Care Act do to improve this, in a substantive way? It's a 2000 page bill that no one understands and that was passed without any member of Congress reading its contents. Apparently the Obama administration recognizes that parts are unworkable, at least on the schedule as stated in the bill. Health expenditures as a % of GDP will almost certainly continue to go up.

I'm very curious what your response will be to Jackson's comment, which offers an actual solution to the problem, instead of just throwing more money into a failed system:

Jackson

08-15-13, 14:11

Some people would say that denying healthcare to those who cannot afford it, or who have pre-existing conditions, is morally repugnant.Ah yes, the Sandra Fluke strategy wherein she falsely decried that the Republicans wanted to deny women access to health care, when in fact the actual issue was not "access to health care", but "who would pay" for her health care, and specifically for her personal birth control needs.

Only a woman would claim that you are denying her something because you won't buy it for her.

Anyway, for many years the law has compelled every hospital in the USA to treat any person who walked in the door, regardless of their ability to pay, so your insinuation that the current system is "denying healthcare" is factually inaccurate.

However, we were not discussing health care, but health insurance, and while I believe that everyone has a right to access health care services, that right does not include any right to force me pay for your personal needs, health care or otherwise.

Regarding pre-existing conditions, I'm all for eliminating pre-existing conditions as a barrier to buying health insurance if anyone can figure out a way to deal with the inevitable issue of people waiting until they have a health issue before they decide to buy health insurance.

So when a poor person in Argentina receives medical treatment, who pays for it?It's possible that you may have missed the sarcasm in my previous comments, but I'll play along.

They go to the free public hospitals, which are funded by the Argentina government. These hospitals are very bare-bone, with limited technology and lab resources, and staffed by government employees and doctors working for wages that are substantially less than their private industry counterparts.

I like this system because those who choose not to utilize their financial resources (however meager) to pay for their own medical needs can in fact receive basic medical care, abet care that is equivalent to what they're paying. Simultaneously, those of us who choose to utilize our financial resources to pay for our own medical care can have access to a private, market based health care system.

This is in contrast to socialized medicine in countries like Canada and England, where (for the most part) everybody is forced into the government health care system whether they like it or not, with no private care option.

Nevertheless, the Argentine system of both free public and paid private health care would never work in the USA for a very simple reason: Argentina cannot borrow money internationally, and thus the amount of money they spend on their free public health care system is limited to what they can pay for from their own internally generated tax revenues.

In other words, they are forced to balance their national budget.

However, if we had a system of free public hospitals in the USA, the gutless politicians in charge of our government, bowing to the inevitable political pressure, would borrow another trillion dollars from the Chinese every year (above our current borrowings, mind you), all in the name of "investing" in our medical care system. In addition, there would also be the inevitable creep in employment costs as the same gutless politicians buy the votes of the government employee union members with salary and pension increases, eventually driving the cost of the free public health care system higher than the private care system.

Thanks,

Jax.

Gandolf50

08-15-13, 17:23

A note on the "Argentine Public Heath System", It is falling apart because the gov't is not paying. This year has seen many strikes and basic denial of services. The hospitals can not pay the staff and they have nothing to "work" with. No bandages, no drugs, no nothing. If you need a appointment for something they tell you to come on the first of next month and they will give you a appointment for the FOLLOWING month. So under Queen Cristina, the system no longer works...

Tres3

08-15-13, 17:24

Actually, I like the system here in Argentina. A network of free public hospitals where the treatment is commensurate with what you pay, and private hospitals for those who would prefer to pay to be treated by doctors who weren't trained in Cuba.

However, the most important point here is that I'm not handing my bill for my health insurance to you and expecting you to pay it.

Get it?

Thanks,

JaxJackson implies that Cuban Medical training is inferior and suspect. That is not true! In spite of the many other problems that Cuba has because of a Communist Dictatorship, medical care is not one of them. Cuba has some of the best care and training in the world. Because of money, the trade embargo, and other problems associated with a communist dictatorship, Cuba does not have medical equipment commensurate with the training, but the training is there.

Jackson also likes the system in Argentina. Why? Because he has money, that is why, and does not have to go to the "free" hospitals unless he wants to. There is no such thing as a "free" hospital, just as there is no free lunch. Someone has to pay. The staff does not work for free, and buildings are not free. The patient does not pay, but someone does. Everyone in Argentina has some form of basic health care. It may not be much, but it is better than nothing. Unfortunately, one cannot say the same about the USA.

What can be said about the USA, is that it is one of the few, if not the only developed country, countries in the world without some form of universal medical care for all citizens.

I deliberately left emergency rooms out of my statement about the USA for obvious reasons.

Tres3.

Esten

08-16-13, 01:02

Anyway, for many years the law has compelled every hospital in the USA to treat any person who walked in the door, regardless of their ability to pay, so your insinuation that the current system is "denying healthcare" is factually inaccurate.Hospitals do NOT have to treat anyone unless their condition is IMMEDIATELY life threatening. In any other instance, heathcare can be and is denied. Mitt Romney made the same bogus claim a couple years ago.

Mitt Romney says federal law requires hospitals to provide free care (rated 'Mostly False')
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/22/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-federal-laws-requires-hospitals-p/

They go to the free public hospitals, which are funded by the Argentina government. These hospitals are very bare-bone, with limited technology and lab resources, and staffed by government employees and doctors working for wages that are substantially less than their private industry counterparts.And the government is funded by taxpayers. So, regarding medical treatment for the poor, it's basically "a system wherein money is taken at gunpoint from people who earned it for themselves, to be used to buy medical services for strangers who do not wish to pay for their own medical needs." Correct?

Rev BS

08-16-13, 06:49

Esten, Black Shirt and WT69, Singapore spends 4.5% and people live longer:As you know, Singapore has been under 1-party rule since independence. So you can say that Singapore have an authoritarian government, albeit elected within democratic guidelines. Fortunately, it is under "good governance" because the elected government is honest, dedicated, innovative, and planning within a very big picture. Social engineering is very vital to its core everyday message as well as in its long term planning. In other word, Big Brother is not only behind you, but all around you. Not really a problem for industrious, family oriented, law abiding citizens. American society today hardly fit that description.

