American Politics during the Obama Presidency [Archive] - Page 21

Tiny12

11-29-13, 15:23

I have checked with about 20 people I know over 50 who all have similar stories and will get coverage without going near the federal website.

Agents still sell health insurance and there are private sites up and running.

Then purpose of the mandates is to push younger, more healthy people into buying coverage through economic incentives. Simular to the way the USA pushes wealthy agricultural companies to produce what fits into the national interestseg large payments to influence the crops they plant or don't plant.

Rock posted links to basic social science articles about what happens historically when the economic elites get too much of the wealth and power--society falls apart. If you only are thinking about your own pocket for the next few years, Rock's point makes no sense. If you are thinking that the noble experiment that is the USA is something important that we would like to see strengthened to last another 100 years+, then Rock's articles are very vital. Try to seach: distribution of wealth USA you will be shocked.

Interesting. Then you can add Obamacare to Medicare and Social Security as programs where older Americans take advantage of future generations, by taking much more out of the system than they put it. Our children and grandchildren won't have a prayer, just massive amounts of debt to repay.

RH like many on the left doesn't consider the changes in the tax system that occurred effective 1/1/2013. The USA has a very progressive tax system. The idea that you can just tax the top 1% more to pay for unfunded entitlements and voracious federal spending and avoid an economic catastrophe is a pipe dream. The money isn't there. High federal taxes in the USA on successful businesses and individuals means the economy won't grow as fast, and all will be worse off, although more equal.

Stagnation of middle class incomes has occurred not just in the USA but in the more developed countries all over the world. You can chalk it up mostly to technology and globalization. Yes we could go back to manufacturing things by hand instead of machines, or take jobs away from people in 3rd world countries who would then struggle to survive. And the world would be a worse place for most people. But the USA, Europe and Japan would be more equal, if that's the objective.

-Slithering Fascist Tiny

Rev BS

11-29-13, 16:26

Then purpose of the mandates is to push younger, more healthy people into buying coverage through economic incentives. Simular to the way the USA pushes wealthy agricultural companies to produce what fits into the national interestseg large payments to influence the crops they plant or don't plant.

Rock posted links to basic social science articles about what happens historically when the economic elites get too much of the wealth and power--society falls apart. If you only are thinking about your own pocket for the next few years, Rock's point makes no sense. If you are thinking that the noble experiment that is the USA is something important that we would like to see strengthened to last another 100 years+, then Rock's articles are very vital. Try to seach: distribution of wealth USA you will be shocked.

The only thing you need the federal site for is subsides. And to give the tv and media pundits something to fill up airtime.

Why don't the pundits just mention that private insurance agents can do the policy placements, help with applications and getting the subsidy info into the system.

Thank God up above for the affordible care act. I will save $14,000. A year for much better coverage.The hate for Obama over trumps everything. Why the hate, you ask?

Rock Harders

11-29-13, 18:05

You're right about that. Chapter 13 bankruptcy laws had absolutely nothing to do with the GM or Chrysler bailouts because the Obama administration completely ignored the country's bankruptcy laws.Wrong. Chapter 13 bankruptcy laws had nothing to do with the GM or Chrysler bailouts because Chapter 13 CANNOT be used for individuals or organizations with over $360,475 USD in unsecured debt. Just more totally unsubstantiated rhetoric from the fascist wing of AP, who continue to prove that THEY only care about emotion (and whatever they were told by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh) and make not effort to cite any actual facts.

Jackson

11-29-13, 18:54

Just more totally unsubstantiated rhetoric from the fascist wing of AP, who continue to prove that THEY only care about emotion (and whatever they were told by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh) and make not effort to cite any actual facts.Hey Rock,

Apparently you missed an important day in civics class, so let me enlighten you.

According to the Webster dictionary, fascism is "a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government, very harsh control or authority."

I don't know anyone on this website who espouses a desire for "a government ruled by a dictator".

The definition much more accurately describes your hero Obama than it does me.

Thanks,

Jax

Of course, the most important thing is that we're not talking about the ObamaCare diaster!

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

For the record, I am NOT a Republican, and I am NOT a conservative.

- I am against the death penalty.
- I am against any government support of religious organizations.
- I am for the legalization of recreational drugs.
- I am for the legalization of commercial sex.
- I am for a woman's right to choose.
- I am for comprehensive sex education.
- I am for a foreign guest worker program.
- I am for a universal flat tax on EVERYONE'S income.
- I am for health INSURANCE reform.
- I am for health JUSTICE reform.

I am a member of the Libertarian Party, registered as an Independent.

Tiny12

11-29-13, 19:00

Just more totally unsubstantiated rhetoric from the fascist wing of AP, who continue to prove that THEY only care about emotion (and whatever they were told by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh) and make not effort to cite any actual facts.Doppelganger confused Chapter 13 with Chapter 11. So what? Just more nitpicking from the fascist / neo-corporatist wing of AP, who continue to prove that THEY only care about emotion (and whatever they were told by MSNBC and Rachel Maddow) and make no effort to provide any substantive, real-world evidence.

Member #4112

11-29-13, 20:11

This is inaccurate information. Chapter 13 bankruptcy laws had absolutely nothing to do with the GM or Chrysler bailouts and were not applicable in either case.If you READ the first sentence of the post I clearly indicated Obama circumvented the United States Bankruptcy Code and took both GM & Chrysler into a totally illegal quasi-bankruptcy proceeding I referred to as "Obama-ruptcy". Chapter 11 was what both company's and all other companies normally follow when attempting to reorganize. A good example of reorganization would be the airline industry, many carriers have entered bankruptcy for reorganization and one of the many results is court authorization to void labor contracts.

Are you trying to say this did not happen? Are you trying to say GM did not pay off it's initial bailout loan with another loan from the government?

I clearly stated Obama used this quasi-bankruptcy proceeding made up from whole cloth to shield the UAW and prevent GM & Chrysler from entering a full Chapter 11 reorganization so as not to have their labor contracts with UAW voided, not to mention their retirement and healthcare benefits, while striping the equity holders and transferring its value in part to the UAW.

Please do a bit of research before posting. There are many articles regarding this matter.

Rock Harders

11-29-13, 21:46

If you READ the first sentence of the post I clearly indicated Obama circumvented the United States Bankruptcy Code and took both GM & Chrysler into a totally illegal quasi-bankruptcy proceeding I referred to as "Obama-ruptcy". Chapter 11 was what both company's and all other companies normally follow when attempting to reorganize. A good example of reorganization would be the airline industry, many carriers have entered bankruptcy for reorganization and one of the many results is court authorization to void labor contracts.

Are you trying to say this did not happen? Are you trying to say GM did not pay off it's initial bailout loan with another loan from the government?

I clearly stated Obama used this quasi-bankruptcy proceeding made up from whole cloth to shield the UAW and prevent GM & Chrysler from entering a full Chapter 11 reorganization so as not to have their labor contracts with UAW voided, not to mention their retirement and healthcare benefits, while striping the equity holders and transferring its value in part to the UAW.

Please do a bit of research before posting. There are many articles regarding this matter.You claimed that Chapter 13 of the bankruptcy code was used; this was false information and I called you out on it, simple as that.

Jackson

11-29-13, 22:18

You claimed that Chapter 13 of the bankruptcy code was used; this was false information and I called you out on it, simple as that.Technically, he said that in fact Chapter 13 of the bankruptcy code wasn't being used. That was the crux of his comments.

Your retort about Chapter 13 vs Chapter 11 was just more liberal obfuscation of the real issue.

Of course, the most important thing is that we're not talking about the ObamaCare diaster!

Rock Harders

11-29-13, 23:58

Technically, he said that in fact Chapter 13 of the bankruptcy code wasn't being used. That was the crux of his comments.

Your retort about Chapter 13 vs Chapter 11 was just more liberal obfuscation of the real issue.

Of course, the most important thing is that we're not talking about the ObamaCare diaster!Wrong again. The real issue is that the auto bailouts were successful and today there are two financially viable AMERICAN auto companies that would NOT exist "as is" had the USG not stepped in before they totally imploded.

Tiny12

11-30-13, 01:50

Wrong again. The real issue is that the auto bailouts were successful and today there are two financially viable AMERICAN auto companies that would NOT exist "as is" had the USG not stepped in before they totally imploded.I have no idea whether what you wrote is true or good, except that Chrysler will become an ITALIAN auto company, not an American company, as a result of its bailout. I do know that Obama's restructuring of Chrysler and GM are classic examples of Fascist Corporatism, as practiced by Mussolini and as promoted by WT69's hero, Robert Reich:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism#Fascist_corporatism.

Government called the shots, pushed aside debt-holders, and replaced private ownership with ownership by government and labor unions. I believe at the time Chrysler emerged from Chapter 11, over 50% of the equity had been transferred to the unions.

You calling people who opposed the bailouts "fascists" is irony in the extreme.

WorldTravel69

11-30-13, 05:12

The Bail outs Worked.

Get your head out of your?

You are not an American, just one by being born here; or were you, Let's see Your Birth Certificate? Freedom for You but not all, just the Rich.

You may want to read this a Little.

Robert Reich sounds like a 1st Country American, not some 3rd world Dictator.

I have no idea whether what you wrote is true or good, except that Chrysler will become an ITALIAN auto company, not an American company, as a result of its bailout. I do know that Obama's restructuring of Chrysler and GM are classic examples of Fascist Corporatism, as practiced by Mussolini and as promoted by WT69's hero, Robert Reich:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism#Fascist_corporatism.

Government called the shots, pushed aside debt-holders, and replaced private ownership with ownership by government and labor unions. I believe at the time Chrysler emerged from Chapter 11, over 50% of the equity had been transferred to the unions.

You calling people who opposed the bailouts "fascists" is irony in the extreme.

WorldTravel69

11-30-13, 05:38

Esten

11-30-13, 13:45

Come on you Republican, independents and Libertarians feel about how the Trickle Down Reagan politics are working today?

Walmart employees are not making a living wage.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/29/news/economy/walmart-black-friday/

Come let's here your Bullshit reasons.WT, it's very simple. We just need to help the wealthy make even more money, so that more money will trickle back down.

Jackson

11-30-13, 13:52

WT, it's very simple. We just need to help the wealthy make even more money, so that more money will trickle back down.No, we need for EVERYBODY to make more money, but some people are so fucking lazy that they'd prefer to sit on their asses and collect government checks.

You liberals just don't get it. Instead of fighting over who gets how much of the pie, let's just bake more pies.

Everybody needs to work. Everybody needs to contribute. The more of us who are working, the wealthier we will all be.

Or we can follow the liberal plan, which is an ever-srinking number of us working to support an increasingly greater number of lazy fuckoffs.

Why does that happen? Because the Democratics buy the votes of the lazy fuckoffs with government money, thus securing their power base with permanent government dependents.

Of course, the most important thing is that we're not talking about the ObamaCare diaster!

Thanks,

Jackson

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

For the record, I am NOT a Republican, and I am NOT a conservative.

- I am against the death penalty.
- I am against any government support of religious organizations.
- I am for the legalization of drugs.
- I am for the legalization of commercial sex.
- I am for a woman's right to choose.
- I am for comprehensive sex education.
- I am for a foreign guest worker program.
- I am for a universal flat tax on EVERYONE'S income.

I am a member of the Libertarian Party, registered as an Independent.

Member #4112

11-30-13, 14:56

First for all our liberal / progressive friends who obsess about the Top 1% of earners, by the way the threshold for the top one percent depending on the source is somewhere between $323 K and 368 K, even if you took all their income it would not run the government for more than a few weeks. The sad fact is the liberal / progressives just can't stand to see folks making more than they do, that is until you start taking their money.

WT69 / Hard Rocker / Esten, there is no proof whatsoever the "bailout worked" when it comes to GM and Chrysler.

Chrysler "An AMERICAN AUTOMAKER":

Fiat's current ownership of Chrysler stands at 58.5% and is poised to complete the merger of the two companies unless the UAW retiree's trust which owns the remaining 41.5% of the stock screws the pooch with an IPO offering which is being fought out in court as we speak. Should the UAW proceed Fiat will pull back support and the automaker will be down the tubes again.

Question, how can a company in the process of merging with an Italian automaker who owes 58.5% of the stock be an AMERICAN automaker? When the merger closes what you call Chrysler today will be all Fiat tomorrow.

Did we somehow annex Italy so it's still an AMERICAN company?

GM "They paid back their bailout loan":

To date the taxpayers have lost $10 Billion on "saving" GM. In addition GM and Chrysler have the highest labor cost of the American Big 3 and all three have higher labor costs than their foreign competitors. Maybe that's because of the UAW since the foreign companies are not unionized?

http://www.ibtimes.com/taxpayer-loss-general-motors-gm-bailout-near-10-billion-rising-1468890

Again neither Chrysler nor GM considered filing for liquidation of the companies under Chapter 7, so your argument about throwing all those poor UAW folks out of work and closing two automakers is false on its face and typical liberal / progressive hype to scare people.

So that only leaves us with the only reason Obama instituted "Obama – ruptcy" for GM and Chrysler was to save the UAW labor contracts and to rape the bondholders, who are first in line for payment, transferring a majority of their interest to the UAW.

You guys have no proof whatsoever that GM and Chrysler would not have been in much better competitive shape with lower labor costs had they been allowed to proceed through a normal Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which would have among other things allowed them to void their labor contracts with the UAW.

All you do have now is GM costing the taxpayer's $10 Billion and rising and Chrysler which has been sold to Fiat.

Great going guys a perfect example of crony capitalism.

Rock Harders

11-30-13, 15:11

Member #4112

11-30-13, 15:46

Mongers-.

Basically, what Jackson REALLY wants is the following:

- Immediate reinstitution of Jim Crow Laws.

- Literacy / IQ tests at the polls before voting allowed.

- Minimum annual income requirement of $100,000 USD to be permitted to vote.

- Allow injured / sick people to suffer / die outside the emergency room if they have no insurance or ability to pay on the spot.

- Round up and shoot all illegal immigrants.

- Lower minimum wage to $2 USD / hour.

Essentially Jackson (and his fascist brethren on this thread) want to make all the money and all the decisions and have a massive underclass of serfs running around attending to them and earning only enough money to barely feed themselves on. Unfortunately for Jackson and his fascist fan boys the USA still functions on a one person one vote principle and as recent presidential elections clearly show, people of his thinking are clearly outnumbered.

Suerte,

Rock Harders.Holy Shit Batman, where in the world did you come up with that list of total asinine be / S. Jackson has always advocated everyone working and contributing to the whole so what is your problem with that?

Is your proposition to force the "rich" to work and support those who don't work? They tried that already and it didn't work. It just made everyone the same, poor, except for the ruling elite.

Socialism has been tried many times and it fails every time due to human nature, which liberals chose to ignore.

From your list here is my proposal and not Jackson's.

Deporting illegal aliens and if they want in do it the legal way. Reagan tried legalizing them and it has only made the problem worse.

You don't pay taxes you don't get to vote.

Leave care for the indigent to the community or state and get it out of the federal government's hands to those who cannot print money to support an unsupportable program.

Tiny12

11-30-13, 19:22

The Bail outs Worked.

Get your head out of your?

You are not an American, just one by being born here; or were you, Let's see Your Birth Certificate? Freedom for You but not all, just the Rich.

You may want to read this a Little.

Robert Reich sounds like a 1st Country American, not some 3rd world Dictator.Robert Reich sounds like a nut case in the article you posted. He's criticizing efficient allocation of capital and improvements in productivity. Follow his advice and in the long term the economy will go down the toilet.

As to being an American, the founders would roll over in their graves if they saw the current state of the federal government. The USA under Obama is out of sync with most of the rest of the world, which has moved towards free markets and away from statism. If you want to find a place ideally suited to your views you better hurry up and move, as Cuba is the last place left, although there will always be less desirable alternatives like Venezuela and Bolivia.

You're extrapolating a lot BTW. I never ventured an opinion as to whether the bailouts worked or didn't work. And I've never said anything about food stamps.

WorldTravel69

12-01-13, 04:04

Let's repeat Rock Harders post.

"Mongers-.

Basically, what Jackson REALLY wants is the following:

- Immediate re institution of Jim Crow Laws.

- Literacy / IQ tests at the polls before voting allowed.

- Minimum annual income requirement of $100,000 USD to be permitted to vote.

- Allow injured / sick people to suffer / die outside the emergency room if they have no insurance or ability to pay on the spot.

- Round up and shoot all illegal immigrants.

- Lower minimum wage to $2 USD / hour.

Essentially Jackson (and his fascist brethren on this thread) want to make all the money and all the decisions and have a massive underclass of serfs running around attending to them and earning only enough money to barely feed themselves on. Unfortunately for Jackson and his fascist fan boys the USA still functions on a one person one vote principle and as recent presidential elections clearly show, people of his thinking are clearly outnumbered.

Suerte,

Rock Harders.

Holy Shit Batman, where in the world did you come up with that list of total asinine be / S. Jackson has always advocated everyone working and contributing to the whole so what is your problem with that?

Is your proposition to force the "rich" to work and support those who don't work? They tried that already and it didn't work. It just made everyone the same, poor, except for the ruling elite.

Socialism has been tried many times and it fails every time due to human nature, which liberals chose to ignore.

From your list here is my proposal and not Jackson's.

Deporting illegal aliens and if they want in do it the legal way. Reagan tried legalizing them and it has only made the problem worse.

You don't pay taxes you don't get to vote.

Leave care for the indigent to the community or state and get it out of the federal government's hands to those who cannot print money to support an unsupportable program.

WorldTravel69

12-01-13, 04:15

But to the ones that Rock Harders post pointed out.

"Essentially Jackson (and his fascist brethren on this thread) want to make all the money and all the decisions and have a massive underclass of serfs running around attending to them and earning only enough money to barely feed themselves on. Unfortunately for Jackson and his fascist fan boys the USA still functions on a one person one vote principle and as recent presidential elections clearly show, people of his thinking are clearly outnumbered."

Robert Reich sounds like a nut case in the article you posted. He's criticizing efficient allocation of capital and improvements in productivity. Follow his advice and in the long term the economy will go down the toilet." Your Opinion

As to being an American, the founders would roll over in their graves if they saw the current state of the federal government. True, there would be another revolution to get a new Congress into office.
The USA under Obama is out of sync with most of the rest of the world, In your Opinion, not the rest of the world. which has moved towards free markets and away from statism. What spelling is this?
If you want to find a place ideally suited to your views you better hurry up and move, as Cuba is the last place left, although there will always be less desirable alternatives like Venezuela and Bolivia. North Korea sounds like what you want. No rights at all.

You're extrapolating a lot BTW. I never ventured an opinion as to whether the bailouts worked or didn't work. And I've never said anything about food stamps.

Tiny12

12-01-13, 16:57

No, we need for EVERYBODY to make more money, but some people are so fucking lazy that they'd prefer to sit on their asses and collect government checks.

You liberals just don't get it. Instead of fighting over who gets how much of the pie, let's just bake more pies.

Everybody needs to work. Everybody needs to contribute. The more of us who are working, the wealthier we will all be.

Or we can follow the liberal plan, which is an ever-srinking number of us working to support an increasingly greater number of lazy fuckoffs.

Why does that happen? Because the Democratics buy the votes of the lazy fuckoffs with government money, thus securing their power base with permanent government dependents.

WT69, The above, while true, does not apply to the average lefty, like you, posting here. You all fall into one or both of the following categories:

1. You've been brainwashed by MSNBC, parents, Marxist professors, your neighbors in San Francisco, etc. Either the brainwashing has been so intense that reason doesn't matter, or you don't possess the real-world-business experience, knowledge or analytical ability to realize you've been fed a line of B.S.

2. While you are not lazy and have done your fair share, the Democrat platform is better for you. This applies to trial lawyers, your Medicare, DH's medical insurance, etc.

But to the ones that Rock Harders post pointed out.

"Essentially Jackson (and his fascist brethren on this thread) want to make all the money and all the decisions and have a massive underclass of serfs running around attending to them and earning only enough money to barely feed themselves on. Unfortunately for Jackson and his fascist fan boys the USA still functions on a one person one vote principle and as recent presidential elections clearly show, people of his thinking are clearly outnumbered."I've only met one gringo monger in Argentina, who was spending a ridiculous amount of money at Black. But that's for another topic. So I don't know you or RH or Esten, unless we've met somewhere else. I do however read. And remember that when the bottom fell out of the Argentine economy, Jackson was coordinating aid for soup kitchens and orphanages. RH on the other hand was living the life of the top .01% of Cubans on his junkets to Miramar in Havana. Esten was dropping megabucks at Hippo. And you were pursuing an expensive hobby, bagging poontang in something like 50 countries. Which, honestly and without any sarcasm intended, is very impressive.

I suspect you, Esten, RH and Black Shirt led more opulent lifestyles than I did until 3 or 4 years ago. Every spare, after-tax dime I got was put back into my business and investments. In part because a good part of my business is in 3rd world countries, I believe those investments benefited people more than the taxes I paid to the USA federal government. Much of the money spent by the federal government is squandered, used inefficiently, or does more harm than good.

Don B

12-01-13, 17:14

Member #4112

12-01-13, 19:07

Fascism. A reasonable definition:

Fas·cism (fshzm).

noun

1. often Fascism.

A. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

Be. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.

2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

I really wish you guys would research the words you are throwing around and calling folks.

As always the last bastion of the liberal / progressive is name calling when whey run out of reasoned argument.

The definition sounds a whole lot like Obama and his administration, not Jackson or the rest of us.

Tatu Hei

12-01-13, 22:14

The USA under Obama is out of sync with most of the rest of the world, which has moved towards free markets and away from statism. The countries with the highest standards of living and the highest reported levels of happiness have universal government-sponsored health care, protections for unions and workers displaced by corporate movements, and high effective tax rates, both for individuals and corporations. I am talking about Switzerland, Denmark, Germany, Sweden, and other northern European countries. While it is true that, on paper, the corporate tax rate is high in the United States, the actual rates that companies pay is low because there are so many loopholes that do not exist in the social democracies. Please note I did not say socialist democracies. In all the northern European countries, there is universal recognition that private companies are the engines of development. Entrepreneurship is appreciated, but companies are not allowed to play off one part of the country against another in order to get reverse tax breaks, that is, outright payments from states and localities. Governments (the "State" if you will) in the northern European countries are also effective in preventing monopolies that are well protected by traditional Republicans in the United States. The northern European countries have problems in terms of immigration just as the United States has, but parties work together so that there is some consistency between law and practice. People are not allowed to walk into restaurants and libraries with guns in any other civilized country. I don't call that statism, but it is certainly government control over individual behavior. In summary, the notion that the United States is more "statist" than other countries is patently false.

The answer to America's sluggish growth is the Obama agenda: education, health care, investment in infrastructure, tax reform to moderate the dangerously accelerating gap between the rich and everyone else, and collaboration with business as to the correct types of regulation. The sad fact is that Congress is literally trying to hurt the country as a strategy to defeat the Democrats.