So, can Americans tolerate that? No way, not even if they promise that every citizen can be a millionaire if you follow the rules. You want to pack a gun. No problem, $500,000 just to obtain a license to buy. Then another $25,000 per year to renew. That's how it works there. Just google their car purchasing process. So you want to smoke pot? Ahhh, you don't want to go there.

As for their living longer, well, you figured that one out. Really, not too hard.

P.S. The gun stuff, I made it up. Just an example of how government regulates activity and everyday life.

Jackson

08-16-13, 14:13

And the government is funded by taxpayers. So, regarding medical treatment for the poor, it's basically "a system wherein money is taken at gunpoint from people who earned it for themselves, to be used to buy medical services for strangers who do not wish to pay for their own medical needs." Correct?Esten,

As a compromise to those who wish to buy votes, I stated that I would support a tax funded system of free public hospitals in the USA. Of course, I'm envisioning concrete block facilities staffed with doctors and nurses trained at tuition-free government medical schools and working for military payscales.

I also said that such a system would never work in the USA because...

Nevertheless, the Argentine system of both free public and paid private health care would never work in the USA for a very simple reason: Argentina cannot borrow money internationally, and thus the amount of money they spend on their free public health care system is limited to what they can pay for from their own internally generated tax revenues.

In other words, they are forced to balance their national budget.

However, if we had a system of free public hospitals in the USA, the gutless politicians in charge of our government, bowing to the inevitable political pressure, would borrow another trillion dollars from the Chinese every year (above our current borrowings, mind you), all in the name of "investing" in our medical care system. In addition, there would also be the inevitable creep in employment costs as the same gutless politicians buy the votes of the government employee union members with salary and pension increases, eventually driving the cost of the free public health care system higher than the private care system.In other words, the liberals would eventually bankrupt such a system, so it's not actually a solution.

Tiny12

08-16-13, 18:11

As you know, Singapore has been under 1-party rule since independence. So you can say that Singapore have an authoritarian government, albeit elected within democratic guidelines. Fortunately, it is under "good governance" because the elected government is honest, dedicated, innovative, and planning within a very big picture. Social engineering is very vital to its core everyday message as well as in its long term planning. In other word, Big Brother is not only behind you, but all around you. Not really a problem for industrious, family oriented, law abiding citizens. American society today hardly fit that description.

So, can Americans tolerate that? No way, not even if they promise that every citizen can be a millionaire if you follow the rules. You want to pack a gun. No problem, $500,000 just to obtain a license to buy. Then another $25,000 per year to renew. That's how it works there. Just google their car purchasing process. So you want to smoke pot? Ahhh, you don't want to go there.

As for their living longer, well, you figured that one out. Really, not too hard.

P.S. The gun stuff, I made it up. Just an example of how government regulates activity and everyday life.Philosophically I don't agree with Singapore's stance on several issues related to civil liberties. But since I don't use drugs or chew gum they don't effect me. Significantly, they don't throw you in jail for seeing prostitutes. The four floors of w*ores (Orchard Towers) there are awesome.

Given issues that are important to me, like taxes, safety and security, quality of public services, rule of law, and ready availability of women, Singapore looks like a very desirable place to live. If you were a woman I'd marry you to get Singapore citizenship, even though I disagree with you on many issues and believe you're too old for me.

On the subject we're discussing, the difference between Singapore and the USA is that Singapore puts a gun to your head and tells you that you must contribute to your own personal savings account for medical care, retirement and education. The United States, in addition to running something like a Ponzi scheme for Medicare, puts a gun to my head and tells me that I must pay for other people's medical insurance. I actually wouldn't have a complaint if I paid a reasonable amount in taxes and IF funds were administered in a way that resulted in efficient, cost-effective, basic medical care being provided for people who really need it and can't afford it through no fault of their own. But that's not the case.

Rev BS

08-16-13, 22:39

I actually wouldn't have a complaint if I paid a reasonable amount in taxes and IF funds were administered in a way that resulted in efficient, cost-effective, basic medical care being provided for people who really need it and can't afford it through no fault of their own. But that's not the case.So let's be clear. "Government" by itself is neutral, but the kind of society we have determines the kind of people who is in government. And so society gets the kind of government it deserves. So just look around you, or even in the mirror, and the dysfunctional forces that permeates American life. You can say that Singapore has reach the mountain top, but the road ahead is even harder as we have witness what has happen to Japan & the USA.

Three years ago, Geyland mongering reached it's peak. I considered it as one of top 5 red zones in the world. Sadly, it become too rowdy for Singapore, and the iron fist was flashed.

In the future, please refrain from such personal sensitive issues like marriage proposals in the forum.(smile).

Tres3

08-17-13, 01:07

Rev BS

08-17-13, 02:03

Singapore is a densely populated city state on an island with a polyglot of races, albeit the majority is Chinese. They do what has worked best for them after early trial and error. They have found that being authoritarian works for them, and avoids a sanitation problem with concomitant diseases. The big differences between Singapore and the rest of the world are that, they pay police and other civil or public servants a living wage, come down hard on corruption of any form, and have strict, onerous laws which are ENFORCED. If one obeys the law, one still has a great deal of freedom. Contrary to popular belief, Singapore banned chewing gum because youths were using it to disrupt the subways (arguably one of the best in the world) by holding a train car's doors open, thereby stopping the train until the offending doors were cleared.

Tres3.Early on, Singapore also had to deal with racial tension between the Chinese and the Malays. The threat of communism was also present as there was no national identity and most Chinese still look to the China as the motherland. With no natural resources except human labor, Singapore by sheer determination, is a vibrant futuristic city state. But now, it is plagued by that killer of ethical & moral instincts, consumerism.

HiLife

08-17-13, 10:41

This thread diverges and converges however the one thing that I can say that is 100% correct:

Nevertheless, the Argentine system of both free public and paid private health care would never work in the USA for a very simple reason: Argentina cannot borrow money internationally, and thus the amount of money they spend on their free public health care system is limited to what they can pay for from their own internally generated tax revenues.

In other words, they are forced to balance their national budget.

However, if we had a system of free public hospitals in the USA, the gutless politicians in charge of our government, bowing to the inevitable political pressure, would borrow another trillion dollars from the Chinese every year (above our current borrowings, mind you), all in the name of "investing" in our medical care system. In addition, there would also be the inevitable creep in employment costs as the same gutless politicians buy the votes of the government employee union members with salary and pension increases, eventually driving the cost of the free public health care system higher than the private care system.This is an accurate description of a couple of dynamics.- one; what the US has engaged in for the past 32 years, a lot of deficit spending that has radically accelerated our economy into a place that has massive bubbles, costs, debt and operating deficits and two; what is happening in Argentina where the gov cannot borrow (ex from Venezuela), lives within their (limited) means and "what you see is what you get and what was actually paid for (without any borrowing). Yes there's some manipulation by CFK and some theft by her friends etc... But the basic system is not operating at a deficit.

I firmly believe in American exceptional ism.- we have had it and we still have some of it today. The driving question is will it be there in the future and what do we need to do to insure that it will be there. Having players pick up all their chips from the table, push back and run away after 30+ years of large deficits with the predictable steep uptick in the economy, leading the debt to be shouldered by all seems a bit unfair, as is saying "I earned it". Yea, you earned it all right, while sailing along with a huge tailwind that pushed anyone forward with a profile larger than 1 mm. Those with a larger profile went farther...

Just as an aside.- what does Singapore look like with a rising tide? (I hope we don't have a bunch of climate change deniers here...

Tres3

08-17-13, 12:15

Everyone seems to forget that Argentina had universal health care long before the country unilaterally repudiated the foreign debt, and could no longer borrow overseas. I do not pretend to know, but speculate that part of that repudiated debt went to finance the health care system.

Obamacare is a two humped camel--a horse designed by a committee, but is it worse than we had before? I do not know, and only time will tell. Before Obamacare we had millions of working poor people, not just deadbeats, who had no insurance provided by their employers. Many of those employers cannot not afford to provide their employees with health insurance, but there are also many employers who are just plain greedy. I doubt that we will ever know which is which.

Tres3.

Tres3

08-17-13, 15:52

Just as an aside.- what does Singapore look like with a rising tide? (I hope we don't have a bunch of climate change deniers here...The government of Singapore is not a climate change denier either. For several years they have been investigating rising sea levels, including ringing the entire island with a sea wall that would keep the water out.

Tres3.

Gandolf50

08-17-13, 17:00

The government of Singapore is not a climate change denier either. For several years they have been investigating rising sea levels, including ringing the entire island with a sea wall that would keep the water out.

Tres3.Sea levels are rising so slowly we have another 1000 years before we have to worry about it.

Tiny12

08-17-13, 17:18

I firmly believe in American exceptional ism.- we have had it and we still have some of it today. The driving question is will it be there in the future and what do we need to do to insure that it will be there. Having players pick up all their chips from the table, push back and run away after 30+ years of large deficits with the predictable steep uptick in the economy, leading the debt to be shouldered by all seems a bit unfair, as is saying "I earned it". Yea, you earned it all right, while sailing along with a huge tailwind that pushed anyone forward with a profile larger than 1 mm. Those with a larger profile went farther...
Yes, of course, if you've got a business, you didn't build that. If you've done well it's government and deficit spending that's responsible for your success. You made some money in the past, created businesses and jobs, and now it's time for government to take that back. And with up to a 55.5% marginal income tax rate and a 40% estate tax that's achievable now. We need to get the money out of the private sector and put it in the government's pocket where it will do some good.

There are solutions for the problem, to prevent the industrious and talented and successful from taking their chips off the table. Exchange controls for example - make sure money doesn't leave the country, like what Argentina's doing right now. Or enforce the Reed Amendment, which makes it illegal for anyone who takes chips off the table to ever re-enter the United States. Actually, Jack Reed and Chuck Schumer are trying to do that right now with new legislation. They'll probably manage to slip it into a bill that will pass someday. So, HiLife, don't give up hope, success is just around the corner.

The reality, American exceptionalism is coming to an end. We're going to be just like Western Europe, only without the fiscal discipline of a country like Germany. The only question is whether we'll become like France or Greece.

Punter 127

08-17-13, 21:45

Freedom in America

The video below is only about 4 minutes. Well worth watching!

http://www.youtube.com/embed/n_YQ8560E1w?autoplay=1

Tres3

08-18-13, 00:53

Sea levels are rising so slowly we have another 1000 years before we have to worry about it.If you really believe that we have 1000 years before we have to worry about the sea level, then I have a bridge in New York that I would like to sell you.

Tres3.

Rev BS

08-18-13, 01:05

Freedom in America

The video below is only about 4 minutes. Well worth watching!

http://www.youtube.com/embed/n_YQ8560E1w?autoplay=1There is not too much that I disagree with when it comes to personal responsibility & freedom. But those southern democrats prior to the 70's, like George Wallace, ain't they republicans these days?

Gandolf50

08-18-13, 08:16

If you really believe that we have 1000 years before we have to worry about the sea level, then I have a bridge in New York that I would like to sell you.

Tres3.Show me hard data, not conjecture that says otherwise. I still own ocean front property in NY and the levels have NOT changed in the last 45 years!

Gandolf50

08-18-13, 08:46

If you really believe that we have 1000 years before we have to worry about the sea level, then I have a bridge in New York that I would like to sell you.

Tres3.Check out the US satellite survey measurements on ocean levels. Levels have risen something like 1/10 of a inch in the last fifty year or so. More likely caused by garbage dumping in the ocean and pollution. Now if you want to worry about something, worry about that!

Tres3

08-18-13, 11:05

Check out the US satellite survey measurements on ocean levels. Levels have risen something like 1/10 of a inch in the last fifty year or so. More likely caused by garbage dumping in the ocean and pollution. Now if you want to worry about something, worry about that!The State of Florida and Miami-Dade County would disagree with you. Miami-Dade is considering moving a sewerage treatment plant rather than upgrade it because they expect the current site to be under water before the new bonds are paid off. I am not going to argue the point with you any more because global warming deniers have their minds firmly made up, just like the anti-abortion fanatics, and there no amount of arguing can change their point of view..