Finally, with all due respect to Jackson, the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) has already decelerated the growth in health care spending in the United States. For everyone who really cares about the national debt, the tremendous success of the ACA in cutting costs already and the likelihood that it will cut costs much more in the future constitute the best news future generations could possibly hear. Obama erred when he said that everyone could keep their insurance. Two per cent could not, but even some of them are now able to keep their former (poor) policies. Certainly the roll-out of the ACA has been sloppy, but that will be totally forgotten, just as it was in Massachusetts when at first they had trouble implementing Romneycare. Romneycare is very popular, and the big fear among the Republicans is that ObamaCare will be equally popular. The ACA is moving the USA, ever so slowly, toward a rational health care system for all, just as enjoyed by the rest of the civilized world: better care, lower cost.

Tiny12

12-02-13, 00:56

Tatu Hei, I absolutely stand behind my 26 word sentence. I didn't say anything about tax rates, but admit there's a correlation between taxes and free markets / statism. And the trend is towards lower tax rates, particularly on businesses, in the countries you listed:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/05/13/look-to-sweden-obamas-high-tax-gurus/
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/sweden/corporate-tax-rate
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/sweden/personal-income-tax-rate

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/denmark/personal-income-tax-rate
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/denmark/corporate-tax-rate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:German_tax_rate_on_corporate_income_1995-2009.png
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/germany/highest-marginal-tax-rate-corporate-rate-percent-wb-data.html
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/germany/personal-income-tax-rate

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/switzerland/corporate-tax-rate
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/switzerland/personal-income-tax-rate

In general, the maximum tax rate on businesses in these countries is much lower than the USA, and, as a result of the Obama tax increase, the maximum tax rate on individuals (state + federal) is comparable. Your comment that many USA Corporations take advantage of loopholes is true. The biggest obstacles to coming up with a more efficient and fair system, by removing loopholes and lowering the corporate rate are President Obama and Harry Reid. Max Baucus (Democrat, chairman of Senate Committee on Finance) would like to get that done.

Given the difference in cultures and given the size of the USA, it's amazing to me that our GDP per capita (adjusted for PPP) is considerably higher than the best examples you could come up with, Denmark, Sweden and Germany. I'd attribute this to smaller government, in relation to the size of the economy, in the USA. Switzerland is marginally more prosperous per capita, but has lower taxes, and I suspect it's less statist.

I agree with what you wrote about immigration. I also agree the USA Is less statist than the majority of developed countries. However, the trend in the USA under Obama is towards more statism. The trend in Eastern Europe, Latin America (with the exception of Chavez, et al) and Africa has been towards less statism, because that works best, economically. I suspect your statement about monopolies is untrue, and in any event would blame Democrats just as much as traditional Republicans.

The problem with the "Obama agenda" is that it mindlessly throws money at problems, given how inefficient the federal government is. We already spend more per capita on education and health care in terms of PPP than any other country, and we don't get results. Obama wants to double down with what's not working. One of the reasons government works better in the countries you mentioned is because, with the exception of Germany, they're much smaller and government is closer to the people. That's why as much as possible should be left to states and localities, instead of Washington D.C.

Your expectations about the ACA are a complete pipe-dream. We currently spend about 17% of GDP on healthcare. The Congressional Budget Office expects this to go to 20% in future years, with Obamacare. This is ridiculous, given that nobody else spends over 12% and outcomes are worse in the USA than in many other developed countries. Obamacare does very little to reduce costs and improve quality. Libertarian posters here proposed universal health care, based on models in Argentina and Singapore. We recognize there's a problem, and that the ACA won't fix it.

Btw, Hong Kong and Singapore have populations comparable to Denmark, Sweden and Switzerland. They have relatively free market economies, and when you take into account where they were 40 years ago, they knock the socks off your examples (and the USA) in terms of economic growth. And the USA has grown faster, with lower unemployment, than the more statist European countries.

WorldTravel69

12-02-13, 13:02

Here is a video for you.

http://www.rgj.com/article/20131122/HOT/131122002/

http://www.examiner.com/article/sex-workers-nevada-embrace-obamacare

Tatu Hei

12-02-13, 18:06

"In general, the maximum tax rate on businesses in these countries is much lower than the USA,"
Companies in northern Europe pay not only a corporate rate but also pay a steep VAT on valued added. There are few loopholes in contrast with the American "system." The effective tax rates that are actually paid in northern Europe are much higher than those in the United States.

"and, as a result of the Obama tax increase, the maximum tax rate on individuals (state + federal) is comparable."
With the exception of Switzerland, people in northern Europe pay much higher income taxes than in the United States at every rung on the income ladder, even in tax-heavy states like New York. Payroll taxes for retirement, health care, etc. are also much higher. Unlike most of the world, much wealth is diverted in the U. S. to lawyers and accountants by playing the loophole game, so the actual tax rate that people pay is much less than the published rates. All those loopholes do not exist in the countries from which we have something to learn. In northern Europe, the hiding of income by small businesses is policed much more efficiently than in the U. S. In addition, Europeans pay a much higher VAT rate on consumption than most states' sales taxes.

"The biggest obstacles to coming up with a more efficient and fair system, by removing loopholes and lowering the corporate rate are President Obama and Harry Reid. Max Baucus (Democrat, chairman of Senate Committee on Finance) would like to get that done." I agree that Harry Reid has frustrated Max Baucus. However, so have multinational corporations who are deeply in the habit of shifting profits overseas and so have some truly entrepreneurial companies who don't like Baucus' new proposed taxes on future investments. Finally many Republicans don't like the Baucus plan because it is revenue-neutral; they want to lower taxes not re-distribute them. Obama is open to the Baucus plan as one of several possibilities. By the way, your Max Baucus was one of the main architects of the ACA. It could be called BaucusCare.

"Given the difference in cultures and given the size of the USA, it's amazing to me that our GDP per capita (adjusted for PPP) is considerably higher than the best examples you could come up with, Denmark, Sweden and Germany." Well, you are correct about Germany but wrong about Denmark and Sweden unless you disagree with the World Bank, the IMF, the CIA, and the UN. While we are at it, I should add Norway to the list as a northern European social democracy with high GDP and quality of life, and other countries with GDP greater than the U.S. but also with government-sponsored health care are Canada and Australia.

Your expectations about the ACA are a complete pipe-dream. We currently spend about 17% of GDP on healthcare. The Congressional Budget Office expects this to go to 20% in future years, with Obamacare. This is ridiculous, given that nobody else spends over 12% and outcomes are worse in the USA than in many other developed countries. Obamacare does very little to reduce costs and improve quality.
"I don't just have expectations; facts are already in. Since the passage of the ACA, the rate of growth for health care expenditures has declined more than any other time in recent history. The main reasons are: a) the ACA has decreased the gouging conducted by the so-called Medicare plus plans that were advocated by Republicans; and b) insurers have finally accepted the fact that pay-for-service is a thing of the past so they are rewarding providers who work efficiently while maintaining patient satisfaction. Yes, health care costs are expected to rise as a percentage of GDP as baby boomers age, but real health care economists (as opposed to talk radio experts and hired guns at the Heritage Institute) are in almost universal agreement that the ACA will decrease costs in relation to what they would have been. When the health care panels are finally set up, despite every Republican effort to block them, there will be other efficiencies based on evidence-based medicine, the standard for the rest of the civilized world. I think it is interesting that you say that health care outocmes are superior in countries with government-sponsored health systems. That is my point exactly.

"Btw, Hong Kong and Singapore have populations comparable to Denmark, Sweden and Switzerland. They have relatively free market economies, and when you take into account where they were 40 years ago, they knock the socks off your examples (and the USA) in terms of economic growth."
Singapore and Hong Kong have had admirable economic growth. However. both suffer a lack of personal liberty: freedom of expression, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom from surveillance. I think they have more to learn from us than us from them. However, international ratings of these freedoms put the northern European countries at the top of the list (here I am not talking about rating systems focusing on narrow views of economic freedom which put Singapore and Hong Kong near the top of the list even though you can get arrested for criticizing the government in Singapore and you have to deal with China pulling the political strings in Hong Kong).

" And the USA has grown faster, with lower unemployment, than the more statist European countries.[/QUOTE]I don't know which countries you define as statist, but Germany, Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, Canada, and Australia all have lower unemployment rates than the USA Sweden's rate is the same as the USA Furthermore, all these countries provide more supports to unemployed workers and their families than the USA It is true that the USA is beginning to grow again. But the vast majority of economists not paid directly by right-wing organizations will testify that this growth would be much greater if we would have had a jobs bill, infrastructure investment, quicker support for underwater homeowners, and a lack of stupid tricks like shutting down government and confounding business leaders with uncertainty about the debt limit. As I wrote before, the Republicans have done everything they can to make Americans suffer in the belief that Americans will want to give them a chance to show what they can do.

Tiny12

12-02-13, 21:43

Okay, I should have said the maximum income tax rate on businesses is much lower in those countries than the USA. If you go back to my original post, I was describing trends. I am not sure if you're correct with respect to the total of all taxes (income tax, VAT, sales tax, property tax, etc.) for which business writes the check but you probably are. However, the VAT effectively comes out of the pockets of individuals in the countries where the tax is levied (it's rebated for exports), just like a sales tax in the USA - the price is passed onto the consumer in the price of the product or service. But this is all trivia. For your most important point, you've got no argument from me that total taxes as % of GDP are higher in Western Europe. That, and the fact that government is larger as a % of the economy in Western Europe is the reason why their economies are less dynamic, grow slower, and have higher unemployment than the USA.

Republicans would be quite happy to get going with revenue-neutral tax reform. The fact that Obama wants to raise revenues is the hold up. I strongly agree the tax code should be modified to elminate loopholes and the armies of accountants and lawyers. (No offence DCCPA, you're one of the good guys.) Most Democrat and many Republican Congressmen don't want this to happen, as it would reduce their power.

You are dead wrong about GDP per capita adjusted for PPP - the CIA, IMF and World Bank all are in agreement with what I wrote, and contradict what you wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP) _per_capita.

You're having to pick countries with populations with less than 3% of the USA to try to make your points. It's kind of like saying Manhattan and Washington D.C. are more prosperous than California so we should follow their model. That's probably not a good analogy, because those cities are more prosperous than California, while Denmark and Sweden are not as prosperous as the USA. Norway is an oil state and small. It doesn't count, unless you want me to count Dubai, Qatar, etc.

I don't get it. You provide Switzerland, Australia and Canada as examples, and they appear to contradict your case. Compared to the USA, government expenditures as % of GDP are lower for Switzerland and Australia, and Canada is a little higher. All are much lower than northern Europe. If you want to argue that their governments are much more efficient than the Obama administration in what they provide to the public, OK, I'll agree with that. Please note, btw, per capita GDP adjusted for PPP in Australia and Canada are lower than the USA, not higher as you suggest.

Among your examples, the only country of reasonable size and with large government is Germany, whose per capita GDP (adjusted for PPP) is 20% lower than the USA.

I agree government needs to do something different with health care. There's no competition, and costs are way out of hand. However the savings built into Obamacare are like putting a bandaid on a patient that's bleeding to death from a giant gash in his leg.

Economists agree that larger government is correlated with slower economic growth. Some of the suffering you're referring to (e.g. the sequester) may end up being the difference between the U.S. ending up like France versus Greece -- at least it's delaying the day of reckoning with our national debt.

Dccpa

12-02-13, 22:06

If you happen to see Obummer, tell him FU from me. My insurance has been cancelled and the person who sublets space from me had his insurance cancelled too. The best policy that I can get under Obummercare is one with higher copays (100-200%) and, higher deductibles (350-650% But that's okay, because my premiums are only going up several hundred percent.

My best option is to put most of my income into retirement accounts and live off of savings. That way, you liberals can subsidize my health insurance and whatever else I can legally scam out of the government.

Punter 127

12-03-13, 01:21

“Obama Hits Record Low In Real Clear Politics' Poll of Polls”

Real Clear Politics has been tracking the average of President Obama's job approval and disapproval numbers since the 44th president took office. Monday, Obama hit a record low in approval -- just 40.0% -- and stayed at his recent record low in disapproval of 55.6%.

The president's best single poll comes from Rasmussen, which is an outlier of 45% approving, 54% disapproving. Other than that, Obama's best showing is 41% approval, his worst is 37%.

The Real Clear average gap in Obama's approval/disapproval number is deep in the red at 15.6% -- which is another record low. The last poll to show Obama with a higher percentage approving of his job performance than disapproving was back in July.

The Real Clear average on Obama's handling of the economy is even more dismal. Only 37.1% approve, a full 59.3% disapprove.

At this exact same point in what many consider to be a disastrous second term, President George W. Bush was also at 40.0 approval. Bush's disapproval was at 58%,compared to Obama's 55.6%.I seem to remember someone on this forum telling us over and over that the more people know about ObamaCare the more they will like it, who was that?

Member #4112

12-03-13, 01:56

Tatu Hei, perhaps you have not noticed but one of your examples, Denmark, has the lowest growth rate of all the Scandinavian countries at 0.2% for 2013 and a widening budget deficient. Switzerland continues to do well based on its exports and financial sector as does Germany which is the economic engine of the EU. God forbid the German's get tired of funding other EU countries.

You also seem to ignore the rising cost of healthcare in your target countries of Denmark, Switzerland, and Germany due to an aging population and declining birth rate below replacement percentages, a malady shared by most industrialized countries including the United States.

For the record Switzerland's continued enforcement of their immigration quota system has been called a violation of the 1999 freedom of movement agreement by EU members, while Denmark's immigration policies have been called a possible human rights violation.

If what you say is true regarding the wisdom and benevolence of Europe, how do you explain the catastrophes in France, Spain, Portugal and Italy? We can leave Greece out for now, after all they are Greek.

Regarding your comments about the ACA aka ObamaCare reducing the rise in healthcare costs, please provide some documentation to support this statement, over here we are sure not seeing it.

You seem to dismiss the cancellation of personal healthcare policies in September, October and November as only 2% and a number not deserving consideration. You further assert those polices can now be reissued due to a wave of Obama's magic wand which is not the case as they violate the law as it is written, the several states insurance commissioners are not authorizing reissuance of those policies regardless of what Obama may say as it constitutes a direct violation of ACA as written.

The second shoe to drop will be in late August, September, October and November of 2014 when small business insurance policies are cancelled which affect more than 10 times the number people affected by the private policy cancellations. Would that be a significant number?

Tiny makes well founded arguments regarding taxation and percentages of GDP among the countries you listed. He also makes a very valid point regarding comparing Denmark, Switzerland and Germany to the United States either individually or collectively is comparing apples to oranges due to population size, composition of population, and political structure.

You do make a point which is well received by at least me, the closer to the people those that govern are the more responsive the government becomes, bolstering my point social welfare and healthcare should be taken out of the hands of the federal government and returned to the states, who can not print money and must live within real budgetary constraints, with the possible exception of California.

WorldTravel69

12-03-13, 04:42

Do you need an or a health care plan? FOR YOU OR YOUR family?

Try this, if it does get you though, use the old fashion way.

Call Then on your Land Line.

http://www.healthcare.com/

I'm sure you still know how to dial a Phone Number?

Rev BS

12-03-13, 22:54

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/06/political-left-and-right-properly-defined/

For the benefit of those who don't know left from right here is a proper definition.

BTW as probably the only Objectivist in the group I would like to point out that only a complete idiot could could consider me a fascist.

Speak up and remove any doubt.

Don BRemove those nose hairs, trim those finger nails, make sure your breath don't stink. And stop the goose stepping.

Tatu Hei

12-04-13, 00:13

I appreciate the dialogue, and I certainly don't have all the answers. This is going to be my last post on this topic because I really need to do other things, like see a new chica every day and, oh yes, work. I trust this little post will not be the last word.

My main point was that the USA has a lot to learn about providing health care from the northern European countries as well as Canada and Australia. These countries have shown that government-sponsored health care is efficacious and popular. These countries have great experience with cutting unnecessary costs while achieving superior outcomes. Reasonable co-pays keep people from abusing the system. These countries have high standards of living and high degrees of personal freedom (although I am highly opposed to the Swedish laws concerning prostitution, which violate human rights IMHO). The private sector in the economies of these countries is vibrant and broadly appreciated; they are not socialist. The United States could adopt a tried-and-true health care system if we did not have to invent the wheel and if we looked at data in the real world as opposed to tired ideologies.

The ACA is a big step in the right direction. I do wish there had been a public option because the public option of Medicare has consistently outperformed the products put out by insurance companies. Compromise was necessary, and many compromises led to the complexity of the ACA. The technical and substantive errors that have occurred in early implementation are understandable both because of the law's complexity (including state control of many features) but also because of the roadblocks thrown up at every turn by the Republicans. The technical problems will get solved, and the unfairness to small but important groups of people could be solved rapidly if Republicans would solve problems rather than continue to make things worse for everyone. A great example was brought up below: a state authority won't let someone keep his current insurance because the authority pretends to enforce the supposed letter of the law that the same authority says is unconstitutional. It is a great example of making things worse for people through triple-speak. Other states don't see the same problem, for some reason, and their citizens don't suffer.

Here's the reference showing that Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Canada, and Australia have higher GDP per capita than the USA My point was not to denigrate the USA The USA is and has been the essential country in the world, especially since WWII. All the countries that have surpassed us in some ways (not in all) owe the USA a great deal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita

Question: Why use Greece as an excuse not to learn from the countries that have been highly successful?

The U. S. problem with state control of health is that someone from a state with no care for the poor can simply move to a state with humane care. Or they can pretend to be a resident by supplying the address of a relative. Then the humane state is subsidizing the irresponsible state. The health care needs of people are basically the same regardless of where they live, so the rationale for local control falls apart.

The reference for the decline in the rate or growth of health care costs since 2010 when the ACA was passed is the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid National Health Care Expenditure Data. Health care costs were zooming out of sight in the 2000's, but since the passage of the ACA the rate of growth has declined more than in any other 3-year span in recent history. I gave the ACA-related reasons for this deceleration in the prior post. However, no matter what health care payment system is implemented, Western societies will run into trouble from the aging of the baby boomers. The ACA softens the expected blow. A single-payer government system would soften it more. But there is no simple solution. I just wish that people could address the problem directly in a data-based way instead of making the country worse so that people will vote in Republicans next time. How can a patriotic American say that he wishes a President would fail, or that his entire legislative strategy is to prevent a President's re-election?

That's it. Not the final word but my final word. Best wishes to all. May your next chica experience be as good as mine was this morning.

Tiny12

12-04-13, 03:07

I just wish that people could address the problem directly in a data-based way Agreed, for health care and other issues. But you can't twist the data to suit your prejudices and end up with usable results. You can't ignore that GDP must be adjusted for purchasing power to show how prosperous a country is. You can't lump developed countries where government is comparatively small, like Switzerland, Australia, and Canada, in with northern Europe. You can't ignore health care systems in countries like Singapore and Hong Kong, where outcomes are better and costs are lower than northern Europe. You can't say the USA won't become like Greece when federal government expenditures are 35% higher than revenues. And you can't blame Republican Congressmen and George Bush for every ill that has befallen the USA, when Democrats have controlled the Presidency and Senate the last 5 years, and the House for 2 years.

Rev BS

12-04-13, 05:20

How can a patriotic American say that he wishes a President would fail, or that his entire legislative strategy is to prevent a President's re-election?And from the NY Times, "Thai protests reflect searing divisions of a changing country". Thomas Fuller, December 3, 2013 (selected).

"Millions of erstwhile farmers have risen into the middle class and clamoring for more representation. The old elite including the established middle class, doesn't want to tolerate their participation. We are educated, and we know best. We know what is right and wrong. But the poor don't know anything. They elect people who give them money.

In all societies, politics need time to adjust to large social transformation, you have to give Thailand more time."

And here at home sweet home, it's "Here we come. Time for impeachment", says the posse. At least, a little more civilized than lynching.

WorldTravel69

12-05-13, 04:40

I agree we need to hear more.

I have been there, I am not clear on what our problems are to theirs.

I know their's is really bad.

And from the NY Times, "Thai protests reflect searing divisions of a changing country". Thomas Fuller, December 3, 2013 (selected).

"Millions of erstwhile farmers have risen into the middle class and clamoring for more representation. The old elite including the established middle class, doesn't want to tolerate their participation. We are educated, and we know best. We know what is right and wrong. But the poor don't know anything. They elect people who give them money.

In all societies, politics need time to adjust to large social transformation, you have to give Thailand more time."

And here at home sweet home, it's "Here we come. Time for impeachment", says the posse. At least, a little more civilized than lynching.The only impeachment should be the Do Nothing Congress. But that is to the Voters.

Jackson

12-05-13, 04:49

WorldTravel69

12-05-13, 14:42

It is the web site that has the problems not the ACA... You know it is like the web site you have been trying to work on for the last 10 years.

In fact, there is an article in the NY Times and the SF Chronicle, about because of the Act the overcharging for Procedures and Medicine is being investigated.

Of course, the most important thing is that we're not talking about the ObamaCare diaster!

Jackson

12-05-13, 17:08

In fact, there is an article in the NY Times and the SF Chronicle, about because of the Act the overcharging for Procedures and Medicine is being investigated.As if they couldn't conduct these kinds of investigations before ObummerCare.

Does anyone remember 5 years ago when Obama was selling his ObamaCare plan, when he stated that $500 million of the funding would come from the elimination of "waste, fraud and abuse" in the Medicaid and Medicare systems?

Ever since then, I've been thinking that if Obama thought he could save $500 million a year by eliminating "waste, fraud and abuse", then why the fuck didn't he forge ahead then so we could all benefit from the savings now.

Or was that yet another lie from the President?

Thanks,

Jax

28909

Member #4112

12-05-13, 17:28

Just trying to bring a little levity to the Christmas Season: For Liberals / Progressives this is a joke.

Barack Obama has a heart-attack and passes away.

He immediately goes to hell, where the devil is waiting for him.

"I don't know what to do here," says the devil.

"You are on my list Obama, but I have no room for you. You definitely have to stay here, so I'll tell you what I'm going to do."

"I've got a few folks here who weren't quite as bad as you. I'll let one of them go, but you have to take their place. I'll even let YOU decide who leaves."

Obama thought that sounded pretty good, so the devil opened the door to the first room. In it was Ted Kennedy and a large pool of water. Ted kept diving in, and surfacing, empty handed. Over, and over, and over he dived in and surfaced with nothing.

Such was his fate in hell.

"No," Obama said. "I don't think so. I'm not a good swimmer, and I don't think I could do that all day long."

The devil led him to the door of the next room. In it was Al Gore with a sledge-hammer and a room full of rocks. All he did was swing that hammer, time after time after time.

"No, this is no good; I've got this problem with my shoulder. I would be in constant agony if all I could do was break rocks all day," commented Obama.

The devil opened a third door. Through it, Obama saw Bill Clinton, lying on the bed, his arms tied over his head, and his legs restrained in a spread-eagle pose.

Bent over him was Monica Lewinsky, doing what she does best.