Tres3.

Gandolf50

08-18-13, 11:38

The State of Florida and Miami-Dade County would disagree with you. Miami-Dade is considering moving a sewerage treatment plant rather than upgrade it because they expect the current site to be under water before the new bonds are paid off. I am not going to argue the point with you any more because global warming deniers have their minds firmly made up, just like the anti-abortion fanatics, and there no amount of arguing can change their point of view..

Tres3.Try reading "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton. While it is fiction, it is based on fact. Filled with foot notes to support all points of views. Very interesting. The fact is, there is and has been "warming"and then "cooling" periods since day one. I'm not saying that mankind should not clean up its act. But the whole global warming campaign is a bit of a sham. Read the book and get back to me. The temperature for the 70 years (a period of accurate records) actually shows, if anything a very slight decline in average temperatures.

Gandolf50

08-18-13, 11:43

Maybe we should start a new thread? .

Tiny12

08-18-13, 14:49

. I am not going to argue the point with you any more because global warming deniers have their minds firmly made up, just like the anti-abortion fanatics, and there no amount of arguing can change their point of view..
In the short-to-medium term, on a global scale, the only economically viable way to do what you want to do is to generate more power from natural gas and nuclear instead of coal. A big impediment are environmental fanatics on the left, who are a lot like the anti-abortion fanatics on the right. They've gotten hydraulic fracturing banned in France and New York so far. And after the Fukushima plant disaster in Japan, they've got public opinion on their side on the nukes.

Tres3

08-18-13, 15:04

In the short-to-medium term, on a global scale, the only economically viable way to do what you want to do is to generate more power from natural gas and nuclear instead of coal. A big impediment are environmental fanatics on the left, who are a lot like the anti-abortion fanatics on the right. They've gotten hydraulic fracturing banned in France and New York so far. And after the Fukushima plant disaster in Japan, they've got public opinion on their side on the nukes.I agree with you. The environmental folks must face the reality that global population is growing, and that population will demand more power. Wind and other alternative sources cannot meet that demand, and Obama would like to ban all coal fired plants, even the clean ones where investment in clean emissions has totaled billions of dollars. The environmental folks have to wake up and realize that you cannot have a cleaner world over the short-to-medium term. They are just as bad as the global warming deniers.

Tres3.

Tiny12

08-18-13, 17:55

The environmental folks must face the reality that global population is growing, and that population will demand more power. Wind and other alternative sources cannot meet that demandAnd I agree with you. What Bjorn Lomborg has written on the subject makes a lot of sense to me. There's not a lot we in the USA and Europe can do about global warming and sea level changes in the short-to-medium term, except solutions like Singapore's - building dikes or whatever. CO2 emissions in the USA are dropping because of greater usage of natural gas. Emissions in the European Union are stabilizing or dropping because of economic stagnation. (Aside: I guess maybe there are some advantages to economic policies like those favored by Obama). The future is in the hands of people in India, China and other developing countries. Stabilizing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere would cost their economies trillions of dollars, and benefits to them (and to us) would be considerably less.

P.S. To be fair some of the cuts in Europe are from greater use of renewables. In certain instances, these have backfired though, like the government promoting solar in Spain -- that's been a big boondoggle, that the Spaniards wish had never happened.

Rev BS

08-19-13, 22:17

Is it just possible that at some point, we could be in the condition that Egypt faces today? 44% of Republicans polled (Farleigh-Dickinson) seem to think that armed rebellion might be necessary. Isn't all that talk about the 2nd amendment underlies that there are people preparing for action against the government? Nine days after Obama's relection, petitions for secession sprouted in all 50 states. As a distraught Egyptian wailed, "we have stopped talking and listening to each other". So there it is, that's where we are.

Tres3

08-20-13, 01:19

I am sorry for the long quote, but I was unable to cut and paste the link.

A leaked draft of the UN's next major climate change report warns that global sea levels could rise more than three feet by the end of the century if greenhouse emissions continue unabated, The New York Times reported Monday.

The Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) report is also more confident that human activities, like the burning of fossil fuels, are the chief cause of the atmospheric warming seen since the 1950's. The report's authors say it is at least 95 percent likely that humans are behind this warming, according to an initial report from Reuters last Friday.

This confidence is reflected in the study's language. It's "extremely likely" that humans caused "more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010," the Times quoted from the draft report.

The IPCC outlines several sea level rise scenarios for the end of the century, based on efforts to limit emissions in the coming decades. The most optimistic emissions reductions could bring only a 10-inch rise, explains the Times, on top of the eight inches seen in the last century. If emissions continue at a runaway pace, sea levels could rise "at least 21 inches by 2100 and might rise a bit more than three feet.

The National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration's 2012 State of the Climate report, released earlier this month, showed global greenhouse gas emissions reached a new record high in 2011, and estimates suggest the record was broken again in 2012.

"It's good to see that the IPCC has moved in the right direction this time by at least trying to account for the key contribution to sea level rise from melting ice sheets," director of Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Center Michael Mann told The Huffington Post in an emailed statement, explaining that it was ignored in the previous IPCC report from 2007.

"However, the projections they provide are still overly conservative, with an upper limit of roughly one meter by 2100, when there is published work that suggests the possibility of as much as two meters (six feet) sea level rise by 2100," he added.

"This fits a pattern of the IPCC tending to err on the side of conservative, in part--I believe-because of fear of being attacked by the climate change denial machine.

Describing the IPCC's projections, Climate Progress' Joe Romm wrote on Sunday, "Like every IPCC report, it is an instantly out-of-date snapshot that lowballs future warming because it continues to ignore large parts of the recent literature and omit what it can't model.

A recent study published in the journal Nature Climate Change shows that with only 15.75 inches of sea level rise by mid-century, losses due to flooding in 136 of the world's coastal cities may approach $1 trillion annually, reported Climate Central.

IPCC spokesman Jonathan Lynn cautioned against drawing too many conclusions from the leaked drafts, but told the BBC on Monday, "We are not trying to keep it secret." He said, "After the report is finished we are going to publish all the comments and response so that people can track the process.

Reuters' breakdown of the IPCC draft also draws attention to the apparent slowdown in warming observed since 1998, despite rising greenhouse gas emissions. Romm contends the slowdown "turns out to be only true if one looks narrowly at surface air temperatures, where only a small fraction of warming ends up.

The Times emphasizes the international scientific panel's further confidence in the future effects of unchecked emissions and notes, the experts "largely dismiss a recent slowdown in the pace of warming, which is often cited by climate change contrarians, as probably related to short-term factors.

The IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report is set to be released in four parts between September 2013 and November 2014.Tres3

HiLife

08-20-13, 14:47

Thanks Tres3.- I think this was the article that appeared in the leftist NYT, no??

If you ask Siri (I just did) and let her search the web, the second hit is from National Geographic that said 0.13" per year for the past 20 years. (the site actually made a math errors equating 0.13 inches to 3.2 mm, they did not move the decimal over one more...

That means that over the past 20 years we have seen a 2.6" rise in sea levels, which jives with what is being reported everywhere else. The real question is what is the timetable froward looking like? Again the NYT has a good article, if you believe that leftist publication: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/science/timing-a-rise-in-sea-level.html.

Denial is a lot easier than facing the difficult facts and thinking through solutions. I guess denial and de nile are put us and Egypt a lot closer than we think. That said, 230+ years of a relatively stable democracy will be hard to undo, even for determined Republicans / Tea partiers that use their political affialiation as cover for anarchy. We might as well call it out for what it is, the elephant in the room. Here here!

Tres3

08-20-13, 15:16

There's an annual contest at the Griffiths University, Australia, calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term.

This year's term was. 'political correctness'.

The winning student wrote:

"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end.

Tres3.

WorldTravel69

08-20-13, 19:16

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/12/12/chasing_ice_video_watch_a_manhattan_sized_iceberg_calve_off_from_greenland.html

Show me hard data, not conjecture that says otherwise. I still own ocean front property in NY and the levels have NOT changed in the last 45 years!

WorldTravel69

08-20-13, 19:30

An interesting article about hospital charges.

http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/The-13-360-03-cat-bite-4744836.php

Gandolf50

08-20-13, 20:04

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/12/12/chasing_ice_video_watch_a_manhattan_sized_iceberg_calve_off_from_greenland.htmlThe Largest ice berg ever? This shows that glaciers are growing (or at least that one) which means it is not warming! If there are no glaciers (and yes some are receding) forming or growing, that would show "global warming". Record breaking ice bergs shows that "global warming" is NOT happening! This is common sense. But you can't see past the lies.

Miami Bob

08-20-13, 21:38

therefore, more ice berg formation=further destruction of glazers

the real truth of the matter is that a former usa presidential candidate was sited blasting the polar caps to cuase ice beg formation and a destruction of the polar caps to increase the sluggish sales of his book and videos. the slow economy in the usa hit even the top half of the top 1%

hint:this un-named politician's last name rhythms with the english slang term for puta.[thisisamongeringboardafterall]

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

Miami Bob,

If you're going to bypass the Text Cleanup Scrip, then your text must be letter perfect.

This includes, among other things, correct punctuation and correctly capitalizing the 1st letter in a sentence and all proper nouns.

In other words, this forum is not your fucking cellphone.

For years I've edited your posts to conform with the Forum's Posting Guidelines, but today I've just decided that enough is enough and instead I will let you suffer the public embarrassment of being an grown man who cannot write like he has at least an 8th grade education.

Next time, I'll just delete your post like I do with other members who don't give a fuck about writing correctly.

Thanks,

Jax

Don B

08-21-13, 01:08

AllIWantIsLove

08-21-13, 03:06

An interesting article about hospital charges.

http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/The-13-360-03-cat-bite-4744836.phpBut the insurance company pays less than the amount you see on the hospital bill because they have negotiated lower fees. (Certainly our health care is too expensive. But the amount we see on hospital bills exaggerates the cost).

Bob.

WorldTravel69

08-21-13, 12:22

Watch the full preview of the movie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIZTMVNBjc4

The Largest ice berg ever? This shows that glaciers are growing (or at least that one) which means it is not warming! If there are no glaciers (and yes some are receding) forming or growing, that would show "global warming". Record breaking ice bergs shows that "global warming" is NOT happening! This is common sense. But you can't see past the lies.

Punter 127

08-22-13, 11:34

CDC Gun Violence Study's Findings Not What Obama Wanted

Second Amendment: The White House asked the Centers for Disease Control "to research the causes and prevention of gun violence." We're pretty sure that what the CDC found wasn't what the White House was looking for.

The Democrats, and their media allies, obsess over some shootings while ignoring many others.

Kill innocents in a school or theater in large numbers, and the media will fixate on the tragedy while Democrats wail about America's "gun culture."

Shoot a minority who's wearing a hoodie and the left twists the story into something it isn't while the media turn the shooter into a "white" man, though he, too, is a minority — and an Obama supporter with a mixed ethnic background.

It was under these raw and highly charged circumstances that President Obama asked the CDC in January to perform the study. He was surely looking to manufacture a crisis that he could take advantage of.

What that study revealed, though, does not fit in with the media-Democrat message.

"Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals," says the report, which was completed in June and ignored in the mainstream press.

The study, which was farmed out by the CDC to the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, also revealed that while there were "about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008," the estimated number of defensive uses of guns ranges "from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year."

Here are a few more salient points from the study:

• "Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue."

• "Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies."

• One "body of research" (Kleck and Gertz, 1995) cited by the study found "estimated annual gun use for self-defense" to be "up to 2.5 million incidents, suggesting that self-defense can be an important crime deterrent."

• "There is empirical evidence that gun turn-in programs are ineffective."

Does anyone recall this study getting extensive media coverage or the administration plugging its key findings? Of course not. It doesn't support their anti-Second Amendment, anti-gun ideology. It's therefore ignored as if it never happened at all.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/082113-668335-cdc-gun-violence-study-goes-against-media-narrative.htm#ixzz2chhWQztK

Looks like the control freaks got handed a shit sandwich on this one.