Obama looked at this in shocked disbelief, and finally said, "Yeah man, I can handle this."

The devil smiled and said.

"OK, Monica, you're free to go."

Esten

12-06-13, 00:12

Every recent administration has gone after waste, fraud and abuse in Medicaid and Medicare. The passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010 simply gave HHS new tools to use. For example, HHS no longer has to follow the "pay and chase" model, but can take steps to screen out and prevent / stop abuse in the first place. These tools would not exist without ACA. The following year, a record $4.1 Billion was recovered.

http://www.healthaffairs.org/healthpolicybriefs/brief.php?brief_id=72

In fiscal year 2011 the combined efforts by CMS, the Department of Justice, and HHS's Office of Inspector General resulted in criminal health care fraud charges against 1,430 defendants; 743 criminal convictions; 977 new investigations of civil health care fraud; and the recovery of $4.1 billion, the highest annual amount recovered in a single year, though still woefully short of the estimated annual loss. CMS officials said that during the same period, the agency revoked the Medicare billing privileges of 4,850 providers and suppliers and deactivated an additional 56,733 billing numbers.
Of course, we would not expect a Serial Obama Denigrator to be familiar with the many good things this administration has been doing.

Punter 127

12-06-13, 04:08

Of course, we would not expect a Serial Obama Denigrator to be familiar with the many good things this administration has been doing. (selected)Turnabout being fair play, I think it appropriate to point out that this statement came from one of the many Serial Republican Denigrators on this forum.

Jackson

12-06-13, 12:27

It is the web site that has the problems not the ACA... You know it is like the web site you have been trying to work on for the last 10 years.For the record, my website handles more that 100,000 unique visitors every day, all without crashing, and I didn't pay $200,000,000 to get it built, thank you.

and while I'm at it...

Jackson have ever really did {done} a physical days work in your life? Do you know what a shovel is?Also for the record, I worked as a framing carpenter through high school and college summers, and continued working as a framing contractor for several years thereafter until my early thirties. Any of you who have framed houses knows that it's physically grueling work. Over the years I've used mallets to break up frozen dirt to dig footers, swept snow off slabs to frame walls in the freezing cold, and humped roof trusses and laid plywood in the broiling sun, so don't give me any fucking bullshit about if I've actually done "a physical days work" in my life.

WorldTravel69

12-06-13, 13:27

So, when are you going to fix the hotlinks on the left? It has been mentioned by me and others for over a year.

What happened to the Venue link in the top bar?

Also you said way back when that you were going to make Colombia's site the same as this one.

What happened?

Yes, I was wrong about you not doing real work. Sorry.

For the record, my website handles more that 100,000 unique visitors every day, all without crashing, and I didn't pay $200,000,000 to get it built, thank you.

and while I'm at it...

Also for the record, I worked as a framing carpenter through high school and college summers, and continued working as a framing contractor for several years thereafter until my early thirties. Any of you who have framed houses knows that it's physically grueling work. Over the years I've used mallets to break up frozen dirt to dig footers, swept snow off slabs to frame walls in the freezing cold, and humped roof trusses and laid plywood in the broiling sun, so don't give me any fucking bullshit about if I've actually done "a physical days work" in my life.

Tiny12

12-06-13, 14:34

So, when are you going to fix the hotlinks on the left? It has been mentioned by me and others for over a year.

What happened to the Venue link in the top bar?

Also you said way back when that you were going to make Colombia's site the same as this one.

What happened?

Yes, I was wrong about you not doing real work. Sorry.This site is free, even though there's no advertising. ISG effectively operates on contributions, as you can use it without paying. We should be grateful.

Have you ever done any physically demanding work? Don't get me wrong, I have the highest respect for what you used to do, as it requires brains and a bit of artistry. I had to give it up when I couldn't graduate from a Multilith (one and two color press) to a Heidelberg (4 color). But it's not physically demanding, at all. It's better than a desk job IMO.

WorldTravel69

12-07-13, 04:44

But on International site they have to pay for info.

Do You?

They would like more information for what they pay for.

I will get back to you on my Working Life.

I am proud of it. Do you want a PM or Public info I do not Care.

Hot Metal Type was Heavy, no sitting on you ass.

This site is free, even though there's no advertising. ISG effectively operates on contributions, as you can use it without paying. We should be grateful.

Have you ever done any physically demanding work? Don't get me wrong, I have the highest respect for what you used to do, as it requires brains and a bit of artistry. I had to give it up when I couldn't graduate from a Multilith (one and two color press) to a Heidelberg (4 color). But it's not physically demanding, at all. It's better than a desk job IMO.

Punter 127

12-07-13, 21:30

Obama Is The Danger Constitution Was Designed To Avoid

"President Obama "extended the employer mandate for a year, even though the law says 'shall commence in each month after December of 2013.' He extended the individual mandate, stretched that out and now the small-package plans. There's at least three times that he's violated the Constitution with ObamaCare.

When confronted with his lies that under ObamaCare you could keep your plan and doctor if you like them, and millions were losing the coverage they liked, the president held a press conference where he decreed that insurance companies could violate the "law of the land" and reissue policies that did not contain Obama-Care's 10 essential mandates, if only for a year.

This prompted Jonathan Turley, a liberal law professor at George Washington University and supporter of the Affordable Care Act, to tell the House Judiciary Committee at a Dec. 3 hearing, titled "The President's Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws," that Obama's abuse of executive power has grown to the point that "he's becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid."

Turley cited the "radical expansion of presidential powers" and the rise of what he termed the "fourth branch" of government — massive federal departments and agencies that can write regulations that have the effect of law written by unelected bureaucrats often contrary to the will of Congress and the American people."

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/120613-682144-obama-danger-constitution-designed-to-avoid.htm#ixzz2 mpiCQEKj.

Time for America and the folks on the left to wake up. It's really unbelievable how many lies Obama has told us.

Another ObamaCare Lie: Protecting Those With Pre-Existing Conditions

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/120613-682150-if-youre-already-sick-obamacare-clobbers-you.htm

Rev BS

12-08-13, 01:20

Bravery, Honesty, Humility Compassion, Forgiveness, Unity. Just choose any one of these to strive for in your daily encounters, and you will be a better man.

For me, I am a coward at heart, but the rest, I think can I work on them.

Tatu Hei

12-10-13, 18:29

Jonathan Turley cannot be characterized simply as a "liberal." He has a strong libertarian streak. For example, he takes the libertarian position on the Second Amendment. He tends to enjoy controversy, and he has been extremely critical of all recent presidents, regardless of party.

Investors Business Daily, like some of the commentators on Fox, loves to cite the New York Times and other "liberal" organizations and individuals when they say something critical of Obama. Of course, IBD ridicules the same sources if they say something good about Obama. The difference between responsible media and IBD is that responsible media are very critical of the President at times whereas IBD will tirelessly work to throw dirt on Obama regardless of what Obama does. In other words, responsible media are still able to see pros and cons. They can accept the idea that there might be an alternative way to look at something. They have not become the hate media like the IBD. Furthermore, they don't put editorials on the front page masquerading as news articles.

Case in point: Prior to the deadline for the sequester, IBD daily attacked Obama on the front page for his responsibility in legislating an automatic sequester if the two parties could not come to a budget deal. According to IBD, the sequester was all Obama's idea. But then, after the sequester kicked in and Republicans started saying, heh, this is good not bad, IBD changed its stance 180 degrees on the sequester and the responsibility for the sequester. Look it up. But you won't find anyone who wrote in IBD about the radical change. Nor do they publish truly critical letters to the editor. It is just one example of how IBD will attack the President no matter what he does. Objectivism must have something to do with being objective, no?

The other front-page tactic of IBD is to take a fact and bend it every which way it can to make an anti-Obama statement. IBD is very worried that the bill it detests won't be implemented on schedule. How's that? It might make some sense for a Jonathan Turley, who likes the ACA, to complain about a delay in implementation. However, no one on the right seems to see that it is a bit of a paradox to be upset about a delay in something bad. "Captain, I hereby object that this ship is sinking so slowly.

The fact is that Presidents of both parties for the last 250 years have sometimes delayed the implementation of legislation. G. W. Bush took it a step beyond that by making an unprecedented number of signing ceremonies in which he said he simply wasn't going to implement parts of the legislation at all. Not a delay, a total refusal. This is a matter of record.

Let's go back to definitions. A lie involves purposeful deception. IBD loves to throw around the word lie. The President made a serious error. There is no evidence that he lied. George Bush didn't lie about weapons of mass destruction. But it was a vastly larger error. Of course, libertarians are going to say that they hate Bush too (now, not then). That is because they advocate an Ayn Rand utopia that never existed and that could not exist, given human nature.

The ACA will be implemented. Insurance companies in the future will not be able to deny coverage to people without preexisting conditions even though there might be glitches now. Small employers will ultimately save money through pools that were not previously available. People will no longer be able to freeload off expensive and free emergency room care without paying their fair share. Many millions of people who have no coverage now will have coverage. This will be a boon to hard-pressed hospitals and will lead to decreases in costs. Over time a public option will be implemented to see if a Medicare-type system could me more efficient than what is offered by insurers. It will be implemented if we really believe in competition and data. And Investors Business Daily will be writing editorials about the lying dictator who is weak and inexperienced but dangerous as Hitler but now helplessly pathetic, regardless of what Obama does or what happens in the future. That is not consistency. It is compulsive hate.

Let me just for a moment play by IBD's own rules of smear: IBD might possibly be just a front-running investment cheat whose data crunchers take stock positions and then tell their readers what to buy, to push the price up. Even if not, the IBD style of investment is oriented only to short-term speculations, with quick trading out. It's legal, but it is not a way to build an economy.

Let me follow my own rule and find something good about IBD. They are putting good at identifying market conditions.

Obama Is The Danger Constitution Was Designed To Avoid

"President Obama "extended the employer mandate for a year, even though the law says 'shall commence in each month after December of 2013.' He extended the individual mandate, stretched that out and now the small-package plans. There's at least three times that he's violated the Constitution with ObamaCare.

When confronted with his lies that under ObamaCare you could keep your plan and doctor if you like them, and millions were losing the coverage they liked, the president held a press conference where he decreed that insurance companies could violate the "law of the land" and reissue policies that did not contain Obama-Care's 10 essential mandates, if only for a year.

This prompted Jonathan Turley, a liberal law professor at George Washington University and supporter of the Affordable Care Act, to tell the House Judiciary Committee at a Dec. 3 hearing, titled "The President's Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws," that Obama's abuse of executive power has grown to the point that "he's becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid."

Turley cited the "radical expansion of presidential powers" and the rise of what he termed the "fourth branch" of government — massive federal departments and agencies that can write regulations that have the effect of law written by unelected bureaucrats often contrary to the will of Congress and the American people."

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/120613-682144-obama-danger-constitution-designed-to-avoid.htm#ixzz2 mpiCQEKj.

Time for America and the folks on the left to wake up. It's really unbelievable how many lies Obama has told us.

Another ObamaCare Lie: Protecting Those With Pre-Existing Conditions

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/120613-682150-if-youre-already-sick-obamacare-clobbers-you.htm

Jackson

12-10-13, 21:10

...that responsible media are very critical of the President at times...Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

ROTFLMAO!

The funniest part is that, from your seat, you really believe that the lamestream media actually is "very critical" of Obama.

ROTFLMAO!

Please stop it. You're killing me.

Jax.

Tatu Hei

12-10-13, 22:21

Tiny12

12-10-13, 22:28

The Times and almost all the other liberal media have harshly and repeatedly criticized the Obama Administration for NSA surveillance. Also many liberal publications have criticized Obama in the strongest terms for expanding the war in Afghanistan. The reason Obama's popularity is down is that many people on the left have given up on him for taking a militaristic stance on the world and for overemphasis on national security. I have written several letters to the editors of the Times that they have lost the big picture in being overly critical of this president.

IBD itself has frequently cited Times' editorials that were critical of the President. So has Hannity. Facts continue to be pesky to minds that are not closed.

Is the repetition of haha and ROTFLMAO really that good of a strategy for discourse?. A puerile attempt to humiliate someone with an opposing point of view.. Or maybe just the end-of-day remark of a drowsy emperor who would know better in the morning.Jackson has a point. Look at this link, it will show you contributions by journalists to Democrat and Republican candidates in the 2012 election, after Obama expanded the war in Afghanistan but before the NSA controversy:

http://www.campaignmoney.com/finance.asp?type=ij&cycle=12&criteria=journalist

I started counting and got about 1/3rd of the way through the list before I quit. At that point, 92% of contributions from journalists were directed towards Democrat candidates, Bernie Sanders and a Green candidate. And 8% were directed towards Republican candidates and a Libertarian candidate. I wasn't counting PAC's or national or state parties, because I didn't know who some of the PAC's supported.

Journalists are overwhelmingly biased in favor of Obama and the Democrat party.

Esten

12-11-13, 01:25

Esten

12-11-13, 01:27

Have you ever mongered in Argentina?

Tiny12

12-11-13, 02:10

WorldTravel69

12-11-13, 03:30

The Republicans are going Crazy.

Rushdrugbom still on Opiates, or what ever they were. Thank God he will be on less networks next Year.

Six or so marriages, the guy that hates women.

No Kids.

I think he is secret closet faggot.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/10/obama-castro-handshake/3967087/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/12/10/mccain-compares-obama-castro-handshake-to-chamberlain-hitler/

McCain shook hands with Muammar Gaddafi. But Gaddafi was a good man of lighter color.

But that is a little White Mistake.

The problem is that Cuba is a great country for us Mongers to go to, but the Politicians do not want us to have Fun.

PS: I forgot to tell you I have been there and the Chicas are waiting for Us.

Rev BS

12-11-13, 04:10

Did it just fly over my head, or were others also unaware that Black Shirt has become an ordained minister?

What's your angle Black Shirt? Living life tax free in Bangkok? Or did you create the Church of BS? If so it sounds like a great business model, you just get people to send you money. Your margins must be fantastic.Everything you claim is true. But first, I have to find some believers. And I have had to give up the hedonistic practice of going to massage joints! Desperation can lead to ingeniouty.

Punter 127

12-11-13, 07:25

Hey Punter
Have you ever mongered in Argentina?Hey Esten
Have you ever been to plant earth?

Both question seem a bit odd being on this thread. However I find yours somewhat intriguing, so I will answer it. But before I answer I would like to know why you would ask me such a question?

Punter 127

12-11-13, 09:19

Jonathan Turley cannot be characterized simply as a "liberal." He has a strong libertarian streak. For example, he takes the libertarian position on the Second Amendment. He tends to enjoy controversy, and he has been extremely critical of all recent presidents, regardless of party.[snip]
If being critical of all recent Presidents makes you a libertarian than I must be one. I think most libertarians tend to fall in the “liberal” camp at least on some issue, especially social issue. But being a liberal or a libertarian doesn't take away from the validity of the Jonathan Turley statements.

While libertarians tend to be liberal on many issues todays Democrat party is not “liberal” it's progressive totalitarianism, (aka: nannyism) and that's a far cry from being “liberal”.

Now I know Investors Business Daily is not on the approved reading list so here's a little (“selected”) snip from the WSJ, (probably not on the approved reading list either.)

President Obama's decision last week to suspend the employer mandate of the Affordable Care Act may be welcome relief to businesses affected by this provision, but it raises grave concerns about his understanding of the role of the executive in our system of government. The Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, which advises the president on legal and constitutional issues, has repeatedly opined that the president may decline to enforce laws he believes are unconstitutional. But these opinions have always insisted that the president has no authority, as one such memo put it in 1990, to "refuse to enforce a statute he opposes for policy reasons." Attorneys general under Presidents Carter, Reagan, both Bushes and Clinton all agreed on this point. With the exception of Richard Nixon, whose refusals to spend money appropriated by Congress were struck down by the courts, no prior president has claimed the power to negate a law that is concededly constitutional.

In 1998, the Supreme Court struck down a congressional grant of line-item veto authority to the president to cancel spending items in appropriations. The reason? The only constitutional power the president has to suspend or repeal statutes is to veto a bill or propose new legislation. Writing for the court in Clinton v. City of New York, Justice John Paul Stevens noted: "There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the president to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes." The employer mandate in the Affordable Care Act contains no provision allowing the president to suspend, delay or repeal it. Section 1513(d) states in no uncertain terms that "The amendments made by this section shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013." Does Obama think ObamaCare is unconstitutional, is he seeking to have it repealed?

The other front-page tactic of IBD is to take a fact and bend it every which way it can to make an anti-Obama statement. IBD is very worried that the bill it detests won't be implemented on schedule. How's that? It might make some sense for a Jonathan Turley, who likes the ACA, to complain about a delay in implementation. However, no one on the right seems to see that it is a bit of a paradox to be upset about a delay in something bad. "Captain, I hereby object that this ship is sinking so slowly.

The fact is that Presidents of both parties for the last 250 years have sometimes delayed the implementation of legislation. G. W. Bush took it a step beyond that by making an unprecedented number of signing ceremonies in which he said he simply wasn't going to implement parts of the legislation at all. Not a delay, a total refusal. This is a matter of record. I think you miss the point IBD was making, the problem is not that it was delayed, the problem is Obama overstepped his authority. While it's true that other Presidents have refused to enforce legislation they did so on the ground of Constitutionality. Under the Constitution, if the President thinks a part of a bill to be unconstitutional, then he should veto. It is true that Presidents of both parties have refused to enforce what they thought were unconstitutional laws, including laws they signed, again on ground of Constitutionality. In my opinion Bush showed disregard for the Constitution but at least he claimed he was doing it on the ground of constitutionality and there was pushback on Bush for his actions. I don't think Obama can make the Constitutional claim and that makes his actions totally different from the others in the past and unconstitutional. IMHO

“Even some Democrats were also dismayed by the White House’s actions. Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, the chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and an author of the health law, questioned whether Mr. Obama had the authority to unilaterally delay the employer mandate. “This was the law. How can they change the law?” he asked.”

There is only one legitimate reason not to enforce a law and that's the Constitution. Even if past Presidents wrongly refused to enforce laws it doesn’t justify Obamas failure to enforce the law. I was taught as a wee lad that two wrongs do not equal a right, but they may not teach such thing in government schools today.

Jackson

12-11-13, 17:12

Exactly. IBD is another trashy, right-wing propaganda media outlet, like Breitbart, Newsmax, HotAir, Michelle Malkin and Rush Limbaugh.I love it! You contrast a handful of conservative media outlets to a mountain of liberal media outlets and then declare parity.

Punter 127

12-13-13, 23:34

Obama Gets PolitiFact's 'Lie Of The Year' Prize For Healthcare Claims

Better luck next year Esten.

Esten

12-14-13, 01:09

Obama Gets PolitiFact's 'Lie Of The Year' Prize For Healthcare ClaimsWe knew we could count on you to post this and continue your political agenda, because that's all you do on this board.

Punter 127

12-14-13, 01:38

ROFLMAO.

We knew we could count on you to post this and continue your political agenda, because that's all you do on this board.No doubt your an expert on political agendas. This is a political thread you know.

BTW.

Have you ever mongered in Argentina?

Hey Esten
Have you ever been to plant earth?

Both question seem a bit odd being on this thread. However I find yours somewhat intriguing, so I will answer it. But before I answer I would like to know why you would ask me such a question?Sorry for the typo with the word planet, but I'm still waiting for your reply.

Jackson

12-14-13, 12:54

We knew we could count on you to post this and continue your political agenda, because that's all you do on this board.Look who's talking!

Obama Gets PolitiFact's 'Lie Of The Year' Prize For Healthcare Claims"Jerry, just remember, it's not a lie if you believe it."

George Constanza

Balls Deep

12-14-13, 17:07

Imagine how constructive this debate could be if one looked at the merits of each others argument instead of wasting time with repetitive character assassination. Common ground & common sense makes history.

Imagine talking about a political concept in a thoughtful way, without labels or parties, just asserting common sense. Perhaps were all closer than we think.

WorldTravel69

12-15-13, 03:53

It was supposed to be a three day event.

But on CSPAN I saw about 10 people in the room.

What happened to the rest of the Republicans?

Some of you Repubs Blow Hearts should have helped him out.

Why weren't you there?

http://wfpl.org/post/senator-mitch-mcconnell-democrats-will-regret-detonating-nuclear-option-2014

http://kosu.org/2013/12/senate-takes-a-break-after-48-hour-debate/

http://c-spanvideo.org/program/SenateSession5368

48 hours, it looked like 6 hours.

Rev BS

12-15-13, 05:31

Bangkok Post, December 15,2013 (selected).

"An estimated 400 workers went on a rampage on Dec. 6 in a district known as Little India, injuring 39 people including police officers, and destroying 25 vehicles. The riot--the first in more than 40 years in the country-- erupted after an Indian man was killed by a bus. Singapore has a population of 5.4 million but only 3.64 million are citizens and permanent residents".

This came about only about 10 days after Pope Francis made these following statements. Washington Post, November 26,2013. By Aaron Blake.

"Human beings are themselves considered consumer goods to be used and discarded. We have created a disposal culture which is now spreading. It is no longer simply about exploitation and oppression but something new. Exclusion ultimately has to do with what it means to be a part of the society in which we live; those excluded are no longer society's underside or its fringes or its disenfranchised--they are no longer even a part of it. The excluded are not the exploited, but the outcast, the leftovers".

He then went on to say, "When a society--whether local, national or global--is willing to leave a part of itself on the fringes, no political programmes or resources spent on law enforcement or surveillance systems can indefinitely guarantee tranquility".

Take heed. Oh, and you don't have to go on about how the Catholic Church is the greatest exploiter of them all. We already know that. We can learn from the past, but history is being invented every day.

Esten

12-15-13, 15:16

Look who's talking!Ahh, but there's an important distinction. Many people who post in this thread also share information on mongering in Argentina. In my case I have certainly contributed. Then, there are those who mostly post political attacks. Punter127 being the most notorious in this category. It appears this is all he does, with zero contribution to the purpose of the board.

I remember when Jax once told me at the AP House (in a friendly manner), "Just remember what the purpose of the board is".

LOL !

Punter 127

12-15-13, 23:28

Ahh, but there's an important distinction. Many people who post in this thread also share information on mongering in Argentina. In my case I have certainly contributed. Then, there are those who mostly post political attacks. Punter127 being the most notorious in this category. It appears this is all he does, with zero contribution to the purpose of the board.Oh really, did I break some rule or fail to meet some posting requirement? While it's true you've been to BA more recently than I have that doesn't mean I haven't mongered there and contributed to this forum. I am a "Senior Member" you know, and I earned that status.

I find it interesting you singled me out, even though I suspect I been to BA more recently than WT 69 or Blackshirt, and what about Tatu Hei the guys got six post and five of them are in this thread. I don't have a problem with that, but not a word from you about any of them, Oh but wait those guys are all on the left, now I get it. Your desperation is showing.