Gandolf50

08-22-13, 13:55

Watch the full preview of the movie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIZTMVNBjc4To make a Iceberg, it needs to be cold. ALL icebergs float south and eventually melt. There would be smaller or no icebergs if the global warming theory was true.

Don B

08-22-13, 14:04

An interesting article about hospital charges.

http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/The-13-360-03-cat-bite-4744836.phpRights, you remember individual rights, a long lost concept thanks to the progressives.

http://www.drhurd.com/index.php/Daily-Dose-of-Reason/Health-Care-Reform/Obama-logic-and-the-Right-to-Health-Insurance.html

Don B

Don B

08-22-13, 18:58

If you have never heard the term "useful idiot" it was the attitude held by Vladimir Lenin towards communist sympathizers in the West (America). While Lenin and the Soviets held them in utter contempt they also viewed them as tools for dispensing communist propaganda to other countries, thus infecting foreign cultures with their totalitarian tripe. After their mission was complete, they were no longer "useful.

It's a term the refers to brainwashed American Marxists who blindly support any ideology that gets themselves out of real work and causes others to pay their way.

It also refers to useful idiots who post inaccurate definitions of the term useful idiot on sites like the urban dictionary. While they believe that they are making some sort of statement, they are actually providing perfect examples of the term.

An American who espouses Marxist ideals is a useful idiot.

There are several in this forum.

Don B.

Esten

08-23-13, 00:18

If you have never heard the term "useful idiot" it was the attitude held by Vladimir Lenin towards communist sympathizers in the West (America). According to Wikipedia there is no record that Lenin ever used that term. But I'm pretty sure the term has been used by at least a few wealthy gun company executives, who profit from the delusions of those who peg their individual freedom to the ability to buy a gun without a background check.

Member #4112

08-23-13, 08:29

Esten

08-24-13, 00:42

Esten, what drivel! From your post you leave the impression there are no background checks in place which you know is not the case.

Dealers have been doing background checks for years now. Just another liberal attempt to obscure / ignore the facts to further your own agenda.The gun control issue has always been about freedom, for gun owners. They equate a significant sense of their freedom with their ability to own a gun.

The Senate vote earlier this year did not impede this freedom, it merely closed loopholes that allowed people to purchase a gun without a background check. Nevertheless, there was a big outcry from the gun lobby and many gun owners over this. The rallying cry was their freedoms were at stake.

In other words, with the help of the gun lobby, many gun owners saw the Senate vote to expand background checks as an attack on their freedom.

WorldTravel69

08-24-13, 13:37

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/dunkin-donuts-worker-pistol-whipped-botched-coffee-order-article-1.1433962

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MvQlN1MhmE

The wife was yelling Shoot Him.

Punter 127

08-24-13, 14:34

We Don't Need Gun Control!

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/dunkin-donuts-worker-pistol-whipped-botched-coffee-order-article-1.1433962

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MvQlN1MhmE

The wife was yelling Shoot Him.Which of the gun control laws would have prevented this crime?

Gun control is best learned at the range.

Punter 127

08-24-13, 14:39

According to Wikipedia there is no record that Lenin ever used that term. But I'm pretty sure the term has been used by at least a few wealthy gun company executives, who profit from the delusions of those who peg their individual freedom to the ability to buy a gun without a background check.

Esten, what drivel! From your post you leave the impression there are no background checks in place which you know is not the case.

Dealers have been doing background checks for years now. Just another liberal attempt to obscure / ignore the facts to further your own agenda.

As far as gun makers go, please continue to persecute them on the east and left coast. We would love to have them move to Texas, a non union at will state.Doppelganger is absolutely correct, Esten is using a tactic that's designed to attract low information voters to his side of the argument.

Now he follows with this little jewel:

Gun industry profits from scaring people
The gun control issue has always been about freedom, for gun owners. They equate a significant sense of their freedom with their ability to own a gun.

The Senate vote earlier this year did not impede this freedom, it merely closed loopholes that allowed people to purchase a gun without a background check. Nevertheless, there was a big outcry from the gun lobby and many gun owners over this. The rallying cry was their freedoms were at stake.

In other words, with the help of the gun lobby, many gun owners saw the Senate vote to expand background checks as an attack on their freedom.The gun industry may profit from peoples fear, but Obama has been the source of that fear. Esten is always writing about background checks but what he fails to mention is expanded background checks was just one amendment to the Democrats' gun control bill. There were several other amendments two of which had already passed before Harry Reid Pulled the bill: "One that would deter states from publishing lists of gun owners and a bipartisan plan to bolster federal funding for mental health efforts, including suicide prevention programs." Why didn't Harry Reid let the bill continue on?

Think about it the Democrats stopped an already passed bipartisan plan to bolster federal funding for mental health efforts, including suicide prevention programs. Does anybody think the people involved in mass shootings might have mental health problems? Apparently it's not very important to Democrats.

WorldTravel69

08-24-13, 22:16

A Sanity test might help.

Which of the gun control laws would have prevented this crime?

Gun control is best learned at the range.

Punter 127

08-25-13, 00:59

Read my question again.

A Sanity test might help.Funny, I don't remember seeing any proposed gun legislation calling for "Sanity" testing, maybe you could tell us who introduced that bill or a bill number?

I do remember a passed bipartisan plan to bolster federal funding for mental health efforts, including suicide prevention programs. But Harry Reid stepped on that.

Punter 127

08-25-13, 14:55

A Sanity test might help.WT I'm going to cut you some slack here because you actually hit on something that we have some agreement on, although I'm sure it was by accident on your part. In January Obama issued a list of executive actions (not the same thing as executive orders) directed at the problem of mass shootings by madmen. Much of the list had little if anything to do with mass shootings. But several of the listed actions call for the legitimate goal of trying to prevent dangerously mentally ill people from obtaining firearms. In response the USA Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has called for public comments as part of their plan to revise federal law to improve reporting of people with the so-called "mental health prohibitor" of gun ownership.

Now here's the important part, the HHS Proposed Rule document notes, federal law already prohibits those persons from possessing or receiving a firearm who:

1) have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

2) have been found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity.

3) otherwise have been determined, through a formal adjudication process, to have a severe mental condition that results in the individuals presenting a danger to themselves or others or being incapable of managing their own affairs.

I do not support banning some guns from everybody, but I do support banning all guns from criminals and the insane. The idea that keeping a madman from getting an AR15 but allowing him to have a shotgun is itself insane.

Now I'm off to the Gun Show, I'll report back.

Esten

08-25-13, 16:30

Esten is using a tactic that's designed to attract low information voters to his side of the argument.

Leave it to an NRA apologist to call facts "tactics". It is a fact that the gun lobby used fear (of losing freedom) to mislead and manipulate the discussion on gun control legislation earlier this year.

The gun industry may profit from peoples fear, but Obama has been the source of that fear.

So when the gun lobby lied about the legislation creating a national gun registry, that was Obama's fault I suppose.

Esten is always writing about background checks but what he fails to mention is expanded background checks was just one amendment to the Democrats' gun control bill. There were several other amendments two of which had already passed before Harry Reid Pulled the bill: "One that would deter states from publishing lists of gun owners and a bipartisan plan to bolster federal funding for mental health efforts, including suicide prevention programs." Why didn't Harry Reid let the bill continue on?

Punter knows very well, Reid strategically voted against the legislation and pulled it when the background check amendment didn't get 60 votes, so he could bring it to the floor again in the future and get the background check legislation passed. More funding for mental health efforts is good, and would be supported along with expanding background checks. On it's own, it's pretty much a deflection to spare gun owners from having to do anything. Why spend taxpayer money on mental health funding, in the hopes of preventing crazy people from killing, but in the meantime still leave open loopholes that allow them to buy a gun without a background check? It doesn't make any sense.

I do not support banning some guns from everybody, but I do support banning all guns from criminals and the insane. The idea that keeping a madman from getting an AR15 but allowing him to have a shotgun is itself insane.

So why the continued resistance to expanding background checks, that 90% of Americans supported ?

Rev BS

08-25-13, 19:42

A Sanity test might help.Very dangerous, it's possible that more than 50 per cent might fail the test.

Punter 127

08-26-13, 01:41

Leave it to an NRA apologist to call facts "tactics". It is a fact that the gun lobby used fear (of losing freedom) to mislead and manipulate the discussion on gun control legislation earlier this year.
As if the left didn't use fear and emotion to try and get said legislation passed.

What's sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander.

So when the gun lobby lied about the legislation creating a national gun registry, that was Obama's fault I suppose. I don't speak for the gun lobby, but I will provide some thoughts that may enable the readers to surmise why someone would say something like that. But before I do I want to point out that you yourself are not exactly standing on any moral high ground of truthfulness, nor does Obama!

Punter knows very well, Reid strategically voted against the legislation and pulled it when the background check amendment didn't get 60 votes, so he could bring it to the floor again in the future and get the background check legislation passed.Please don't speak for me, I don't know any such thing. To my knowledge there is no double jeopardy rule here, they can reintroduce carbon copy legislation at anytime, and Reid can get it to the floor for a vote.

More funding for mental health efforts is good, and would be supported along with expanding background checks. On it's own, it's pretty much a deflection to spare gun owners from having to do anything. Why spend taxpayer money on mental health funding, in the hopes of preventing crazy people from killing, but in the meantime still leave open loopholes that allow them to buy a gun without a background check? It doesn't make any sense.
Approximately eighty percent of all gun sale are covered by the current background check system. (the exact number is unknown) So lets see if I understand you, it makes sense to spend taxpayer money to cover twenty percent or less of gun sale with background checks, which most experts say will have very little effect on crime. But it doesn't make sense to spend taxpayer money for mental health funding for eighty percent of gun sales.

That's just tripe!

So why the continued resistance to expanding background checks, that 90% of Americans supported ?I'm glad you put that in past tense. The way the current background check system works the buyer fills out form 4473 and the dealers enters that form into the NICS, and then the sale's approved or denied, the government is required to destroy their copy of the form the next day, but the dealer must keep up to 20 years of records on gun purchases. The ATF can--and often does--check those records whenever they want with regular and surprise visits. They can come in, look at those records, and figure out who has and hasn't purchased a gun during the last 20 years, that is a de facto registry.

How would expanded checks be enforced, how would the government know that I'm not selling a gun to my neighbor nor is my neighbor selling a gun to me without a gun registry? They have to know where the guns are to make it work.

Other problems with expanded background checks is only dealers have access to NICS and I didn't see any provision to require dealers run checks for individual sales nor do I see any incentive for the dealer. I also didn't see any provision to allow access to the system by individuals. This would kill secondary gun sales and eventually allow the government to know where every gun is sitting and where every gun owner lives. And that appears to be the end game.

It is currently illegal to knowingly sell a gun to someone who can't legally own a gun. I would support opening NICS to individuals on a voluntary bases so sellers can verify that buyers are legally able to buy a gun, as it stands now individuals can't run a check even if they want to.

Esten

08-27-13, 00:31

Reid can't bring a new bill to the floor, without overcoming a virtually-gauranteed Republican filibuster. You remember the big flap over this last time. Most Republican senators voted against even allowing a debate and vote. So, any pretense that Republicans were ever serious about reducing gun violence is largely false. No doubt, Reid knows the calculus, and believes that for some Republican senators, a vote on background checks is going to be less politically risky than a vote to bring gun control legislation to the floor a second time.

Don't forget the expanded background checks were to prevent both criminals and the mentally unstable from being able to purchase guns. Yet somehow, a small minority of people (and their lobby) have endless excuses to justify keeping loopholes that facilitate this. For example, "But it's only 20% of gun sales". How about, it's 100% of the sales where criminals and the mentally unstable purchase guns directly?! Certainly, expanded background checks won't put a complete stop to guns getting into the wrong hands. But the data shows it is an effective measure to reduce the occurence. And BTW, opening NICS to individual sellers on a voluntary basis has questionable merit, because the data also shows that most private sellers will agree to sell guns to people who say they can't pass a background check. The background check has to be mandatory, and enforced.