I haven't been to BA recently because of the economic situation there but that doesn't mean I've lost interest or that I won't go back in the future. You know I've been to BA more times than you've got fingers to count with, and yes I've post about many of my experiences there. The fact that you lack longevity on the forum and haven't bothered to RTFF is not my problem, you see Esten I was a member of Jacksons forum before it even became Argentina Private.

Not only have I post about my experience I also post photos back when we had a photo section and a private photo section, how many photos have you post?

So you've been to the AP House well so have I, and I was at the original mansion in Vicente Lopez, as a matter a fact I've been to several Monger meetings around town and Thanksgiving dinners at the mansion and El Alamo. I even did the Heimlich maneuver on a choking member of this forum one night at El Yugo. (not bragging, he was choking, I had the training and I was happy to help).

I've personally taken new members around the BA mongering scene and shown them the ropes.

I've also supported the members of this forum as much as possible. I have taken some of the guys that live in BA everything from peanut butter to Xbox. I also supported businesses of members of this forum when I could, such as meals at El Alamo and l'Alliance and I attended Super Bowl parties at l'Alliance. I also used the services of Anna Luna and Roxanna, did you even know they were forum members? I have also rented apartments from members of this forum.

Would you dare to compare the number of members of this forum that we each know personally? Not likely.

Not only have I given back to the forum and its members I tried to give a little back to Argentina as well, I went along on several trips out to the provinces taking supplies, money and Christmas presents to several Comedores for kids, and yes I contributed both time and money. Would you like to see photos?

I suspect your experience in BA pales in comparison to mine, but go ahead and tell us again just how you've "certainly contributed" to the forum, and who you've helped and how.

Esten you've been labeled a liar more times and by more forum members than anybody I can remember on this forum, ever!
Now your self serving attempt to discredit me is transparent and pathetic. So why don't you leave the moderating to Jackson.

Sorry for getting off topic guys, I don't like writing about myself but in this case I think it was necessary.

Rev BS

12-16-13, 02:49

Oh really, did I break some rule or fail to meet some posting requirement?No, it's because you are ugly!(smile).

The other night, I dreamed that I was sitting at Cafe Exxedra with your darling, Hilda. Does that count as being in BA?

TejanoLibre

12-16-13, 03:27

No, it's because you are ugly!(smile).

The other night, I dreamed that I was sitting at Cafe Exxedra with your darling, Hilda. Does that count as being in BA?Hilda!

That old Female Dog is working the bathroom at Hippo where she belongs!

Unstable Female!

Tried to kick my old girlfriend Out of Hippo one night!

Now that's a funny story!

A good way to flip this worthless thread around!

So I take "M" to Hippo one night and she gets up on the pole by the stage and starts to strip, one of her fantasies that she had fulfilled at Jackson's the previous week but I guess the fantasy was still flowing.

Anyway, I pulled out 300 "5" peso bills and let it "Rain" on her all over the stage, Texas Style! The 300 loose 5 peso bills were for the Chicas but I could not resist the photo opp!

55 fucking Hippo Putas were huddled around the dance floor and staring at "M" with their hands on their hips so "M" picked up the "Rain Drops" and walked over and handed the worthless stack of "Toilet Paper" to them.

It was priceless!

The idiot manager that is not the one that is in my pocket walked over to "M" and made her run in to the bathroom where Hilda Reigns.

"M" started crying about what the Putas did to her on the dance floor and Broom Hilda freaked out and blamed me!

What a scene!

It got worse after!

This has to be more interesting than Politics!

TL.

Tiny12

12-18-13, 00:29

Oh really, did I break some rule or fail to meet some posting requirement? While it's true you've been to BA more recently than I have that doesn't mean I haven't mongered there and contributed to this forum. I am a "Senior Member" you know, and I earned that status.Hell, I've only been to Buenos Aires three times in my life, and never brought anything to anyone, except for a case of of the clap I gave one of the escorts. I figured since you get to this forum by clicking on the "Argentina" link in www.isg.info, it's reasonable to post about politics here. Actually, I thought it was important, since certain of the members posting in this thread, like Esten, truly need enlightenment from people like you and me. However, he has a point. I think in the future you should confine all your posts to ISG's separate "Cebu" web site, since that's where you live. No poaching on the ISG main board or AP. Just kidding.

Punter 127

12-20-13, 02:13

Armed response, not restrictive gun laws, brought swift end to school shooting

"It was an armed deputy who stopped the Arapahoe High School gunman last week from unleashing a deadly massacre, not the expansive new gun control laws approved by Colorado Democrats in March in reaction to two mass shootings."

Once again good guys with guns prove more effective than laws.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/18/prevention-of-school-massacre-shoots-down-argument/

Rev BS

12-20-13, 02:42

I wanted to write it, but Ben Carson beat me to it.

Washington Times, December 17,2013. To Counter Coarseness, Choose Civility (selected).

"The key to civility is thinking of others first. Civility and honesty are highly desirable traits. Those of us who can still recognizes imperfections in everyone, including ourselves, must not give up on decency, values, and godly principles of loving one's neighbor and developing one's God-given talents to the utmost. This has nothing to do with political parties, but has everything to do with the future of our nation".

"Other than Bernie Madoff and a few notable others, not many of these individuals suffered any consequences for their part in the near destruction of our economy and the shattering of the dreams of millions of Americans".

Another nail right on the forehead of those who have the mantra that Greed is Good (quite a few on AP). Carson maintains that there is nothing wrong with wealth itself when it is a natural product of creativity and industriousness.

"It is unreasonable to expect a civil and compassionate society from a culture that tolerates and often even encourages cruel and dishonest behavior from its leading commentators and leaders. Blinded by their ideology, they are incapable of seeing things from the view of others".

WorldTravel69

12-20-13, 13:59

Because the response time was slow at the theater massacre.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/us/colorado-shooting

But, he killed himself, the deputy didn't shoot him.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/17/new-details-emerge-in-arapahoe-high-school-shooting/4070815/

Armed response, not restrictive gun laws, brought swift end to school shooting

"It was an armed deputy who stopped the Arapahoe High School gunman last week from unleashing a deadly massacre, not the expansive new gun control laws approved by Colorado Democrats in March in reaction to two mass shootings."

Once again good guys with guns prove more effective than laws.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/18/prevention-of-school-massacre-shoots-down-argument/

Jackson

12-20-13, 14:30

Another nail right on the forehead of those who have the mantra that Greed is Good (quite a few on AP). Carson maintains that there is nothing wrong with wealth itself when it is a natural product of creativity and industriousness.Interesting, because the greediest people I know are the lazy fucks who are sitting around encouraging their politicians to find ways to take money from those who have earned it and "redistribute" to themselves.

"I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money."

― Thomas Sowell, Barbarians inside the Gates and Other Controversial Essays.

Punter 127

12-20-13, 15:51

Who cares who shot the shooter?

Because the response time was slow at the theater massacre.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/us/colorado-shooting

But, he killed himself, the deputy didn't shoot him.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/17/new-details-emerge-in-arapahoe-high-school-shooting/4070815/Yes he shot himself, most of the time they do when confronted by guys with guns. The point is an armed person was the reason the shooter didn't kill more people, and the new Colorado gun laws had no effect on stopping or preventing this shooting. In this case there is no doubt he planned to kill more. From your USA Today link “A student who killed himself in a violent attack at a Colorado school had apparently intended much more carnage..."

Gun free zones attract these guys like dollars attract hookers, it crazy not to have armed guards in public places like schools.

Member #4112

12-20-13, 19:13

I wanted to write it, but Ben Carson beat me to it.

Washington Times, December 17,2013. To Counter Coarseness, Choose Civility (selected).

"It is unreasonable to expect a civil and compassionate society from a culture that tolerates and often even encourages cruel and dishonest behavior from its leading commentators and leaders. Blinded by their ideology, they are incapable of seeing things from the view of others".Perhaps during the next State of the Union Address if someone blew up the capital building, as in Tom Clancy's novel "Debt of Honor", it would be a good start. The only loss would be some really historic architecture. Perhaps we could get some folks elected from both sides of the isle that work for living and can really do something other than morph into career politicians!

Rev BS

12-20-13, 21:19

Interesting, because the greediest people I know are the lazy fucks who are sitting around encouraging their politicians to find ways to take money from those who have earned it and "redistribute" to themselves.

"I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money."

― Thomas Sowell, Barbarians inside the Gates and Other Controversial Essays.Good Poor, Bad Poor. NY Times, November 19, 2013.Timothy Egan (selected).

"The House, has passed a measure to eliminate food aid for four million Americans. At the same time, Congress has let unemployment expires for 1.3 million people. These actions have nothing to with bringing federal spending into line, and everything to do with a view that poor people are morally inferior".

Steve Sutherland, Republican Representative (Florida): The explosion of food stamps in this country is not just a fiscal issue for me. This is a defining moral issue of our time.

Rand Paul, Republican Senator (Kentucky): It would be a disservice to extend unemployment assistance to those who have been out of work for some time. It encourages them to sit at home and do nothing.

James Inhofe, Republican Senator (Oklahoma): People who capable of fully working are buying things like beer.

Jackson, fearless wealthy BA businessman: Well, you know what he said under his breath.

"No doubt, poor people drink too much beer, watch television, and have bad morals. But so do rich people. Republican representative of Florida, Trey Radal recently pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine. The median income of new members of the current congress is exactly $1 million more than the typical American household. The baseline benefit under the old food stamp program works out to $1.40 a meal, and the average emergency unemployment check work out to be $300 a week. Meanwhile, a wealthy Montana farmer was getting nearly $300,000 in federal subsidies. So one person deserves a handout, the other does not.

Why? People are poor because they are WEAK. When a million Irish died during the Great Famine of the 1850s, many of the English aristocracy said that the peasants deserved to starve because their families were too big and indolent. The baronet overseeing food relief felt that the famine was God's judgement."

"And making out the poor to be lazy, or dependent, or stupid, does not make them less poor. It only make the person saying such a thing feel superior.".

Tiny12

12-20-13, 22:42

Rev BS

12-21-13, 01:29

Reverend, Do you believe food stamps should be used to buy beer? People should be perpetually paid not to work? Then why do you have an issue with what Rand Paul and James Inhofe said? The "subsidies to wealthy farmers" issue isn't a Democrat vs. Republican issue. It's something that's kept in effect by farm state politicians of both parties. Your statement that the median income of a new Congressman is $1 million more than the typical American household is a complete fabrication, so I suspect the other statistics quoted in the same paragraph are too. So while I would have no problem with a food stamp program providing benefits of $1.40 per meal to poor children and others legitimately unable to work, I doubt your numbers. I do agree with you that many people are on food stamps through no fault of their own. They would come off food stamps if the economy were to improve. And that would occur more quickly if government implemented pro-growth policies instead of pursuing Obama's re-distributionist goals.

People responsible for government programs that keep people lazy, dependent and stupid are the ones who are morally reprehensible. More helpless people in poverty means more votes for Democrats. So keep them dependent on government programs, and make sure the teachers unions look out for their own best interests instead of the students'. Democrats want to keep the poor WEAK.There are kernels of validity in your response, but in general, it is the same emotional rhetoric that has been ingrained into your thinking that you and the upper classes are superior in morality than the lower classes. The poor will always remain poor because of poor choices, but also because, they will always have less choices.

The statistics were copied from the NY Times article, so while you can challenge the figures, it does not take away that Congress is nothing but a bedding session between legislators and interest groups today. As a result, it is a roadway to eventual wealth for most legislators as they pave the way for the interest groups to plunder & pillage (for lack of a better phrase).

The "beer" quote is so ridiculous. Not that it isn't true, but because "fraud" and "cheating" are now part of the American fabric. For example, whilst railing against illegal immigration, so many are customers of products and establishments that uses illegal workers, or even use them themselves. Where is the outrage!

We used to laugh at Third World Countries and their blatant corruption. Corruption in American is so sophisticated that they are able to enact legislation to decriminalize illegal activity. As Carson asks, who went to jail beside Madoff? How about Cheney, Halliburton, and the Pentagon?

Come by Bangkok, I'll arrange a few de-programming sesseions.

P.S. Just an opinion, nothing personal here.

Tiny12

12-21-13, 01:58

There are kernels of validity in your response, but in general, it is the same emotional rhetoric that has been ingrained into your thinking that you and the upper classes are superior in morality than the lower classes. The poor will always remain poor because of poor choices, but also because, they will always have less choices.
That's absolutely not true. Neither I nor anyone else on here believes morality is a function of how much money you make. Getting back to the same point both you and Doppelganger made recently, politicians and those who sway them are the biggest culprits. It's politicians who provide $300,000 in subsidies to a wealthy Montana farmer. And politicians who give an able-bodied individual with ample job opportunities 96 weeks of unemployment benefits. The politicians are more to blame than the farmer or the slacker, although I wouldn't look up to either.

Also, "The poor will always remain poor" is not a given. Better education and economic growth would improve that.

Member #4112

12-21-13, 12:44

Harry Reid interceded for foreign investor's visas for the SLS casino being built in Las Vegas, is a prime example of an "unappealable" denial of an investor visa by Homeland Security being reversed by a Democrat for political and economic reasons.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/10/harry-reids-visa-pressure-cooker/?page=all

I do not imply this does not happen on both sides of the isle because it most certainly does and we only hear about the ones who are caught which is probably only a fraction of the number what actually transpire. Term limits for the House and Senate would go a long way to eliminating many of these abuses.

One other thing we are losing site of in this argument are the multitude of created agencies run by unelected bureaucrats whose regulations have the effect of law, HHS and EPA come to mind.

Lazy lawmakers too busy to enact the actual regulations for the laws they pass, hand off this duty to the bureaucrats to propagate the actual regulations. Perhaps if the lawmakers had to think through the regulations of laws PRIOR to enacting them we would not have many of the laws now on the books.

Term limits for the House and Senate is only half the issue, the other half is to reduce and / or eliminate many of the agencies staffed by unelected, faceless bureaucrats who remain in place from election to election and administration to administration.

Rev BS

12-22-13, 21:02

I agree we need to hear more.

I have been there, I am not clear on what our problems are to theirs.

I know their's is really bad.

The only impeachment should be the Do Nothing Congress. But that is to the Voters.

New York Times, Thomas Fuller, December 16 & 22,2013 (selectively condensed).

"In one of the more provocative moves of Thailand's month-long political crisis, anti-government protesters marching through Bangkok Sunday vowed to disrupt the coming elections in their campaign to rid the country of its most influential political family. We will shut down the country, we will block everyone casting ballots, vows Suthep Thaugsuban, the main protest leader. As with the division of the red and blue states of the United States, Thailand's geographical divides have become even sharper as the crisis continued."

"In today's fractured Thailand, a majority wants more democracy, but a minority including many rich and powerful people, is petrified by the thought of it. What unites the protestors is the desire to dismantle Prime Minister Yingluck's Pheu Thai party, which has won every election since 2001. The anti-democratic ideas put forward by protest leaders are in jarring contrast with the image of Thailand as a cosmopolitan country open to the world.

"Thailand today is a much richer than two decades ago, but it is also more divided. On the face of it, the crux of the protest appears to be a classic power between a dominant majority and a minority frustrated by its losing streak in elections and its inability to influence national policies in a winner-take-all, in a highly centralized system."

You can only laugh quietly to yourself, the absurdity of the human race. We think we are so clever, but we are no different from the rats in the sewers. I escape to Thailand, but I could not escape Starbucks and the Tea Party.

Tiny12

12-23-13, 02:40

New York Times, Thomas Fuller, December 16 & 22,2013 (selectively condensed).

"In one of the more provocative moves of Thailand's month-long political crisis, anti-government protesters marching through Bangkok Sunday vowed to disrupt the coming elections in their campaign to rid the country of its most influential political family. We will shut down the country, we will block everyone casting ballots, vows Suthep Thaugsuban, the main protest leader. As with the division of the red and blue states of the United States, Thailand's geographical divides have become even sharper as the crisis continued."

"In today's fractured Thailand, a majority wants more democracy, but a minority including many rich and powerful people, is petrified by the thought of it. What unites the protestors is the desire to dismantle Prime Minister Yingluck's Pheu Thai party, which has won every election since 2001. The anti-democratic ideas put forward by protest leaders are in jarring contrast with the image of Thailand as a cosmopolitan country open to the world.

"Thailand today is a much richer than two decades ago, but it is also more divided. On the face of it, the crux of the protest appears to be a classic power between a dominant majority and a minority frustrated by its losing streak in elections and its inability to influence national policies in a winner-take-all, in a highly centralized system."

You can only laugh quietly to yourself, the absurdity of the human race. We think we are so clever, but we are no different from the rats in the sewers. I escape to Thailand, but I could not escape Starbucks and the Tea Party.Yes, there are similarities between the ruling Pheu Thai party and the American Democrat Party. Pheu Thai is fiscally irresponsible and buys votes from rice farmers, factory workers, etc. But its populist agenda is a disguise for its true purpose, which is doing the bidding of a billionaire businessman (Thaksin Shinawatra).

You're not going to see me defending their opposition, the Thai Democrats. I suspect you're trying to make an analogy between the Yellow Shirts, being a subset of the Thai Democrat Party that has taken to the streets to try to overthrow the government, and the Tea Party. If so, the analogy is ridiculous. In terms of their strategies, the Yellow Shirts have much more in common with the Occupy Wall Street movement, of which I think you approve, than with the Tea Party. The Tea Party, however you define it, has never gone beyond parliamentary procedure in its attempts to return the federal government to fiscal sanity. The Tea Party has never and will never attempt to overthrow the government with massive demonstrations.

Punter 127

12-23-13, 05:46

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) said on Sunday that Obamacare's endless problems could create a "complete meltdown" and endanger Democrats' control of the U.S. Senate.

"If it's so much more expensive than what we anticipated and if the coverage is not as good as what we had, you've got a complete meltdown at that time," Manchin said on CNN's State of the Union. "If it falls of its own weight, if basically the cost becomes more than we can absorb, absolutely.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/22/Dem-Senator-Obamacare-May-Face-Complete-Meltdown-Give-GOP-Senate

Forget about Thailand lets talk about something that matters.

Miami Bob

12-26-13, 01:04

Because of age, height weight no one wants to wtie health for me. I have basically catastrophe coverage $12,000 in-net work& $24,000. out of network deuctible and max out of pockets at a cost of $1970 per month with a $5,000,000. life time cap. I shopped and shopped with multiple agents year after year. The website is horrible so my agent took care of it.about $1000 per month for platinum plan with in net work amlost no payments by me except for non-fomulary drugs[whichiwillbytviaCanada]. out of network is not good, but i am paying more premium for a very large national network--all my doctors, the locale medical school faculty and the best locale hostitals all participate. It took awhile to shop as the plans are complex and the network in very important.

I think every one agrees that there needs to be fine tuning and fixing. Unfortunately there is not the political will to fine tune and fix.

Miami Bob

12-30-13, 05:44

Read an interesting opinion piece about education and the USA's ability to create a productive work force.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/08/opinion/sunday/friedman-cant-we-do-better.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

The comments are as interesting as the piece.

Don B

12-30-13, 13:55

Miami Bob

12-30-13, 20:04

If the locale government does not supply education, does everyone home school? Religious institutions? Privatize?

How do we motivate more students to want to learn. Maybe we give up and just have an undereducated " serf" class who live on the margins of society? Some might say that already exists?

Jackson

12-31-13, 00:19

Jackson

12-31-13, 00:24

How do we motivate more students to want to learn.I know, let's tell them that the government is going to take 50% of what they will earn after they finish school and start working. That should start a fire under them.

Maybe we give up and just have an undereducated "serf" class who live on the margins of society? Some might say that already exists?Just continue giving them free money to stay home and fuck off, and that's exactly what you'll have: A "serf" class of permanent Democrat voters.

Of course, in the Middle Ages serfs actually had to work if they wanted to eat, but we wouldn't want the facts to obscure your point.

Thanks,

Jax.

Rock Harders

12-31-13, 01:11

Hey MB,

Just remember, in order for you to get coverage at that price, someone else will be required to pay more than their risk profile would otherwise require.

Do you really believe that younger/healthier individuals and/or the country's taxpayers should be subsidizing your health care?

Thanks,

JaxJackson-.

Do you believe that citizens of the United States should be simply left for dead if they cannot afford to pay for their own healthcare at "market rates"? Incredibly hypocritical for our very own Jackson to be complaining about government subsidized healthcare, when he himself benefits INCREDIBLY from subsidized healthcare here in Argentina! Not only does Jackson plop himself down as a guest in Argentina, contributing nothing, he "leeches" off the government by benefitting from subsidized electricity, gas, water, public transportation and medical school. His "private" medical services are as cheap as they are in Argentina as a direct result of government subsidies; those doctor fees would be a hell of a lot higher if the doctors had not gone to medical school for "free", the hospital was paying market rates for utilities, and the public transportation was non. Subsidized.

All this leeching and non contributing by Jackson in a foreign country, and he has the GALL to rail against TAX PAYING US CITIZENS benefiting from subsidized healthcare in their own country!

Suerte,

RH.

Quality Time

12-31-13, 01:13

Don B

12-31-13, 01:45

Hey I have an idea, if you don't want government interfering in your life, move to Afghanistan, Sudan etc. There are no government services or tax collection there.As I have pointed out previously, this error is know as the False Alternative".

Don B.

Quality Time

12-31-13, 02:29

Quality Time

12-31-13, 02:31

Miami Bob

12-31-13, 06:24

With all respect, the essence of insurance is pooling risk for the greater good. I cut my premiums down to $12,000 with very good in. Network coverage and only catestrophic coverage out of net work. I truly believe that single payer is the only rationale long term solution. The ACA is a variation on sen robert doles' counter proposal to clinton's health care solutions.

Robert dole was a great senator who came up with a market solution.

Ted cruz is just not of the same stature. Yes, there needs to be fine tuning on the ACA. The lobbyists sliced and diced this one real bad.

The political will to have a function health care sysem does not exist in the congress.

Jackson

12-31-13, 14:03

Jackson-.

Do you believe that citizens of the United States should be simply left for dead if they cannot afford to pay for their own healthcare at "market rates"? Incredibly hypocritical for our very own Jackson to be complaining about government subsidized healthcare, when he himself benefits INCREDIBLY from subsidized healthcare here in Argentina! Not only does Jackson plop himself down as a guest in Argentina, contributing nothing, he "leeches" off the government by benefitting from subsidized electricity, gas, water, public transportation and medical school. His "private" medical services are as cheap as they are in Argentina as a direct result of government subsidies; those doctor fees would be a hell of a lot higher if the doctors had not gone to medical school for "free", the hospital was paying market rates for utilities, and the public transportation was non. Subsidized.

All this leeching and non contributing by Jackson in a foreign country, and he has the GALL to rail against TAX PAYING US CITIZENS benefiting from subsidized healthcare in their own country!

Suerte,

RH.Wrong on every count, as usual.

1. The "citizens of the United States" were not "simply left for dead if they [could not] afford to pay for their own healthcare at "market rates" before ObamaCare, so what makes you think they'd be "simply left for dead" without ObamaCare?

I challenge you to provide a miniscule 3 cases of persons being "left for dead" in the 5 years preceding the ObamaCare roll-out.

2. My health care policy here in Argentina is with a private hospital and is most definitely not subsidized. In addition, no utility bill I receive here in Argentina includes any line-item subsidy, including my electric bill.

3. Without detailing my business activities here in Argentina, Rock knows fully well that his "contributing nothing" comment is completely erroneous. In addition, given that I pay Argentina import taxes, Argentine sales taxes, Argentine utility taxes, Argentine property taxes, and Argentine income taxes, one could hardly claim that I am "leeching" by living here.

Once again, facts aren't important to liberals, only emotion is important.

Thanks,

Jax

Jackson

12-31-13, 14:25

Ted cruz is just not of the same stature.Neither is Obama.

Yes, there needs to be fine tuning on the ACA. The lobbyists sliced and diced this one real bad.The lobbyists? What are you talking about? The Dems listened to the lobbyists that were working for their own supporters, and they produced exactly the law they wanted. The Dems completely ignored the Republicans and the lobbyists working for conservative interests.

Thanks,

Jax.

Jackson

12-31-13, 14:32

What does Jax do in BA other than own a house where he rents out rooms???How liberal of you to attack the messenger.

Nevertheless, I'm still trying to understand your criticism. Are you suggesting that because (as you suppose) I rent rooms to personal acquaintances that I'm somehow not entitled to an opinion as to where my tax money is being spent?

Anyway, if you knew me personally you'd know how uninformed your comment is.

Thanks,

Jax.

Jackson

12-31-13, 14:38

Hey Jax, your same analogy would apply to buying car insurance. Safe older drivers subsidize younger drivers.That's not true at all, but it wouldn't make any difference to me because car insurance is sold and purchased in the public marketplace, the cost of which is most definitely not subsidized by any government.

In addition, I'm having difficulty understanding your contention that the older drivers are subsidizing the younger drivers, given that older drivers generally pay less for car insurance than younger drivers.

Or is this typical liberal logic that falls apart after the 2nd question?

Thanks,

Jax.

Rock Harders

12-31-13, 15:28

2. My health care policy here in Argentina is with a private hospital and is most definitely not subsidized. In addition, no utility bill I receive here in Argentina includes any line-item subsidy, including my electric bill.

Thanks,

JaxJackson-.

Your "private" health care policy is without a doubt subsidized by the Argentine government; 90% of the doctors working in "private" medical facilities went to "public" medical school (typically la UBA, "free", I.e. SUBSIDIZED tuition); had these doctors gone to "private" medical school and needed to take out loans, they would have to charge you significantly more for their services. YOUR fees are less because the Argentine government SUBSIDIZED the education of the doctors who attend to YOU. Furthermore, all hospital employees use public transportation which, of course, is HIGHLY SUBSIDIZED; if these hospital employees were paying market rates for public transportation they would need to be paid higher salaries, which of course would lead to higher rates for YOU, again YOU benefiting from government SUBSIDIES. In addition, ALL the utilities at the hospitals are SUBSIDIZED which, of course, helps keep rates low directly benefiting you.

I know for a fact that at least some (possibly most) of your utility bills have a line item subsidy included on the bill.

Suerte,

RH.

Gandolf50

12-31-13, 15:45

Jackson-.

Your "private" health care policy is without a doubt subsidized by the Argentine government; 90% of the doctors working in "private" medical facilities went to "public" medical school (typically la UBA, "free", I.e. SUBSIDIZED tuition); had these doctors gone to "private" medical school and needed to take out loans, they would have to charge you significantly more for their services. YOUR fees are less because the Argentine government SUBSIDIZED the education of the doctors who attend to YOU. Furthermore, all hospital employees use public transportation which, of course, is HIGHLY SUBSIDIZED; if these hospital employees were paying market rates for public transportation they would need to be paid higher salaries, which of course would lead to higher rates for YOU, again YOU benefiting from government SUBSIDIES. In addition, ALL the utilities at the hospitals are SUBSIDIZED which, of course, helps keep rates low directly benefiting you.

I know for a fact that at least some (possibly most) of your utility bills have a line item subsidy included on the bill.

Suerte,

RH.In the fantasy Republic of Argentina, when the govbermint says its "subsidizing" your bill.. What that really means is the stupid SOB's in the casa rosada have said that the electric company may not raise its rates. They receive NO money. In 14 years my electric bill went up for the first time last year. What happens is the electric companies can not afford to maintain the system nor stock replacement materials in case of a emergency. This is why there are so many problems now. Not to mention, no one wants to build more generating plants if they can not recoup the money invested{TCS. Ellipses}.

Don B

12-31-13, 15:55

Tiny12

12-31-13, 16:58

Miami Bob, What's difficult to understand is how the USA is at the top of the charts in terms of how much we pay, per capita after adjusting for purchasing power, for education and health care. Actually for health care we pay 50% more than any other country. Yet we don't live as long, have more health problems, and have poorly educated children. How is throwing more federal government money at problems going to solve them?

Miami Bob

12-31-13, 17:16

Member #4112

12-31-13, 18:07

MB the answer is simple but you choose to ignore it by looking at the effects and not the cause of the problem, which is career politicians. The Founding Fathers did not intend for folks to come to Washington and STAY, but to come serve a term then return to their "day job" back home. The simple answer is term limits for both the House and Senate, but I doubt the political will exists.

Rock Harders

12-31-13, 19:47

Mongers-.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-31/obamacare-rallies-from-botched-debut-as-sign-ups-reach-2-million.html

Two million now enrolled in "Obamacare".

Quality Time

12-31-13, 22:46

How liberal of you to attack the messenger.

Nevertheless, I'm still trying to understand your criticism. Are you suggesting that because (as you suppose) I rent rooms to personal acquaintances that I'm somehow not entitled to an opinion as to where my tax money is being spent?

Anyway, if you knew me personally you'd know how uninformed your comment is.

Thanks,
.
Jax.Jax, of course everyone is entitled to an opinion!. I was responding to RH's comments about you where he basically said you were a non contributing resident of Argentina. I am wrong after I read your response to RH. I know this blog is good for discussion and it can get really interesting. You obviously do not like Obama Care or his other policies. Is that that the reason why you live in Argentina as opposed to the US?

Rev BS

01-01-14, 00:25

I buy one non. Formulary medication mail order from england. It arrives from England in a ox that says made in the USA. In the USA, walmat charges almost $500, from England including express shipping it costs $248.

The USA can be fixed to a certain extent, but the political will must exist. Campaign financing must be reformed. The current system of pack finacing to ensure corp free speach has produced many unanticipated consequences. The tea party financed my the koch brothers, not any grass roots movements of millions of people sending in $5, has been primarying traditional conservatives to replace them with tea party folks. Main stream republicans and dems are both forced to vote their doners' will to ensure money for re. Election.We now have a political system where CORPORATIONS control the government, and in turn, the people. On this board, we have people demanding for smaller government, yet at the same time, defending BIG BUSINESS and their practices. How dysfunctional can you be? The only issue we should be concern about is good government (as in Thailand and elsewhere). There is no long term planning or strategies anymore. It's all about winning the next election. And really, if you look closely, the "free market" upon which America was built, is not so "free" anymore.

So where is this wave taking us? This is a cycle of evolving natural states. Following ABUNDANCE (after World War II), comes GREED (70's, 80's), then CORRUPTION (now). Then COLLAPSE. Finally, there will be RECOVERY, and then the whole cycle will begin again. Just look at all the great empires, it's the same story. And the American Empire will be no different. UNLESS?

Not to worry, I don't think most of us will live to see the United States of America reborn as a series of smaller nation states. The golden era still have enough luster to see us, and in particular, me, out in comfortable fashion. Tomorrow, I am going to take out some of the 25% profit that the Dow made in 2013.

P.S. This is an opinion piece based on several articles I have been reading of which I have not credited. Originally, I was just going to write about Corporate Greed, and the prices that MB had to pay for his drugs. But then, we will have the usual chorus of how much the drug companies spend on research & innovation, and the justification for bankrupting us.

Toymann

01-01-14, 06:08

Not been here for quite some time, shame what has evolved. You get what you reap. RH thinks two million signed up for Obamacare, not accurately pointing out that over half are medicaid recipients, what is the color of the sky in your world. Spoken like a 30 year old who hasn't been resident in the US for many years. Thanks for playing! I only ask one question, who pays for all this, at the end of the day, After reading this thread, there appears to be no mention of the millions that have been cancelled because their plans didn't cover "pediatric dentistry".

More to come in September 2014. Enjoy being out of touch with America boys.

Monger on Dudes.

Toymann out!

Rock Harders

01-01-14, 07:57

Jax, of course everyone is entitled to an opinion!. I was responding to RH's comments about you where he basically said you were a non contributing resident of Argentina. I am wrong after I read your response to RH. I know this blog is good for discussion and it can get really interesting. You obviously do not like Obama Care or his other policies. Is that that the reason why you live in Argentina as opposed to the US?You are not wrong; Jackson is in fact a non. Contributing resident of Argentina and he benefits enormously from government subsidies even though he refuses to admit so. Disclaimer: I freely admit that I also benefit significantly from government subsidies in Argentina, however, I pay about $100,000 USD in taxes annually to the Argentine government and employ many dozens of people, so at least I contribute.

Daddy Rulz

01-01-14, 14:37

BadMan

01-01-14, 14:46

Tiny12

01-01-14, 15:31

You are not wrong; Jackson is in fact a non. Contributing resident of Argentina and he benefits enormously from government subsidies even though he refuses to admit so. Disclaimer: I freely admit that I also benefit significantly from government subsidies in Argentina, however, I pay about $100,000 USD in taxes annually to the Argentine government and employ many dozens of people, so at least I contribute.

3. Without detailing my business activities here in Argentina, Rock knows fully well that his "contributing nothing" comment is completely erroneous. In addition, given that I pay Argentina import taxes, Argentine sales taxes, Argentine utility taxes, Argentine property taxes, and Argentine income taxes, one could hardly claim that I am "leeching" by living here.
Once again, facts aren't important to liberals, only emotion is important.
The majority of successful leftist businessmen, whether in the United States, Venezuela, or Argentina, take advantage of the system. They either want to justify that they're the good guys in their own minds, or they're just plain corrupt.

So, Rock Harders, do the subsidies that benefit you exceed the Argentine taxes you pay? And, on the subject of taxes, do you pay yours correctly? Are you correctly reporting your Argentine income on your Argentine and US tax returns? Are you paying US income tax on all the interest and rental income received by your Argentine company and any loans you've taken out, as required by US law? Or are you another lefty like Leona Helmsley who believes only stupid people pay high taxes, and money grows on trees to provide subsidies for your business?

Tiny12

01-01-14, 15:35

Reverend, Please note that your beloved Democrats are as responsible as anyone for corporate welfare. And the "teabaggers" that you malign are the ones who want to STOP handouts to big business. I agree with you about high prices in the drug industry, which result from anti-competitive practices and patent laws that are too generous.

Member #4112

01-01-14, 15:35

Well here we are in the Brave New World of ObamaCare.

I have to laugh at both the insurance companies and the hospital corporations as they reap what they have sown by jumping on the ObamaCare bandwagon.

When ObamaCare was being pushed through:

The hospital corporations were on board because they would no longer have to do cost shifting from those who paid for care and the indigent care they were FORCED to provide via their emergency room services and the admissions which followed because now everyone would have insurance coverage.

The insurance companies were on board because they were about to receive the gift of everyone being FORCED to have comprehensive coverage rather they needed it or not thereby providing them with new clients at higher premium rates.

Now reality is setting in with more than 6 Million folks losing their bare bones catastrophic policies but then getting a pass by Obama, the young invincibles who are to pay the bulk of the premiums are not signing up for coverage, and the majority of those getting on ObamaCare are the older and sicker folks requiring immediate outlays of funds for treatment. Bottom line is there is no money in the kitty to pay claims. Now where do think that money is gong to come from? Taxes maybe?

Jackson

01-01-14, 18:14

Now where do think that money is gong to come from? Taxes maybe?From the magic Subsidy Fairy, of course.

The best part is that, according to Rock, I will somehow "benefit enormously" from these subsidies.

Rock Harders

01-01-14, 19:02

From the magic Subsidy Fairy, of course.

The best part is that, according to Rock, I will somehow "benefit enormously" from these subsidies.In Argentina, these subsidies come from tax payers like me through paying IVA, IIBB, Cargas Sociales, impuesto al cheque, and ABL. Although it may be incomprehensible to Jackson and his right wing lackies on the forum, I have no problem with the fact that my tax proceeds, at least in part, go to subsidize other people's healthcare, including Jackson's. Even though Jackson is older than I am and arguably has a much higher risk profile than I do due to his dietary and lifestyle choices, I believe Jackson deserves affordable healthcare and I am willing to contribute to it.

Tiny12

01-01-14, 19:58

In Argentina, these subsidies come from tax payers like me through paying IVA, IIBB, Cargas Sociales, impuesto al cheque, and ABL. Although it may be incomprehensible to Jackson and his right wing lackies on the forum, I have no problem with the fact that my tax proceeds, at least in part, go to subsidize other people's healthcare, including Jackson's. Even though Jackson is older than I am and arguably has a much higher risk profile than I do due to his dietary and lifestyle choices, I believe Jackson deserves affordable healthcare and I am willing to contribute to it.Then you and Jackson agree. He has held out the health care system in Argentina, part of which is paid with tax proceeds, as a model for the USA.

This is just the opinion of one "right wing" lackey, but I'd have no problem subsidizing other people's healthcare to some extent, provided the money were spent efficiently. In the USA it's not. Obamacare is doubling down on a failed system.

Don B

01-01-14, 21:33

"James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution, explained in Federalist Paper No. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. . . . The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.".

Our Founders' constitutional vision of limited federal government has been consigned to the dustbin of history.".

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/123113-684710-all-powerful-government-now-stomps-on-americans-rights.htm#ixzz2pBzGzwRD.

Don B.

Jackson

01-01-14, 23:10

In Argentina, these subsidies come from tax payers like me through paying IVA, IIBB, Cargas Sociales, impuesto al cheque, and ABL. Although it may be incomprehensible to Jackson and his right wing lackies on the forum, I have no problem with the fact that my tax proceeds, at least in part, go to subsidize other people's healthcare, including Jackson's. Even though Jackson is older than I am and arguably has a much higher risk profile than I do due to his dietary and lifestyle choices, I believe Jackson deserves affordable healthcare and I am willing to contribute to it.Hypothetically speaking, IF you had any partners in your business, then it would be fair to say that your partners also get "credit" for paying part of these taxes, given that they were business expenses that reduced the profits to all partners.

Just say'n...

Jax

Punter 127

01-02-14, 01:09

Top 5 O-Care stories to watch

“The healthcare law faced a very tough year in 2013, but that could pale in comparison to what happens in 2014.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/193776-top-five-obamacare-stories-to-watch-in-2014

And, since Democrats (Like WT 69) take so much joy from talking about how ObamaCare was modeled after RomneyCare in Massachusetts. While it's true they both “individual mandate” it’s not the same thing.

Massachusetts facts:
Massachusetts has the highest insurance cost in the nation; (http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2012/12/insurance-premiums-mass-expensive)
Half of primary care doctors and 55% of specialists are not taking new patients and wait time for an appointment (http://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2013/10/12/why-hard-find-doctor/AZmAhh8DJowD63cIVF0vPO/story.html) is increasing.

Regardless of the name calling by those on the left 2014 is going to be a long year for ObamaCare, and we’ve only seen the tip of the iceberg.

Just another "right wing lackey” report.

Esten

01-02-14, 02:50

All the lame fearmongering and attacks have failed to stop the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, that moves America forward in expanding access to healthcare, banning exclusions based on pre-existing conditions, and reducing medical bankruptcies. This is the solid foundation of the ACA that ensures it is here to stay, because most Americans support the core provisions of the new law.

Republicans jump from one myopic point to another, hoping to rile up Americans. What a laugh. Truly pathetic, but this is what we have come to expect from them. In 2014, things will become smoother after the implementation bumps, and expect more and more people to tire of the attacks. People will want concrete proposals on how to improve the law. And they'll want focus on other issues, too.

Notice how Republicans don't contrast the ACA with their failed voucher proposal. That's because a voucher proposal, while ideologically pleasing to some, would not have and will not reform healthcare the way the core provisions of the ACA do.

The hardship exemption for those who had their plans cancelled is only for one year. They and others will be subject to the increasing penalties of the mandate in future years. In 2016, the penalty will be $695 or 2.5% of family income. This ensures the enrollment numbers will steadily increase from the current 2 Million figure. Just remember that when the detractors loudly and repeatedly proclaim the ACA has failed because not enough people signed up. It is a phased implementation.

Jackson

01-02-14, 15:15

They and others will be subject to the increasing penalties of the mandate in future years. In 2016, the penalty will be $695 or 2.5% of family income. This ensures the enrollment numbers will steadily increase from the current 2 Million figure. Just remember that when the detractors loudly and repeatedly proclaim the ACA has failed because not enough people signed up. It is a phased implementation.Yea, that's going to go over like a lead balloon.

I can just hear the Millennials now: "What! Obamacare isn't FREE? You mean that I have to PAY even if I don't want it!"

Thanks,

Jax

Tiny12

01-02-14, 20:07

Member #4112

01-02-14, 20:42

There is plenty of political corruption on both sides, Democrat and Republican. Ever see anyone, Democrat or Republican, who went to either the House or Senate poor but did not leave rich?

Term limits will not solve all the problems but it would make the politicians to expensive to keep buying every few years and who knows maybe we find a few honest politicians. I know it's an oxymoron!

Reminds me of a joke about politicians my grandfather told me.

Farmer takes a jug of moonshine, a Bible and a $20 gold piece and places them on a counter in his barn. He calls his son who is turning 18 over and tells him to go into the barn and to select what he wants from the items on the counter. The farmer tells his son he will know what his son will be when he makes a man by his selection.

The son enters the barn and sees the jug of moonshine, the Bible and the $20 gold piece. The son thinks about these items for a moment and then takes a swing of the moonshine and puts the jug under one arm, puts the $20 gold piece in his pocket and the Bible under the other arm and walks our of the barn.

The farmer see's his son, shakes his head and swears. My boy is going to be a damn politician!

Monger on.

Rev BS

01-02-14, 21:28

There's an article in this month's Reason Magazine that I wish I could link to, for the benefit of Reverend Black Shirt and WT69, but it's not on the web. Reason, by the way, is hard core libertarian. They hate Republicans as much as Democrats. (I lean Republican because it's more important to me that government stay out of my pocket, versus out of my bedroom).

Anyway, they provide examples of how financial companies have corrupted or swayed politicians. And the politicians are Democrats. Republicans tried to do away with the estate (death) tax. It's both unfair, and the costs associated with the tax exceed the actual amount raised by it. The heavy fire power to keep the tax in place came not from left wing idealists, but rather from life insurance companies. Life insurance companies benefit heavily from the estate tax, because the death tax is not levied on benefits, and also because benefits can be used to avoid having to sell the family business or family farm when someone dies.

A second example was William Hambrecht, founder of a couple of investment banking firms. He put Paul Pelosi Jr., Nancy's son, on his firm's payroll. He also put Pelosi and her husband into initial public offerings (IPO's) where she could flip shares and make big profits. (Sound familiar Esten?) So when Hambrecht wanted to push through a change in regulations for IPO's, Pelosi was at hand to help influence Barney Frank and other members of the House Financial Services Committee.

It bears repeating, you should cease your continual bitching about the Tea Party, as they're the only ones out there trying to stop this bull shit.Why don't we just say, that if we really want to dig for dirt in every level on the poliitcal front, the corruption, nepotism, and the insider deals could fill up the Grand Canyon? Whether it be Democrats or Republicans. Party affiliation is not a vital issue for me. I have always consider myself a practical compassionate conservative. On this board, I take the side of Obama and Universal Care only because of the blind hatred of the Gang That Could Not Shoot Straight. From Day 1, even before ObamaCare was enacted, the bias, unfairness and hatred started.

The fact is that in our political system, CORPORATE / BIG BUSINESS controls our electoral process and the resultant government. This is the CORRUPTION phase I highlighted in my previous post. Legislation are enacted to allow illegal activities to be legitimate. Even so, banks are paying record fines. Who do you think has the means & power to do that? Poor people, uneducated people, low income workers, undocumented workers? What do you think? One thought, wealth (not all) is generated on the backs of the toiling class. Next time you put on your trousers, give a 10 second silent prayer for the garment workers in Bangladesh. And also before you light up that cigar, or splash some whisky down your throat.

People seem to think that they have alot of control of their lives. Obviously, money helps. But only up to a point. More than 50% or more of what you do is control by marketing forces that tells us what to buy, eat, entertain, laugh or cry. And even where to go. Am I full of shit? Perhaps. Just look at the row of pills that you are taking everyday. How did you become this way, why do you need them?

Ok, enough for today.

Tiny12

01-02-14, 21:41

Next time you put on your trousers, give a 10 second silent prayer for the garment workers in Bangladesh. That's one thing we agree on, 100%. It's incredible how people get by in Bangladesh, India, sub Saharan Africa, etc. I get sick and tired of hearing how unequal and unfair the USA is, when most here are so much better off than most of the rest of the world.

Daddy Rulz

01-03-14, 00:39

This is for you guys;.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/77877/13-problems-only-libertarians-will-understand-in-gifs

Quality Time

01-03-14, 02:49

Punter 127

01-03-14, 23:33

Why don't we just say, that if we really want to dig for dirt in every level on the poliitcal front, the corruption, nepotism, and the insider deals could fill up the Grand Canyon? Whether it be Democrats or Republicans. Party affiliation is not a vital issue for me. I have always consider myself a practical compassionate conservative. On this board, I take the side of Obama and Universal Care only because of the blind hatred of the Gang That Could Not Shoot Straight. From Day 1, even before ObamaCare was enacted, the bias, unfairness and hatred started.

Am I full of shit? In a word, YES! :D

Jackson

01-04-14, 03:12

On this board, I take the side of Obama and Universal Care only because of the blind hatred of the Gang That Could Not Shoot Straight. From Day 1, even before ObamaCare was enacted, the bias, unfairness and hatred started.I thought the Obama inner circle was the "Gang That Could Not Shoot Straight"?

Just a few examples...

Fast and Furious?
Spying on Reporters?
IRS Political Targeting?
Benghazi?
Syria?
The ACA rollout?

I'm sure I'm forgetting a few things.

Thanks,

Jax.

Punter 127

01-04-14, 09:36

“Phased implementation” or “Death Spiral”?

"It's crucial to the success of ObamaCare that 40% of the signups have to be in the 35 and younger group. Those consumers don't use healthcare and their premiums are needed to offset the people who are signing up now in the gold and platinum plans. Without the young people, insurers will be paying out significantly more than they're taking in in premiums and we get the ObamaCare Death Spiral.

Without those young people rates for 2015 will be based on 2014 actual performance and they will go up dramatically. It's fun to note that rates for 2015 will be available in the September. October time frame next year, just before the mid. Term elections.".