The NRA counter proposals only exist as a facade to fool people into thinking they care. And here's what they all have in common: They all maintain or expand gun sales.

Tres3

08-27-13, 01:39

And BTW, opening NICS to individual sellers on a voluntary basis has questionable merit, because the data also shows that most private sellers will agree to sell guns to people who say they can't pass a background check.What planet did you get this fantasy from?

Tres3.

WorldTravel69

08-27-13, 12:50

It is so hard to Laugh about this Congress.

Flexible Horn

08-27-13, 16:04

Looking on Ranker web site I was very surprised that President Obama only ranks 19th in the list of all time great American presidents.

http://www.ranker.com/crowdranked-list/the-u-s-presidents-from-best-to-worst

President Obama has unveiled a plan to address gun violence in the nation. The initiative consists of 23 executive actions and three presidential memoranda, most of which will require congressional approval.

Obama has also tackled many other difficult issues.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/march_april_2012/features/obamas_top_50_accomplishments035755.php?page=all

These have been exceptionally difficult times during his presidency but he has shown tremendous leadership skills.

I feel in time Mr Obama will go down as one of Americas greatest presidents surely making the top 3 list.

Member #4112

08-27-13, 16:16

I hope that was sarcasm.

Tiny12

08-27-13, 16:17

I feel in time Mr Obama will go down as one of Americas greatest presidents surely making the top 3 list.Hahahahahahahahahahahaha! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! HaHa!

Rev BS

08-27-13, 16:58

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! HaHa!In other words, "before criticizing someone, walk a mile in his shoes".

But go ahead, laugh all you can. Life is short.

Jackson

08-27-13, 17:26

This is the one that made me laugh.

...but he has shown tremendous leadership skills.

Silver Star

08-27-13, 20:45

For sure the greatest in increasing national debt! Blows Reagan / Bush right out of the water!

Looking on Ranker web site I was very surprised that President Obama only ranks 19th in the list of all time great American presidents.

http://www.ranker.com/crowdranked-list/the-u-s-presidents-from-best-to-worst

President Obama has unveiled a plan to address gun violence in the nation. The initiative consists of 23 executive actions and three presidential memoranda, most of which will require congressional approval.

Obama has also tackled many other difficult issues.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/march_april_2012/features/obamas_top_50_accomplishments035755.php?page=all

These have been exceptionally difficult times during his presidency but he has shown tremendous leadership skills.

I feel in time Mr Obama will go down as one of Americas greatest presidents surely making the top 3 list.

Member #4112

08-27-13, 21:56

In other words, "before criticizing someone, walk a mile in his shoes".

But go ahead, laugh all you can. Life is short.I would love to but I don't think I could play that much golf, take that many vacations (even if it is on the tax payer's dime), or play small ball to the point the USA became the laughing stock of the civilized world.

Esten

08-28-13, 00:06

Did You Make That Up?

New York City Undercover Investigation: Most Private Sellers Agreed To Sell Firearm To Someone Who Said They Couldn't Pass A Background Check. In an investigation of 10 websites in 14 states that allow unlicensed sellers to list firearms for sale, undercover investigators working for the City of New York found that 77 out of 125 sellers agreed to go forward with a firearm sale after the purchaser said that he could not pass a background check. [CityofNewYork,December2011]

http://www.mediamatters.org/mobile/research/2013/04/11/seven-media-myths-about-the-gun-background-chec/193588

See Tres, unlike you (in the Zimmerman thread), I can back up what I post when asked.

El Perro

08-28-13, 00:23

Tres3

08-28-13, 00:45

New York City Undercover Investigation: Most Private Sellers Agreed To Sell Firearm To Someone Who Said They Couldn't Pass A Background Check. In an investigation of 10 websites in 14 states that allow unlicensed sellers to list firearms for sale, undercover investigators working for the City of New York found that 77 out of 125 sellers agreed to go forward with a firearm sale after the purchaser said that he could not pass a background check. [CityofNewYork,December2011]

http://www.mediamatters.org/mobile/research/2013/04/11/seven-media-myths-about-the-gun-background-chec/193588

See Tres, unlike you (in the Zimmerman thread), I can back up what I post when asked.

There are over twelve MILLION people living in the New York metropolitan area and you are trying to prove a point by citing a single undercover sting operation involving 125 individuals that was reported by a questionable media source. Give us all a break and just go away. BTW if you read the Zimmerman thread carefully, you will find that I never purported to give factual information. All I said, many times over, was that Zimmerman was stupid, and I will stand by that opinion.

It is past your bedtime little boy. You should stop trying to play with grown ups.

Tres3

Punter 127

08-28-13, 00:51

I feel in time Mr Obama will go down as one of Americas greatest presidents surely making the top 3 list.This from a Brit who claims England gave America independence out of the kindness of their heart, and England bailed the United States out in WW II.

Now Esten thanked him, you got to love that. Birds of a feather and all that I guess. ROFLMAO.

I would say Obama has leadership abilities similar to those of the Pied Piper, he has led millions of Americans down the garden path.

Esten

08-28-13, 01:27

I would love to but I don't think I could play that much golf, take that many vacations (even if it is on the tax payer's dime), or play small ball to the point the USA became the laughing stock of the civilized world.Another witty comment from a conservative living in the Fox News bubble, repeating what he hears in the right wing media, where the laughing stock line is now making the rounds. Like Tres, don't expect Doppel to post any real data to back up his claim. Donald Trump was using that line recently too. BTW, Trump is now being sued by the NY AG for fraud.

Esten

08-28-13, 01:39

There are over twelve MILLION people living in the New York metropolitan area and you are trying to prove a point by citing a single undercover sting operation involving 125 individuals that was reported by a questionable media source. Give us all a break and just go away. BTW if you read the Zimmerman thread carefully, you will find that I never purported to give factual information. All I said, many times over, was that Zimmerman was stupid, and I will stand by that opinion.

It is past your bedtime little boy. You should stop trying to play with grown ups.I'm good. But it might be past your bedtime, old man. You're confused. In the Zimmerman thread a few days ago you claimed NY was not enforcing gun laws. I asked you to share some data on this. You did not.