Also:

"Businesses will inform their employees of their plans around the middle of 2014, just before the midterm elections. Many businesses will alter their operations to fall below the mandate threshold. Others will simply drop coverage and pay the penalty. This will be a shock for most people, especially since most Americans have health insurance through their employer. That this shock could come just weeks before the midterm elections will create a nightmare for Democrats on the ballot. ".

Mongers-.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-31/obamacare-rallies-from-botched-debut-as-sign-ups-reach-2-million.html

Two million now enrolled in "Obamacare".Nice gimmick, huh?
You pass a law that destroys people's existing insurance policies, then you claim victory when some of them sign up for more expensive Obamacare insurance.

28925

Proudly detracting from the leftwing delusional fantasy.

Rev BS

01-04-14, 09:54

In a word, YES! :DAte some Tom Yum Goong.

BadMan

01-04-14, 11:21

I understand some people like the illusion of socialized and or affordable healthcare but obamacare isn't that. Its a farce.

All in all, the numbers don't lie.

http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/529f386569bedd1b34e32de8-538/obama-approval-rating.jpg

Esten

01-04-14, 13:09

I can just hear the Millennials now: "What! Obamacare isn't FREE? You mean that I have to PAY even if I don't want it!"That's right, it's called personal responsibility. That's how Republicans described it when they came up with the idea of the individual mandate. The Affordable Care Act is based on a Republican concept.

Check out what Romney said in 2005:

"I don't like calling it universal coverage," he told me last week. "That smacks of Hillarycare. But I do think we've come up with a way to get everybody covered through the free-market system." Romney's way is not new: policy wonks call it an "individual mandate" system, but the Governor doesn't like that term either. "I call it a personal responsibility system," he said.

"We can't have as a nation 40 million people — or, in my state, half a million — saying, 'I don't have insurance, and if I get sick, I want someone else to pay,' " says Romney, a Republican who says he might run for president in 2008.
http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/28/mitt-romneys-individual-mandate

Rev BS

01-04-14, 14:25

I'm sure I'm forgetting a few things Jax.That Obama would be kicked out of office, and be riding a scooter on Beach Road with Punter 127.

Tiny12

01-05-14, 02:01

WorldTravel69

01-05-14, 13:26

Some expired, but some didn't.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/02/from-nascar-to-wind-power-congress-just-let-55-tax-breaks-expire/

http://www.alternet.org/economy/5-juicy-tax-breaks-corporations-enjoy-public-cant-touch

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/07/business/economy/companies-exploit-tax-break-for-asset-exchanges-trial-evidence-shows.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304325004579295030954653514

Wind power, Solyndra, Citibank, big business, big unions -- hire the right lobbyists and grease the right wheels and the world is your oyster.

While Obama was raising taxes big time on successful small businesses and individuals last year, Democrats were passing $40 billion in tax exemptions for NASCAR, rum distillers and renewable energy firms. Actually all the Democrats on the Senate committee that attached this amendment to the tax bill voted in favor of the pork, but half the Republicans did too. Again, the Tea Party Republicans are the only ones out there fighting crony capitalism.

What's wrong WT69, cat got your tongue?

Tiny12

01-05-14, 14:10

Some expired, but some didn't.Don't count the chickens before they're hatched. Your Washington Post link says Harry Reid (Democrat, Senate Majority Leader) tried to get them extended last month and will try again to do that this year, retroactive to January 1, 2014.

This shows the wisdom of eliminating special write-offs and tax breaks and instituting a flat tax, which I believe is an idea you have supported on this board.

WorldTravel69

01-05-14, 14:30

Wouldn't that be the Southern Democrats? If you check our history, the Southern Democrats views were more Republican than Democratic. Yes, it has changed some, but not in all of them.

I don't think Obama has any white Good Ole Boy Cronies in the South.

How many black drivers are there?

NASCAR is kind of like the Republican Party. They keep going around in circles and can't find their asses.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304325004579295030954653514

Wind power, Solyndra, Citibank, big business, big unions -- hire the right lobbyists and grease the right wheels and the world is your oyster.

While Obama was raising taxes big time on successful small businesses and individuals last year, Democrats were passing $40 billion in tax exemptions for NASCAR, rum distillers and renewable energy firms. Actually all the Democrats on the Senate committee that attached this amendment to the tax bill voted in favor of the pork, but half the Republicans did too. Again, the Tea Party Republicans are the only ones out there fighting crony capitalism.

What's wrong WT69, cat got your tongue?

Tiny12

01-05-14, 16:40

NASCAR is kind of like the Republican Party. They keep going around in circles and can't find their asses.Yes, a party with tight discipline, a strong leader and a clear view of what it wants to accomplish can make dramatic changes. Like the Nazis in Germany and the Communists in the USSR.

Fortunately the Democrats probably won't win the House and 60 spots in the Senate in 2014.

Oh, I forgot, actually they only need 51 votes in the Senate as long as Harry Reid is majority leader.

Sorry, I know I'm being rough on you, but you shouldn't have said bad things about NASCAR. If I just let that go you'd be slamming professional wrestling, tractor pulls and cock fights next.

Punter 127

01-06-14, 00:34

Detroit Police Chief: the city is safer when good people can carry a gun

If more citizens were armed, criminals would think twice about attacking them, Detroit Police Chief James Craig said Thursday.”"Urban police chiefs are typically in favor of gun control or reluctant to discuss the issue, but Craig on Thursday was candid about how he's changed his mind.".

Coming from California (Craig was on the Los Angeles police force for 28 years), where it takes an act of Congress to get a concealed weapon permit, I got to Maine, where they give out lots of CCWs (carrying concealed weapon permits), and I had a stack of CCW permits I was denying; that was my orientation.

I changed my orientation real quick. Maine is one of the safest places in America. Clearly, suspects knew that good Americans were armed.Graig took over in Detroit in October and it was common to see signs on roads coming into the city that had been posted by police that read "Enter at your own risk". 911 response time was measured in hours if the police bothered to respond at all.

A recent study from Quinnipiac University concludes that states with more restrictions on firearm ownership and carry permits had higher murder rates by guns than gun-friendly states, and suggests that increasing restrictions on concealed-carry permits pushes the murder rate up, not down. It also showed that assault-weapons bans had no effect on murder rates.

Summarized:

Restrictions on firearm ownership and carry permits drive murder rates up;.

Restrictions on carry permits increase murder rates;.

Assault weapons bans have no effect on murder rates.

I would call this proof that progressives and anti-gun advocates are out to control people not guns. Gun control is nothing more than a "feel-good remedy" for progressives who refuse to address the real issues surrounding gun violence.

Esten

01-06-14, 01:55

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304325004579295030954653514

Wind power, Solyndra, Citibank, big business, big unions -- hire the right lobbyists and grease the right wheels and the world is your oyster.This article is from the Wall Street Journal, a shill medium for Wall Street under the same corporate umbrella as Fox News. I bet some of those Wall Street egos have a tough time dealing with their new reality, they don't have the same wreckless freedom and lower tax rates they used to enjoy. They should be happy they are still raking it in hand over fist. Writers at WSJ are PAID to write anti-government, anti-Democrat material.

There will almost always be lobbyists or special interests involved with any government decision, so perhaps government decisions should be evaluated based on their merits. Renewable energy is an appropriate and worthwhile federal investment for many people. Citibank did not get special treatment as the article claims, DOJ is filing civil fraud charges against Citi over MBS sales. Big business, is that the reference to race track owners? That one does smell of pork. Although, I don't agree that "pork" is always a bad thing. Whether it's Democrat or Republican, if a bill creates jobs or helps middle class Americans, there is merit to it.

Look at some of the special interests of Republicans: Big Oil, the NRA, the Church. Unnecessarily subsidizing huge oil companies, blocking common-sense proposals to reduce gun violence, and abortion bill after abortion bill. On balance, I find the so-called "special interests" of Democrats help the average American more than those of Republicans.

Esten

01-06-14, 02:24

Detroit Police Chief: the city is safer when good people can carry a gunThe problem is when BAD people carry a gun.

So it makes sense to adopt measures to prevent this. Like closing loopholes that allow criminals and the mentally ill to buy a gun without a background check.

We tried to implement universal background checks last year, but the NRA fought tooth and nail against it, and tacitly threatened enough people in Congress to block the bill by a slim margin.

Tiny12

01-06-14, 03:13

I bet some of those Wall Street egos have a tough time dealing with their new reality, they don't have the same wreckless freedom and lower tax rates they used to enjoy. Yes, but thanks to Chuck Schumer (Democrat, New York) they still have their carried interest. Your party has historically been in the pocket of Wall Street. Just look at the campaign contributions. This has changed somewhat since near the end of Obama's first term, after the investment bankers and hedge fund managers realized how incompetent their donees were.

Citibank did not get special treatment as the article claims, DOJ is filing civil fraud charges against Citi over MBS sales. Big business, is that the reference to race track owners? Citibank settled for what, $250 million? While J P Morgan is on the hook for $10 billion+. What's the difference? Citibank pays off Democrats with high paying jobs, while J P Morgan's CEO criticized the Obama Administration. It's like the $5 billion lawsuit the Obama administration filed against Standard & Poors, for the ratings on debt securities S&P supplied before the mortgage crisis. Moody's did the same thing. However, Standard & Poor's downgraded USA Debt at a sensitive time for Obama, before the 2012 election, while Moody's did not. And Warren Buffet (Democrat) owned a big chunk of Moody's. So Standard & Poors gets hit with a lawsuit that threatens its very existence, even though it's the largest of only 3 significant rating agencies in the USA. Hey, Buffet likes competitive moats, and I guess having his only real competitor disappear would be a big plus. Finally how about the way Democrat politicians, including Obama, encourage the IRS to go after the Tea Party. Your party has its favorites and isn't ashamed of it.

There will almost always be lobbyists or special interests involved with any government decision, so perhaps government decisions should be evaluated based on their merits. Renewable energy is an appropriate and worthwhile federal investment for many people.

Perhaps??? Isn't it obvious that government decisions should be evaluated on merits? We can argue about whether government should invest in renewable energy, but regardless the way the Obama administration is approaching this is like flushing money down the toilet. Very few jobs were created and the effects on carbon emissions were negligible.

Look at some of the special interests of Republicans: Big Oil, the NRA, the Church. Unnecessarily subsidizing huge oil companies, blocking common-sense proposals to reduce gun violence, and abortion bill after abortion bill. On balance, I find the so-called "special interests" of Democrats help the average American more than those of Republicans.I agree with you about the abortions and the Church, am an agnostic on guns, and know that you're naive about Big Oil. Truly Big Oil is taxed more heavily than the rest of American industry. "Medium-sized oil", by taking advantage of the percentage depletion deduction and by borrowing money and re-investing all its profits in additional drilling can avoid taxes better than companies in most other industries. All companies should be put on a level playing field.

In any event, the politicians out there who aren't indebted to anyone, like Rand Paul and Jeff Flake, are Republicans. Tea Party Republicans. Your guys have been bought off, lock stock and barrel.

Punter 127

01-06-14, 10:06

Bad people will always find a way to get weapons.
Our first concern should be making sure honest people have the tools to defend themselves.

The problem is when BAD people carry a gun.

So it makes sense to adopt measures to prevent this. Like closing loopholes that allow criminals and the mentally ill to buy a gun without a background check.

We tried to implement universal background checks last year, but the NRA fought tooth and nail against it, and tacitly threatened enough people in Congress to block the bill by a slim margin.Perhaps if you had the experience Chief Craig has you would change your way thinking, like he did.

There are no loopholes in the background check law, you can not legally buy a gun from a licensed gun dealer without a background check, period. The reason the background check law can't be expanded to individual sales is (as you know) because there is no way to enforce such a law without creating a National Gun Registry. The American people have always been leery of any type federal registry and I suspect they trust government even less now than they did the last time you tried to get it.

BTW how many of the recent mass shootings would have been avoided by expanded background checks?

Democrats shot down an amendment in the last failed gun bill that would have provided funding to help deal with the mentally ill, so you might want to check and see why Democrats have been less than enthusiastic about dealing with that issue. Why is it we can't deal with problems like this on an issue by issue bases, why do the Democrats always insist on an all encompassing universal plan? (Can you say ObamaCare?)

If your goal is to just keep guns from "bad people" (which it's not) perhaps you could give an explanation as to why the federal government won't allow individuals to access to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). For example if I want to sell a gun and you want to buy my gun, why won't the government let me check and see if you are legally eligible to own a gun? A simple "eligible" or "not eligible" answer is all that's needed. No responsible gun owner wants to sell a gun to someone who can't legally own a gun, but the government refuses individual access to NICS, why?

Another interesting question is why do we have such a low prosecution rate of ineligible people who try to buy guns?

The Democrats haven't pushed for enforcement of current laws, they haven't dealt with the mentally ill issue, and they haven't opened up NICS on a voluntary bases. Why you ask, it's simple, because they're more interested in their political agenda then they are in dealing with crime.

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!

Gandolf50

01-06-14, 16:39

Bad people will always find a way to get weapons.
Our first concern should be making sure honest people have the tools to defend themselves.

Perhaps if you had the experience Chief Craig has you would change your way thinking, like he did.

There are no loopholes in the background check law, you can not legally buy a gun from a licensed gun dealer without a background check, period. The reason the background check law can't be expanded to individual sales is (as you know) because there is no way to enforce such a law without creating a National Gun Registry.

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!You just put it all in a nut shell. It won't happen in our lifetime!

Esten

01-08-14, 01:18

Bad people will always find a way to get weapons.
Our first concern should be making sure honest people have the tools to defend themselves.

Perhaps if you had the experience Chief Craig has you would change your way thinking, like he did.There is no excuse to not make an effort to stop guns getting into the wrong hands. Our country is flooded with guns, honest people have little difficulty getting them. There may be some incremental deterrent value to more people carrying concealed weapons. But it's a flawed solution because most people don't want to carry a gun around. So what if they're not carrying a gun, and a bad guy starts shooting at them? Too bad? Given a choice between carrying a gun, and making more effort to stop bad people from getting guns, the choice is obvious for most people.

Craig's inference that the low gun violence rate in Maine is a result of more people with guns is laughingly unscientific. Hawaii has an even lower gun murder rate, but a far lower gun ownership rate. More than likely, there are other state-specific factors involved.

Guess what Chief Craig also supports? You guessed it.

Although Craig supports having more legal gun owners, he has also emphasized confiscating illegal weapons. On Thursday, he said that in Detroit, each time they take an illegal gun off the street, they've likely prevented a robbery or shooting down the line. He also supports banning assault weapons, regulating magazines and ammunition and enforcing tighter background checks at gun shows, according to the Detroit News.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/03/james-craig-detroit-guns_n_4536332.html
Give it up Punter. Stop with the lies that there are no loopholes in the background check system. Stop with the lies that making the background check system stronger would require a registry. The overwhelming 80-90% public support for expanded background checks shows the American people are not "leery" about this, as you claim. Your arguments are weak and false.

HotRod11

01-08-14, 03:29

I grew up with in a rural area and there were guns every were. I had a 4-10 shotgun in my room when I was lets say 7 or 8. It wasn't there for protection but my room had a corner that didn't have a gun. I started hunting when I was lets say 10. I really can't remember. With my friends we hunted rabbits, squirrels but mostly we just shot birds. Now I will not allow guns or ammo in my house. This debate on gun control isn't much of a debate. I have never heard the issue debated. How could any one be aginst a very in depth background check. A background check that would prevent felons, spouse abusers or the mentally ill from getting a gun permit.

Lets just think if the stop and frisk law was in effect and enforced in Chicago. If a resident wanted a gun for protection then get a license to have a firearm, and get a license for the firearm. If someone is stopped an frisked and they didn't have either of these permits...off to jail you go.

Second and third offenders would be in jail for a long time rather than on the street.

There is no excuse to not make an effort to stop guns getting into the wrong hands. Our country is flooded with guns, honest people have little difficulty getting them. There may be some incremental deterrent value to more people carrying concealed weapons. But it's a flawed solution because most people don't want to carry a gun around. So what if they're not carrying a gun, and a bad guy starts shooting at them? Too bad? Given a choice between carrying a gun, and making more effort to stop bad people from getting guns, the choice is obvious for most people.

Craig's inference that the low gun violence rate in Maine is a result of more people with guns is laughingly unscientific. Hawaii has an even lower gun murder rate, but a far lower gun ownership rate. More than likely, there are other state-specific factors involved.

Guess what Chief Craig also supports? You guessed it.

Give it up Punter. Stop with the lies that there are no loopholes in the background check system. Stop with the lies that making the background check system stronger would require a registry. The overwhelming 80-90% public support for expanded background checks shows the American people are not "leery" about this, as you claim. Your arguments are weak and false.

Punter 127

01-08-14, 21:17

There is no excuse to not make an effort to stop guns getting into the wrong hands. Our country is flooded with guns, honest people have little difficulty getting them. There may be some incremental deterrent value to more people carrying concealed weapons. But it's a flawed solution because most people don't want to carry a gun around. So what if they're not carrying a gun, and a bad guy starts shooting at them? Too bad? Really? So what if they're not allowed to carry a gun, and a bad guy starts shooting at them? Too bad? Or are you suggesting that expanded background checks will keep all bad guys from getting guns?

Given a choice between carrying a gun, and making more effort to stop bad people from getting guns, the choice is obvious for most people. I'm all for keeping guns from bad guys, lets start by enforcing current law.

Guess what Chief Craig also supports? The point about Chief Craig is that his opinion is changing, I suspect he will see the light on the other gun issues as well in time.

Give it up Punter. Stop with the lies that there are no loopholes in the background check system. Stop with the lies that making the background check system stronger would require a registry. The overwhelming 80-90% public support for expanded background checks shows the American people are not "leery" about this, as you claim. Your arguments are weak and false. I haven't told any lies and you fucking well know it. My remark was “The American people have always been leery of any type federal registry and I suspect they trust government even less now than they did the last time you tried to get it.” I did not say they were leery of background checks, but they are leery of the government.

And there are no “loopholes” in the background check law, it was intended to address dealer gun sales and it does just that, it was never intended to be for private sales. What you are advocating is an expansion of the law.

Your 80-90% number is from “push polling”, people were really just being asked about whether they wanted to keep criminals from getting guns, not about a particular piece of legislation. And the surveys asked a vague question with no information on how the current system works. Do you know how the current system works? Ever bought a gun?

Sample “push poll”question; “In order to prevent criminals, terrorists and the mentally deranged from easily obtaining firearms, do you support or oppose Legislation that requires background checks be completed on every person that attempts to acquire a firearm?” Who would answer no? I wouldn't have a problem with background checks if you could do it without a gun registry, but I don't think that's possible. Even the ACLU agrees.

ACLU’s Chris Calabrese spoke of privacy and civil liberties concerns regarding universal background check legislation in an interview in the Daily Caller:“... the current proposal ... raises two significant concerns. ... The first is that it treats the records for private purchases very differently than purchases made through licensed sellers. ... The [Reid] legislation says simply that a record has to be kept of a private transfer. ... That kind of record-keeping requirement could result in keeping long-term detailed records of purchases and creation of a new government database.”

Calabrese explained the ACLU’s second “significant concern,” that Reid’s legislation creates “a criminal justice trap where a lawful gun owner who wants to obey the law inadvertently runs afoul of the criminal law.”

If I'm wrong about the gun registry why won't you elaborate on how you can enforce the background check on individual gun sale without a gun registry? You've ignored this question before. I think this is another “if you like your policy you can keep you policy. Period”.

Why haven't you called for individual access to the NICS?

Why don't you fess up and tell everybody that your real goal is a broad ban on guns?

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!

Esten

01-12-14, 18:06

Christie now fighting for his political life. What a spectacle!!

I notice Fox News keeps bringing up other so-called scandals, like the phony IRS scandal. The difference is that the Christie scandal is a real scandal, because there is a clear paper trail involving Christie staffers that documents intent. Whether Christie himself was involved remains to be seen.

What did Republicans have on the IRS "scandal" ? Was their best smoking gun, a record that some guy from the IRS made like 150 visits to the White House? And just what does that prove? The most relevant finding was actually that a self-described "Conservative Republican" in the IRS Cincinnati office determined that Tea Party groups warranted closer review for determining if they exceeded limits on political activity, to be eligible for 501 (c)(4) tax-exempt status. It seems at best they should have done their additional screening in a more apolitical manner, at least for the sake of appearance. But it stemmed from a legitimate effort to assess tax-exempt status from a wave of mostly right-leaning groups applying for this status. As I posted way back, this is the testimony that Darrell Issa tried to block from being disclosed.

On the other hand, the motives in the Christie story make it a legitimate scandal. I wouldn't necessarily have a problem if Christie became President one day, so I'm not necessarily rooting for his demise. I do agree with the arrogant, bully characterizations, so I won't be upset at his demise either.

Tiny12

01-13-14, 00:29

I notice Fox News keeps bringing up other so-called scandals, like the phony IRS scandal. The difference is that the Christie scandal is a real scandal, because there is a clear paper trail involving Christie staffers that documents intent. Whether Christie himself was involved remains to be seen.

What did Republicans have on the IRS "scandal" ? Was their best smoking gun, a record that some guy from the IRS made like 150 visits to the White House? And just what does that prove? The most relevant finding was actually that a self-described "Conservative Republican" in the IRS Cincinnati office determined that Tea Party groups warranted closer review for determining if they exceeded limits on political activity, to be eligible for 501 (c)(4) tax-exempt status. It seems at best they should have done their additional screening in a more apolitical manner, at least for the sake of appearance. But it stemmed from a legitimate effort to assess tax-exempt status from a wave of mostly right-leaning groups applying for this status. As I posted way back, this is the testimony that Darrell Issa tried to block from being disclosed.

On the other hand, the motives in the Christie story make it a legitimate scandal. I wouldn't necessarily have a problem if Christie became President one day, so I'm not necessarily rooting for his demise. I do agree with the arrogant, bully characterizations, so I won't be upset at his demise either.Complete bull shit. Prominent Democrats including President Obama encouraged the IRS to go after the Tea Party:

"All around this country there are groups with harmless-sounding names like Americans for Prosperity, who are running millions of dollars of ads against Democratic candidates. . . And they don't have to say who exactly the Americans for Prosperity are. You don't know if it's a foreign-controlled corporation."

"Nobody knows who's paying for these ads. We don't know where this money is coming from.".

-Barack Hussein Obama.

How about the 7 Democrat Senators that sent letters to the IRS encouraging them to investigate political activities of 501 (c) 4's?

And why do they want the IRS to go after these groups? It has nothing to do with taxes. Contributions to 501 (c) 4's are not tax deductible. However, if an organization does not meet the qualifications to be a 501 (c) 4, it becomes a political action committee (PAC). And PAC's are required to disclose their donors. Once the donors are identified, Democrats, as long as they control the executive branch, have the option of unleashing the fury of the federal government. Google Frank Vandersloot for an example of what the Obama administration can do to people who support the opposing side.

Obama did not fire Lois Lerner, the Democrat at the IRS who was behind this. The Obama administration, instead of being contrite, has proposed new rules to curb political spending by 501 (c) 4's. And, talk about brazen, Holder has appointed an Obama donor to lead the Justice Department's investigation of the IRS / Tea Party scandal.

Contrast to Christie. He was contrite, accepted responsibility, and fired people. His sin was hiring idiots and political hacks. And yes, that does call into question his judgement.

Esten

01-13-14, 03:50

Is that all you got Tiny? You must be completely kidding me. That is the best evidence you have? And you just ignore the fact that a Republican IRS employee in Cincinnati claimed he initiated the increased scrutiny?

Complete bull shit. Prominent Democrats including President Obama encouraged the IRS to go after the Tea Party:

"All around this country there are groups with harmless-sounding names like Americans for Prosperity, who are running millions of dollars of ads against Democratic candidates. . . And they don't have to say who exactly the Americans for Prosperity are. You don't know if it's a foreign-controlled corporation."

"Nobody knows who's paying for these ads. We don't know where this money is coming from.".

-Barack Hussein Obama.There's nothing in that quote that says Obama wanted or instructed the IRS to do anything. Similarly, the request of Democrat Senators did not say to target conservative groups. I suppose you think the IRS folks "read between the lines" of Obama and the Dem Senators, and proceeded to target conservative groups. Even though the IRS is largely an independent agency with no obligation to interpret and implement "code-speak" from any political party.

All you guys got is bullshit conspiracy theories. LOL! Just like the birther theory. I understand conservatives dug their hole deep on this phony scandal, so you guys feel the need to defend it. But your defenses are empty on this one.

IRS 'Scandal' Fades As Documents Show Scrutiny Of Democratic Groups, ACORN Successors
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/20/irs-scandal-democratic-acorn_n_3785717.html

Tiny12

01-13-14, 14:58

There's nothing in that quote that says Obama wanted or instructed the IRS to do anything. Similarly, the request of Democrat Senators did not say to target conservative groups. I suppose you think the IRS folks "read between the lines" of Obama and the Dem Senators, and proceeded to target conservative groups. Even though the IRS is largely an independent agency with no obligation to interpret and implement "code-speak" from any political party.

All you guys got is bullshit conspiracy theories. LOL! Just like the birther theory. I understand conservatives dug their hole deep on this phony scandal, so you guys feel the need to defend it. But your defenses are empty on this one.

IRS 'Scandal' Fades As Documents Show Scrutiny Of Democratic Groups, ACORN Successors
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/20/irs-scandal-democratic-acorn_n_3785717.html

Right Esten. If Bush were president and if this were about, say, community organizers instead of 501 (c) 4's, you'd rightfully be all over it.

Yes, an "anonymous" IRS manager who described himself as a Republican said he initiated reviews of 501 (c) 4's. That doesn't change the fact that it was Republican-leaning organizations that were harangued. Your Huffington Post link notes "more conservative-leaning groups received scrutiny than did Democratic ones."

That's putting it mildly. According to the New York Times, from From April, 2010 to April, 2012, a 2 year period that included the 2010 election and led up to Obama's re-election, the IRS placed on hold applications for 501 (c) 4's with "Tea Party", "patriots", or "9/12" in their names. During that same time period 32 presumably liberal-leaning organizations with "progress", "progressive", "liberal", and "equality" were steadily approved for 501 (c) 4 status. It took an inquiry from a Congressman in May, 2012 to get the IRS to start processing applications from Republican-leaning organizations. Another possibility -- since any 501 (c) 4's that weren't active before the summer of 2012 were unlikely to have an effect on the election, someone at the IRS figured it was time to finally open the spigot. See http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/i-r-s-approved-dozens-of-tea-party-groups-following-congressional-scrutiny/?_r=0.

Also, it's curious that the IRS has only attempted to identify and impose gift tax penalties on donors to one 501(c)4, which was conservative, see http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324682204578517563566848922. Hey, if you want, since you think the Wall Street Journal only reports bull-shit-right-wing conspiracies, just google some of the content and I'm sure you'll find the same story in one of your approved sources.

As evidenced by the letter from the Democrat congressmen, this was about suppressing free speech by 501 (c) 4's in order to benefit a political party. Democrats know that if the identity of donors were made public and if the donors were made afraid of being investigated by the IRS, funds to organizations unfriendly to Democrat causes would be reduced.

The effect is real. Without going into a lot of detail, I reduced my contribution to a libertarian-leaning 501 (c) 4 because I was afraid of potential government harassment.

Getting back to your original point, it's extremely unlikely Christie wanted to slow down traffic on a bridge. The Democrat Congressmen indeed weren't expecting the IRS, as you say, to read between the lines. They explicitly asked the IRS to investigate 501 (c) 4's.

Jackson

01-14-14, 14:16

Christie now fighting for his political life. What a spectacle!!

I notice Fox News keeps bringing up other so-called scandals, like the phony IRS scandal. The difference is that the Christie scandal is a real scandal, because there is a clear paper trail involving Christie staffers that documents intent. Whether Christie himself was involved remains to be seen...Such hyperbole!

Esten, I know you're salivating at the prospect that the Republican's prime candidate to defeat Hillary might go down under a salvo of Democrat "Politics of personal destruction" gunfire, but what you're actually witnessing is something you haven't seen during the Obama years: It's called Leadership.

Here's how a real leader responds when he learns of misconduct by underlings:

1. You immediately accept full responsibility. (As opposed to calling the event a "phony scandal" when speaking only to your supporters).

2. You publicly apologize to all parties that were affected by the misconduct.

3. You immediately fire the individuals involved. (Nobody ever gets fired in the Obama administration, largely because Obama doesn't have the stones, i.e. Eric Holder, Lois Lerner, Kathy Sebelius, etc., etc., etc.).

4. You order your administration to cooperate fully with any investigation. (As opposed to publicly claiming that you'll cooperate, and instead actually stonewalling the investigation i.e. Fast and Furious, Benghazi, IRS targeting, etc., etc., etc.).

5. You hold an exhaustive press conference that continues for hours until every reporter in the room has had every question answered. (As opposed to making some prepared remarks and then walking away from the podium).

Personally, I find it refreshing to see a real leader in action.

Thanks,

Jax

Of course, the most important thing is that we're not talking about former Defense Secretary Robert Gates' recently released book detailing the leadership chaos in the dysfunctional Obama Administration!

Member #4112

01-14-14, 20:01

Esten,

Lets just start with Benghazi. Remember how it was a video and demonstration gone wrong, with 60 MM mortars and RPGs?

Find attached the now unclassified information received during and after the terrorist attack on the embassy in Benghazi.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/13/benghazi-transcripts-top-defense-officials-briefed-obama-on-attack-not-video-or/

It is plainly clear it was an attack, not a demonstration gone wrong via a video, from the first moments of the attack which were messaged to the appropriate military authorities in Washington. The briefing with Obama by the requisite parties during and after the attack clearly demonstrate the true nature of the events as they were unfolding. The story the Obama administration up out was an out and out fraud plain and simple.

FYI, another weapon from the Fast and Furious debacle has turned up at another murder scene.

FYI regarding the IRS Scandal, the trail to this point leads to IRS headquarters in Washington DC and not some line officer down in the lower GS rungs of the ladder as Obama would like everyone to believe. Read the IRS Inspector General's report. Not to mention few of the affected conservative organizations have been contacted by the FBI in their "rigorous" investigation and it's now 2014.

Obama is going to rate below the peanut farmer when he leaves office.

We won't even begin to address the slap in the face from Iran over the "deal" brokered by Kerry.

At least he Israelis are calling Kerry out for what he is regarding the Middle East "Peace Talks" .

Looks like the Senate is set to pass a Veto Proof package of Iran sanctions, not to mention the Supreme Court is about to shove Obama's recess appointments up his A##, the young invincibles are failing to sign up for ObamaCare in droves and to top it all off Gates just gave everyone an inside look at the circus the Obama Administration is!

So what does Obama want to talk about? Income redistribution.

Rc Collins

01-14-14, 22:03

Such hyperbole!

Esten, I know you're salivating at the prospect that the Republican's prime candidate to defeat Hillary might go down under a salvo of Democrat "Politics of personal destruction" gunfire, but what you're actually witnessing is something you haven't seen during the Obama years: It's called Leadership.

Here's how a true leader responds when he learns of misconduct by underlings:

1. As a true leader, you immediately accept full responsibility. (As opposed to calling the event a "phony scandal" when speaking only to your supporters).

2. You publicly apologize to all parties that were affected by the misconduct.

3. You immediately fire the individuals involved. (Nobody ever gets fired in the Obama administration, largely because Obama doesn't have the stones, i.e. Eric Holder, Lois Lerner, Kathy Sebelius, etc., etc., etc.).

4. You order your administration to cooperate fully with any investigation. (As opposed to publicly claiming that you'll cooperate, and instead actually stonewalling the investigation i.e. Fast and Furious, Benghazi, IRS targeting, etc., etc., etc.).

5. You hold an exhaustive press conference that continues for hours until every reporter in the room has had every question answered. (As opposed to making some prepared remarks and then walking away from the podium).

Personally, I find it refreshing to see a real leader in action.

Thanks,

Jax

Of course, the most important thing is that we're not talking about former Defense Secretary Robert Gates' recently released book detailing the leadership chaos in the dysfunctional Obama Administration!For an independent voter, you sure don't show a lot of independence. I have yet to see a post where you go after the right but you're always bashing the left, yet you call yourself independent. Christie would be a great leader had he took some action months ago when he heard of this story instead of just accepting the "traffic study" answer he was given. Firing Bridget Kelly showed no leadership, he had no choice under the circumstances. Lindsey Graham, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Rand Paul and other republicans also don't see the leadership qualities you are talking about but were quick bring up the "bully" tag and Christie's reputation for payback so he is getting it not only from the left but his own party.

As for Gates' book which is an opinion book and not facts and he is trying to sell books so this is the kind of stuff one would expect from a book seller. Gates does praise Obama and said Obama made all the right decisions on Afghanistan. Gates wrote a lot of complimentary things about Obama. Gates gave Obama high marks, saying that the president is "very thoughtful and analytical, but he is also quite decisive but like clockwork the right is focus on the negative stuff he said about Obama while ignoring the positives. Gates himself said as much in his TV interview on CBS. BTW, Gates had issues with Bush and Cheney too, of course the right don't want to address those issues. Will anyone ever change their minds about the issues here or is this thread like MSNBC and fox where the left views the issues one way the right the other?

Esten

01-15-14, 03:04

Yes, an "anonymous" IRS manager who described himself as a Republican said he initiated reviews of 501 (c) 4's. That doesn't change the fact that it was Republican-leaning organizations that were harangued. Your Huffington Post link notes "more conservative-leaning groups received scrutiny than did Democratic ones." Tiny, I'm sure if you cherry pick the right data and facts, you can show that the IRS put greater focus on conservative groups. But, that in itself does not mean it was in response to requests or expectations from outside the IRS. In fact we know it originated within the IRS.

Further, you can't just look at absolute numbers, because it's also true that conservative groups submitted many more applications for tax-exempt status. You have to look at the rate. And even if the rate was still higher for conservative groups, you have to know what the intent was. Was it politically motivated? Perhaps the conservative groups raised more red flags in their applications, which would not be surprising because the Tea Party movement was extremely political, not primarily focused on "social welfare" which is the requirement for tax-exempt status.

So really, you have to go to great lengths to show this was a scandal, let alone a politically motivated one.

You can just as easily make the argument, that when confronted with a surge of applications from groups connected to a new and very political movement, that the IRS was simply doing it's job in screening out tax fraud.

The effect is real. Without going into a lot of detail, I reduced my contribution to a libertarian-leaning 501 (c) 4 because I was afraid of potential government harassment.You bring up another point that reminds me why I've always thought this "scandal" was phony, or at least wildly overblown. Didn't you have plenty of choices on how you could spend your money to support your political views? For example, already approved 501 (c)(4) groups like Crossroads GPS, not to mention Conservative / Tea Party PACs and Super PACs. Did the inability of some groups to obtain tax-exempt status really have ANY substantial effect on the ability of conservatives to promote their cause and influence elections?

Tiny12

01-15-14, 04:34

Esten, It's not cherry picking. Look at the period starting March, 2010. According to the Inspector General's report, prepared by the Department of the Treasury, this is when the IRS began targeting conservative groups: http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013reports/201310053fr.pdf.

Look the graph in the NYT article. From March, 2010 through March, 2012, when the media started bringing attention to this issue, only 4 groups with "tea party", "9/12" or "patriots" in their names were approved. From May, 2012 to February, 2013, after the IRS's hand was forced, 44 groups were approved. This contradicts your thoughts about rate and red flags. Better yet, look at the inspector general's report, in particular the detailed time line in Appendix VII from page 31 to 42. Read this with an open mind and you'll find you have some misconceptions, in particular that it wasn't conservative organizations that were specifically targeted.

Going back to your original post, Christie will not encourage people in government to create traffic problems to punish opponents going forward. It's unlikely he even knew what his "supporters" planned. The Obama administration and other Democrats however have continued to try to handicap 501 (c) 4's after the IRS scandal broke, all the way up until today.

You keep using the word "tax-exempt". What you don't point out is that PAC's are tax exempt too. Donors don't get tax deductions when they contribute to 501 (c) 4's. There are two differences between the organizations. One is that contributors to PAC's are identified publicly. The second is that 501 (c) 4's typically do substantial work that's intended to be for the social good. And that's the answer to your last question. The 501 (c) 4 that I contribute to isn't in the business of lobbying, although it does do a little of that, and it doesn't overtly support any political candidates. It does support free markets, a more rational system of taxation, and doing something about the huge deficits we're going to be faced with. While you would undoubtedly argue that it does nothing for the social good, I feel very differently. I have no desire to support Crossroads GPS, whatever that is, or conservative PAC's. I guess maybe the reason some Democrats are afraid of 501 (c) 4's is because they and their supporters actually believe something, passionately. And that can be more dangerous than a PAC which is in business to buy off politicians for special interests.

Certain Democrats appear to want organizations like Moveon.org to maintain their 501(c)4 status while eliminating organizations like the one I support. Or alternately they think if they could do away with all 501(c)4's it would net out to their advantage.

Member #4112

01-15-14, 12:15

Tiny, I'm sure if you cherry pick the right data and facts, you can show that the IRS put greater focus on conservative groups. But, that in itself does not mean it was in response to requests or expectations from outside the IRS. In fact we know it originated within the IRS.

Further, you can't just look at absolute numbers, because it's also true that conservative groups submitted many more applications for tax-exempt status. You have to look at the rate. And even if the rate was still higher for conservative groups, you have to know what the intent was. Was it politically motivated? Perhaps the conservative groups raised more red flags in their applications, which would not be surprising because the Tea Party movement was extremely political, not primarily focused on "social welfare" which is the requirement for tax-exempt status.

So really, you have to go to great lengths to show this was a scandal, let alone a politically motivated one.

You can just as easily make the argument, that when confronted with a surge of applications from groups connected to a new and very political movement, that the IRS was simply doing it's job in screening out tax fraud.

You bring up another point that reminds me why I've always thought this "scandal" was phony, or at least wildly overblown. Didn't you have plenty of choices on how you could spend your money to support your political views? For example, already approved 501 (c)(4) groups like Crossroads GPS, not to mention Conservative / Tea Party PACs and Super PACs. Did the inability of some groups to obtain tax-exempt status really have ANY substantial effect on the ability of conservatives to promote their cause and influence elections?Esten, your attempt to apply the term "cherry pick" to Tiny is laughable considering your past performance.

The IRS Inspector General's report was pretty clear, I guess they "cherry picked" as well or the IG is a conservative?

Your assertion conservative groups filed many more requests than liberal / progressive groups is totally irrelevant to the discussion, are not all entities to be treated equally? By the way do YOU have any data to support your claim? Conservative groups like this have been around for a while but make their presence felt in the run up to the 2010 mid-term elections. Democrats saw their grasp on power slipping away and it appears those in power began using government agencies to suppress those groups prior to the 2014 elections.

How do you refute the Inspector General's report?

FYI, the "saving of an American car company" where by Chrysler was "saved" by stealing assets from their rightful owners and turning them over to Obama's friends in the auto unions has now run it's course. We no longer have an American car company as Fiat now owns it all. Explain to me again how this was better than a reorganization? Oh that's right the Unions did not have their contracts voided in bankruptcy!

Tiny12

01-15-14, 13:55

Your assertion conservative groups filed many more requests than liberal / progressive groups is totally irrelevant to the discussion, are not all entities to be treated equally?Doppelganger, I'm not sure Esten was entirely right on that point. The New York Times writer found 32 presumably liberal-leaning organizations with "progress", "progressive", "liberal", and "equality" were steadily approved for 501 (c) 4 status during the 25 month period that that the application processing for "Tea Party" et al groups was shut down. Only 4 Tea Party groups were approved. Then 44 Tea Party groups were approved in the 10 months after the shut down ended. That's not a giant difference in numbers. Actually the "progressive" groups may have outnumbered the Tea Party Groups, if you were to count progressive groups approved after the shut down ended.

However, I don't know a lot about 501 (c) 4's. Apparently a number of Democrats, including the 7 Senators that wrote the letters and the Obama administration, believe there's more to fear from 501 (c) 4 groups that oppose them than to be gained from 501 (c) 4's that support them. Or they think they have the power to shut down their opponents while leaving 501(c)4's like moveon.org untouched.

Anyway, this attitude can come back to haunt you, as may happen for Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats that changed the filibuster rule.

Member #4112

01-15-14, 17:46

Anyway, this attitude can come back to haunt you, as may happen for Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats that changed the filibuster rule.Should the 2014 mid-terms approach the slaughter seen in 2010, and it may due to all the cancellation notices to employers just before the election, the Democrats will rue the day they used the so called "nuclear option" for expediency to further Obama's appointments. Should the Republicans again take the House, Senate & Presidency, mark my words, no one will be crying more loudly than the Democrats about bi-partisanship and a call for a reversal of their short sighted employment of the "nuclear option" when the tables are turned.

Know what they say in Poland about that? Tough Shitsky.

Rev BS

01-15-14, 19:17

Spring in the air? Memories become short, and cockiness raises it's head. The lessons of yesterday forgotten.

Jackson

01-15-14, 20:19

Spring in the air? Memories become short, and cockiness raises it's head. The lessons of yesterday forgotten.What the fuck does that mean?

Are you talking about the Democrats?

Jax.

Rev BS

01-15-14, 22:09

What the fuck does that mean?

Are you talking about the Democrats?

Jax.I was talking about the Dow, that is, until you got me confuse now. Maybe, the Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight?

WorldTravel69

01-15-14, 23:16

I love it!

Christie lying through his teeth.
Photos and email prove it.

"No one in my office new anything.".

Esten

01-16-14, 02:27

Esten, your attempt to apply the term "cherry pick" to Tiny is laughable considering your past performance.

The IRS Inspector General's report was pretty clear, I guess they "cherry picked" as well or the IG is a conservative?Here's how Darrell Issa manufactured the IRS 'scandal'
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/26/1219172/-Here-s-how-Darrell-Issa-manufactured-the-IRS-scandal

The Treasury inspector general (IG) whose report helped drive the IRS targeting controversy says it limited its examination to conservative groups because of a request from House Republicans.
A spokesman for Russell George, Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration, said they were asked by House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) “to narrowly focus on Tea Party organizations.”IRS Scandal Investigator 'Very Concerned' His Report Missed Progressive Targeting
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/18/irs-scandal-report-russell-george_n_3619102.html

The inspector general behind the critical report about the IRS' targeting of tea party groups acknowledged Thursday that the information in his report was not complete.

J. Russell George, the IRS inspector general, told the House Oversight Committee that only in the past few weeks has he become aware of documents showing that the IRS screened progressive groups in addition to conservative ones. George said he was "disturbed" by the fact that these documents were not provided to his team of investigators prior to the audit's release and that he was continuing to investigate the issue.

So the IG (a G.W. Bush appointee) asked the IRS for information on Tea Party application reviews, and that's what the IRS gave him. They were probably scared to give him anything other than what he requested, for fear of accusations they were interfering with the inquiry. Further, one of his investigators found no evidence of political motivation by the IRS after reviewing 5,500 emails, but this was not mentioned in the IG's report.

Selective investigating and reporting in the IRS inquiry? Certainly appears to be the case. Just like Issa tried to suppress the testimony from the Republican IRS staffer who said he initiated the increased scrutiny. If you can't see this 'scandal' has been wildly hyped and manipulated by Republicans for political purposes, you're blind.

Punter 127

01-16-14, 03:09

Bridgegate

I love it!

Christie lying through his teeth.

"No buddy in my office new anything.".An Anti-Islam Movie was the motive behind the lane closures on the George Washington Bridge.

Bridgegate has been proven by NSA surveillance of cell phone conversations between Obama And Christy Laurel and Hardy.

28941 or 28942.

However if you like your policy you can keep your policy, period.

28943

But, "What Difference Does It Make?

28944

Tiny12

01-16-14, 04:11

The IRS Inspector General's report was pretty clear, I guess they "cherry picked" as well or the IG is a conservative?
Yep, That was Esten's response, as you predicted. A highly-respected IG who was a founder of the College Democrats at Howard University before becoming a Dole staffer and Bush appointee is a partisan conservative. And the cases examined by the IG were cherry picked, bizarrely by the IRS. Esten chooses to ignore the evidence (e.g. The NYT blogger who tracked applications for Tea Party and Progressive groups) and the mainstream press and instead quotes the DailyKos (mouthpiece for Democrat party), and an article from the Huffington Post that paints a different picture on this issue from other articles in the Huffington Post. Republican leaning organizations were clearly subjected to much more scrutiny, and their approvals were delayed.

WorldTravel69

01-16-14, 13:04

Emergency vehicles could not get over the bridge.

Bridgegate

But, "What Difference Does It Make?

Rev BS

01-16-14, 19:23

So there are people who still believe that Christie had no clue as to what was going on after the bridge shutdown?

Well then, Merry X'mas, Santa Claus is coming to town.

Esten

01-17-14, 00:25

And the cases examined by the IG were cherry picked, bizarrely by the IRS. Esten chooses to ignore the evidence (e.g. The NYT blogger who tracked applications for Tea Party and Progressive groups) and the mainstream press and instead quotes the DailyKos (mouthpiece for Democrat party), and an article from the Huffington Post that paints a different picture on this issue from other articles in the Huffington Post. Republican leaning organizations were clearly subjected to much more scrutiny, and their approvals were delayed.Nobody is denying that Tea Party organizations may have received additional scrutiny and delays. What is being debated is why. Was it political motivation, or a legitimate effort of IRS staffers to do their job.

The cherry-picking was in fact directed by Monkey Court Chairman Darrell Issa, a Republican who asked the IG to narrowly focus on Tea Party groups. As I noted, the IG later admitted his report was not complete because it did not cover targetting of progressive groups. But not before Republicans could pounce on the report for political purposes. Got to love how Doppel brings up the report in his argument, when the IG himself admitted it was one-sided.

It is also curious why the report did not mention the 5,500 IRS emails reviewed that failed to show any political motivation. After all, the assertion of political motivation is at the core of this so-called 'scandal'. Why do you guys think such an important detail was left out of the IG report?

Review of 5,500 IRS E-Mails Found No Political Targeting
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-12/review-of-5-500-irs-e-mails-found-no-political-targeting.html

Tiny12

01-17-14, 10:04

Review of 5,500 IRS E-Mails Found No Political Targeting
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-12/review-of-5-500-irs-e-mails-found-no-political-targeting.htmlFrom YOUR source:

The documents released today include minutes from a July 28, 2010, meeting of IRS screeners in Cincinnati, where nonprofit applications are processed.

At one point, the minutes list “progressive” alongside “9/12 Project” as words meriting further review, suggesting that the groups on either side of the political spectrum were treated similarly. The “9/12 Project” is a reference to an effort promoted by commentator Glenn Beck, a small-government advocate.

At another point, the minutes say, “‘Progressive’ applications are not considered ‘Tea Parties.’”

That latter line fits Republican arguments that “progressive” groups received less attention. It also tracks with what Elizabeth Hofacre, who reviewed Tea Party cases in Cincinnati in 2010, told congressional investigators. She said she was assigned to handle Tea Party groups, concentrating on them to the exclusion of self-identified progressive and conservative groups.

“These documents, once again, refute misleading attempts to equate routine scrutiny of other groups involved in advocacy to the systematic scrutiny of Tea Party groups by IRS officials,” Ali Ahmad, a spokesman for Issa, said in a statement today. “As has been documented, while 100 percent of Tea Party applications were systematically stopped and scrutinized for a 27-month period, at the same time dozens of progressive applications were approved by the IRS.” Ahmad's statement is backed up by evidence and the mainstream press, including the very article you link to. Tea party organizations "may" have received additional scrutiny and delays? It's 100% true they did, as you finally appear to concede.

Again, getting back to your original point, Christie was not cheering from the sidelines when traffic was slowed down on a bridge. The Obama administration and some other Democrats TO THIS DAY continue their efforts to shut down / handicap 501 (c) 4 groups in a way that would work to their political advantage. For example, see http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304465604579222110598111076. This is a news article, not from the editorial page.

I know very little about the groups described in the article. But it's interesting that the Republican-leaning organization outraised the Democrat-leaning group by 18:1. Also note the stagnant spending by unions compared to 501(c)4 groups. That shows why this issue is of particular interest to the Obama administration and Democrat politicians, regardless of whether they have to suppress free speech to get their way.

Tiny12

01-17-14, 19:22

I love it!

Christie lying through his teeth.
Photos and email prove it.

"No one in my office new anything.".Washington Post letter to the editor:

In case anyone needs reminding, many of us come from countries where it would be pure bliss to have political malfeasance on the level of creating traffic jams deemed newsworthy. Just think of the payback one nephew recently provided his uncle ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/12/12/kim-jong-un-just-had-his-own-uncle-killed-why/).

Per Kurowski, Rockville

Jackson

01-18-14, 02:21

I love it!

Christie lying through his teeth.

Photos and email prove it.

"No one in my office new anything.".Really?

I challenge you to post a link to a single email or photo that demonstrates that Gov. Christe had prior, personal knowledge of the closing of the 2 traffic lanes.

Otherwise, STFU.

Thanks,

Jax

Of course, the most important thing is that we're not talking about both the House and separately the Senate official reports about Benganzi which included sworn testimony from then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff wherein they stated that within minutes of the beginning of the attack they personally briefed Obama that it was an al-Qaeda organized terrorist attack. Obama went to bed to rest for his campaign fund-raising event the next day.

WorldTravel69

01-18-14, 13:09

What, I guess FOX did not show the photos and emails that are available?

The one I saw was of Christie and the guy he fired (Davi Wildstein) standing together on 9/11 in New York while the bridge back up was happening.

Christie said he did not know the guy, even though he was standing next to him.

I sure there will lots of information coming out. But, some of you will not see it on FOX.

http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2014/01/14/christie-official-who-arranged-bridge-closures-together-during-fiasco/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2540909/New-Jersey-super-committee-issues-20-subpoenas-Chris-Christie-Bridgegate-scandal-including-CHIEF-OF-STAFF-doesnt-intend-haul-governor-questioning.html

Really?

I challenge you to post a link to a single email or photo that demonstrates that Gov. Christe had prior, personal knowledge of the closing of the 2 traffic lanes.

Otherwise, STFU.

Thanks,

Jax

Of course, the most important thing is that we're not talking about both the House and separately the Senate official reports about Benganzi which included sworn testimony from then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff wherein they stated that within minutes of the beginning of the attack they personally briefed Obama that it was an al-Qaeda organized terrorist attack. Obama went to bed to rest for his campaign fund-raising event the next day.

Jackson

01-18-14, 14:42

What, I guess FOX did not show the photos and emails that are available?

The one I saw was of Christie and the guy he fired (Davi Wildstein) standing together on 9/11 in New York while the bridge back up was happening.

Christie said he did not know the guy, even though he was standing next to him.

I sure there will lots of information coming out. But, some of you will not see it on FOX.

http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2014/01/14/christie-official-who-arranged-bridge-closures-together-during-fiasco/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2540909/New-Jersey-super-committee-issues-20-subpoenas-Chris-Christie-Bridgegate-scandal-including-CHIEF-OF-STAFF-doesnt-intend-haul-governor-questioning.htmlI don't know about Fox News, but I didn't see any photos or emails in the New York Times, in the Wall Street Journal, or on CNN that demonstrated that Gov. Christie had any advance knowledge of staffer Bridget Kelly's plan to move some traffic cones.

But anyway, according to your theory...

A photo of Obama standing next to Katheline Sebleious doesn't prove that he knew everything Sebleious was doing.

A photo of Obama standing next to Eric Holder doesn't prove that he knew everything Holder was doing.

A photo of Obama standing next to Lois Lerner doesn't prove that he knew everything Lerner was doing.

But according to you, a photo of Gov. Christie at a photo event that also attended by Port Authority official David Wildstein somehow proves that Christie knew everything that Bridget Kelly (another individual) was doing?

Yes, Gov. Christie knows Port Authority official David Wildstein, but Mr. Wildstein does not work for the Governor.

Christie fired his former deputy chief of staff Bridget Anne Kelly, who was the staffer who orchestrated the closing of the two traffic lanes.

Anyway, I'm still looking for that letter or email to Gov. Christie advising him about Bridget Kelly's plan to move some traffic cones.

Thanks,

Jax.

Esten

01-18-14, 15:06

That latter line fits Republican arguments that “progressive” groups received less attention. It also tracks with what Elizabeth Hofacre, who reviewed Tea Party cases in Cincinnati in 2010, told congressional investigators. She said she was assigned to handle Tea Party groups, concentrating on them to the exclusion of self-identified progressive and conservative groups.Look at this cherry picking. One woman who said she focused only on Tea Party applications? There were probably several like her. Likewise, there were probably others focused on progressive groups. It's called "dividing up the work" to be efficient. This is no argument at all.

The quote from Issa's spokesman is also selective. He only refers to "Tea Party" applications, contrasting them with all progressive applications. He doesn't mention that some groups, like the Indiana Armstrong Patriots, were approved over this period. He doesn't mention that of the 300 groups set aside for extra review, only about 75 of them had the words "tea party" or "patriot." He doesn't mention that progressive groups were also targetted. So, pay attention to the selective quoting.

I am certainly willing to say Tea Party groups may have received extra scrutiny (I never said they didn't). Tiny, are you willing to say the extra scrutiny may not have been politically motivated, but rather a legitimate effort of the IRS to do their job?

If Republican-leaning organizations outraised Democrat-leaning groups by 18:1, obviously this so-called IRS 'scandal' didn't have much effect. What would be interesting to know is how much of that money came from individuals, who have a legitimate right to free speech, and how much came from corporations, lobbyists, and others attempting to use tax-exempt organizations as political slush funds to conceal money in political campaigns. A large majority of Americans disagree with the Citizens United decision, so I suspect ongoing efforts to clamp down on inappropriate use of tax exempt organizations will be widely supported.

Rev BS

01-18-14, 21:11

John Dickerson, The Slate, January 17,2014.

At a press conference hosted by the Christian Science Monitor, Robert Gates told the reporters, "I have the growing feeling that my book has become like Lenin, you can find in it whatever you want to support your view".

What goes up must come down.

Spinning wheel got to go round.

Talking about your troubles it's a crying sin.

Ride a painted pony.

Let the spinning wheel spin.

(Blood, Sweat & Tears).

Jackson

01-19-14, 13:16

Look at this cherry picking. One woman who said she focused only on Tea Party applications? There were probably several like her. Likewise, there were probably others focused on progressive groups. It's called "dividing up the work" to be efficient. This is no argument at all.This is EXACTLY the kind of liberal sophistry that works on the LIV who isn't bright enough to analyze anything more that the balance on their EBT card.

Unfortunately, there are very few LIVs on this forum, so we will in fact dissect your argument, to wit:

A large company is interviewing prospective employees for a host of new jobs. As the job applicants are interviewed, their applications are divided into groups base on the race of the applicants, each group being assigned to HR staffers who are all white. Subsequently, when it was discovered that only 3% of the black applicants, 4% of the Latino applicants, and 93% of the white applicants were offered jobs, you would argue that the statistics were irrelevant and justify the entire practice as "dividing up the work to be efficient", right?

Let's do another scenario that's race-neutral, because you don't need to prove bias on the part of the individual "reviewer" when you have statistics to demonstrate the overall bias of the system.

So if a bank was to "divide" it's mortgage applications into different groups based on the general affluence of the various neighborhoods, and subsequently the bank disproportionately granted mortgages to the "rich" neighborhoods while simultaneously rejecting mortgages in the "poor" neighborhoods, in the face of solid statistics demonstrating a huge bias in the granting of these mortgages, you would argue that the statistics were irrelevant and justify the entire practice as "dividing up the work to be efficient", right?

Anyway, none of this really matters, as the liberals have with the re-election of Obama demonstrated that they can successfully tilt the vote by assuaging the latent concerns of any borderline LIVs with exactly the kind of sophomoric bullshit that we've come to observe from our liberal friends here on a daily basis. For this reason, Solyndra, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, spying on reporters, illegal recess appointments, unconfirmed czars, etc., etc., etc. are all irrelevant.

Of course, a governor's aid who moves a few traffic cones, now that's important.

Thanks,

Jax.

Tiny12

01-19-14, 16:19

Esten, Jackson's analogies are spot on. Btw, LIV = Low Information Voter. For the 4th, 5th and 6th times,

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/i-r-s-approved-dozens-of-tea-party-groups-following-congressional-scrutiny/?_r=0
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/i-r-s-approved-dozens-of-tea-party-groups-following-congressional-scrutiny/?_r=0
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/i-r-s-approved-dozens-of-tea-party-groups-following-congressional-scrutiny/?_r=0

Look at this cherry picking.My "cherry picking" was a direct unaltered quote from YOUR link that you provided to support your contention that there were no politics involved in the scandal.

I am certainly willing to say Tea Party groups may have received extra scrutiny (I never said they didn't). Tiny, are you willing to say the extra scrutiny may not have been politically motivated, but rather a legitimate effort of the IRS to do their job?I'm sure the extra scrutiny was politically motivated at the grass roots level. Just as the DEA and federal prosecutors would love to have a crack at the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws and would love to have a list of its donors, so too do IRS employees have a natural bias against the Tea Party. The Tea Party, in its pure form, the way it was back in 2009 when the movement got started, supports a rational system of taxation and smaller federal government. This would result in a lot of jobs lost at the IRS.

I am willing to say Obama himself didn't pass orders through his administration and onto the top brass at the IRS to target the Tea Party. He was however cheering the IRS on from the sidelines, as shown by quotes I provided earlier.

So are you and WT69 willing to admit Christie didn't order "bridgegate"? Stupid question, I know you're not, even though there's no evidence and even though Christie would have to be a complete idiot to do that.

What would be interesting to know is how much of that money came from individuals, who have a legitimate right to free speech, and how much came from corporations, lobbyists, and others attempting to use tax-exempt organizations as political slush funds to conceal money in political campaigns. A large majority of Americans disagree with the Citizens United decision, so I suspect ongoing efforts to clamp down on inappropriate use of tax exempt organizations will be widely supported.Why do you keep coming back to polls? It's not fine if the majority screws over the minority, as long as it's justified by polls. There's a reason we have a constitution and courts.

As to the "concealment" issue, my insurance company canceled my personal liability insurance when they found out I was associated with a Tea Party organization. My insurance agent had to go to one of Warren Buffet's companies to get insurance at 3 X the cost. Why? It wasn't because I was going to get sued as a result of my position, there wasn't a snowball's chance in hell of that happening. They were worried about the "Frank Vandersloot" issue. That's the potential for some bureaucrats or politicians to decide they don't like some organization, then set out to sue or ruin people associated with it. What I'm getting at, disclosing the names of donors can have a chilling effect on organizations if there's a bias in government against the groups.

Groups of people coming together in unions, corporations and even lobbyists (who I think we both have pretty low regard for) have a right to free speech without retaliation by government. Maybe there should be safeguards, to make sure a majority of union members and shareholders approve of what their organizations are doing. But otherwise it's not fair for Republicans or Democrats to suppress freedom of speech among groups they don't like.

Esten

01-20-14, 00:15

So if a bank was to "divide" it's mortgage applications into different groups based on the general affluence of the various neighborhoods, and subsequently the bank disproportionately granted mortgages to the "rich" neighborhoods while simultaneously rejecting mortgages in the "poor" neighborhoods, in the face of solid statistics demonstrating a huge bias in the granting of these mortgages, you would argue that the statistics were irrelevant and justify the entire practice as "dividing up the work to be efficient", right?So Jackson, the fact that one woman at the IRS said she only reviewed Tea Party applications, is your basis for demonstrating there was a bias at the IRS (let alone a political bias) ? LMAO ! That is hilarious that you actually want to get behind such an absurd argument. And this from the person who is asking others for factual evidence.

Your analogies are completely off the mark. As you know, certain IRS 501(c)(4) applications, including Tea Party applications and others, were flagged for secondary review. We know the Tea Party applications were flagged for additional scrutiny because there was a surge of them in 2010-2012, in parallel with a surge of a new political movement in the United States called... the Tea Party. Additional guidance was needed on how to handle them, to ensure they met the requirement of not being primarily political in nature. It should not be surprising there were groups and staffers within the IRS focused on these secondary reviews. It's called work specialization, Jackson, and it's very common in many workplaces. Do you know for a fact there weren't staffers focused on secondary review of applications with "Progressive" in their name (this word was on the BOLO list too) ? In your bank analogy, it would be akin to passing on certain applications to a mortgage fraud specialist, because there was something about those applications that was considered a flag for potential misrepresentation. You wouldn't expect every loan officer or processor to be trained in dealing with potential fraud, would you?

You guys really need to up your game. So far all you got is inferrential innuendo, but I'm afraid that doesn't cut it.

Tiny12

01-20-14, 00:38

So Jackson, the fact that one woman at the IRS said she only reviewed Tea Party applications, is your basis for demonstrating there was a bias at the IRS (let alone a political bias) ? LMAO ! That is hilarious that you actually want to get behind such an absurd argument. And this from the person who is asking others for factual evidence. Someone takes a quote from YOUR link and you indicate he's basing his beliefs primarily on that particular quote. That's what's absurd.

For the 7th and 8th times, if you want evidence of bias, see

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/i-r-s-approved-dozens-of-tea-party-groups-following-congressional-scrutiny/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=1
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/i-r-s-approved-dozens-of-tea-party-groups-following-congressional-scrutiny/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=1

Again, please note from the above: As a point of comparison, we tried to identify liberal groups approved for 501(c)(4) status since 2010. A search for “progress,” “progressive,” “liberal” and “equality” finds 32 groups....The I.R.S. approved these groups at a fairly steady rate from 2010 through 2012. The I.R.S. approved 13 in 2010, nine in 2011 and 10 in 2012.

If you want evidence that Obama and Democratic Congressmen were cheering the IRS on, to go after conservative organizations and 501(c)(4)'s respectively, read the quotes of what they said. Read the letter from Schumer et al to the IRS.

Your analogies are completely off the mark. As you know, certain IRS 501(c)(4) applications, including Tea Party applications and others, were flagged for secondary review. We know the Tea Party applications were flagged for additional scrutiny because there was a surge of them in 2010-2012, in parallel with a surge of a new political movement in the United States called... the Tea Party. Additional guidance was needed on how to handle them, to ensure they met the requirement of not being primarily political in nature. And you accuse the other side of having weak arguments! The explanation for the hiatus for Tea Party approvals from 2010 to 2012, followed by approvals later on during 2012 and 2013 was that the IRS stonewalled approvals of the Tea Party groups until the press and congressmen forced their hand. Why did they stonewall? Because they don't like the Tea Party. And because they're predominantly Democrats.

Btw, it wasn't just an issue of delays. In addition the IRS preferentially audits and harasses conservative groups and their members.

Rev BS

01-20-14, 18:34

Jackson

01-20-14, 18:42

Yes, for those who want to nail Obama to the cross. So who was at the wheel? Monday quarterbacking (driven by self interest) is a national sport, and yes, there are many who think they can be a better president than Obama.Rev,

You're makng this too easy.

1. President Bush didn't go to bed after learning that the country had been attacked, and...

2. President Bush didn't lie to the country by trying to tell us that it was an air traffic control accident.

Thanks,

Jax.

Rev BS

01-20-14, 18:54

Rev,

You're makng this too easy.

1. President Bush didn't go to bed after learning that the country had been attacked, and...

2. President Bush didn't lie to the country by trying to tell us that it was an air traffic control accident.

Thanks,

Jax.Yeah, I know, he should have forsaken food & water for a week, and covered himself with ashes.

Jackson

01-20-14, 20:24

Yeah, I know, he should have forsaken food & water for a week, and covered himself with ashes.I didn't suggest anything like that, but I do believe that the country's Commander-in-Chief, given that the country was under attack (yes, diplomatic outposts are legally American soil), should have canceled his fund-raising trip to California, stayed on station in DC, consulted with his military commanders, ordered an immediate rescue effort with whatever assets had even the slightest possibility of reaching the scene within 24 hours, coordinated activities by the State Department, and whatever else he might have been able to accomplish.

In other words, I think that we should have seen a repeat of the same scene captured in the now famous photo of the Obama gang gathered together watching as the Navy Seals took out Bin Laden.

In addition, I believe, given that it has been established with absolute certainty that Obama knew within minutes that al Qaeda was attacking our consulate in Benghazi, that he should have addressed the nation and told us the truth in a similar fashion as President Bush did after 9/11.

At the very least, he should not have permitted Susan Rice to go on public TV and repeatedly perpetrate a direct lie on the American people.

BTW, nothing I've suggested in any way resembles the self-immolation reaction you suggested.

Thanks,

Jax.

Esten

01-21-14, 01:32

Someone takes a quote from YOUR link and you indicate he's basing his beliefs primarily on that particular quote. That's what's absurd.Actually, my link was to a story titled "Review of 5,500 IRS E-Mails Found No Political Targeting". The story focused on this finding, which is why I linked it. But the article had some other stuff, part of which you quoted to support your bias thesis. I countered that it did not support a bias thesis, and then Jackson chimed in to defend it as evidence of bias.

Anyways, time to wrap this up.

Esten

01-21-14, 02:55

I am going to wrap up my exposé of the phony IRS 'scandal' with an excellent quote.

There is certainly evidence that Tea Party applications to the IRS for tax-exempt 501(c)(4) status received additional scrutiny and encountered delays. They weren't the only groups affected, but conservatives claim Tea Party applications got the worst treatment.

What hasn't been proven is that the handling of Tea Party applications was improper. The basis of the 'scandal' was that the IRS was politically motivated, but there is no evidence of this. There is no evidence that IRS staffers were doing anything other than trying to do their jobs. It is a fact that the Tea Party was a new political movement that emerged in 2009-10. Being a political movement, it is logical that a surge of Tea Party applications would raise flags, when the requirement for tax-exempt 501(c)(4) status was that the group not be mainly political. Was there a new left-leaning political movement at the same time, and a surge of 501(c)(4) applications with the same name? Nope. The circumstances around the Tea Party were unique, and the IRS had to figure out how to handle these cases. One can argue the IRS was slow and inefficient in this process, but charges of political motivation must be proven. They haven't been. Tiny's charge of political motivation "Because they don't like the Tea Party. And because they're predominantly Democrats." is not only baseless and unproven, but also frankly repulsive. The IRS is an independent enforcement agency, with employees from across the political spectrum who have worked under Republican and Democrat administrations. I'd like to see him sit down with some IRS staffers, and tell them that to their faces.

Check the following quote. A former IRS employee, now a Tea Party member, actually defends the IRS. Having worked for the agency, she knows better than to buy into this phony scandal.

"Before the IRS started separating out Tea Party applications, getting tax-exempt status was routine -- even for conservative groups. The Champaign Tea Party's treasurer, Karen Olsen, said the process was smooth, with no follow-up questions from the IRS.

Olsen, a retired IRS revenue agent, defended the agency.

"If you suddenly see a great increase in some kind of activity, and you don't understand why, then it might be reasonable to look more closely at what's happening with those applications," she said. "I'm not certain that there was an error on the part of the IRS at all. I know that's not a popular opinion."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/14/irs-tea-party-progressive-groups/2158831/

Member #4112

01-21-14, 10:48

According to Esten, the IRS Inspector General 's scathing report, which the planted question by Lerner at a news conference was intended to defuse, is all total bunk because the IG is a Republican who was cherry picking data. Not only that it was only one guy in a broom closet office at the IRS, also a Republican, who came up with and carried out all on his own the interference with conservative groups being granted 504 status.

Now suddenly a "former IRS official" joins a "Tea Party" group and comes to the defense of her former agency. Just one mind you.

Amazing, simply amazing.

Tiny12

01-21-14, 12:15

Tiny's charge of political motivation "Because they don't like the Tea Party. And because they're predominantly Democrats." is not only baseless and unproven, but also frankly repulsive. The IRS is an independent enforcement agency, with employees from across the political spectrum who have worked under Republican and Democrat administrations. I'd like to see him sit down with some IRS staffers, and tell them that to their faces.No kidding. I'd have to be a complete idiot. Even though I spend over 200 hours a year putting together info to prepare my taxes, and even though I do my absolute best to properly pay my taxes and comply with tax regulations, I'm sure there are some IRS employees that can and would figure out a way to fuck me over if I told that to their faces. It's interesting you say that BTW. Do you know something the rest of us don't about the ability of the IRS to persecute people it doesn't like? If so, please share.

That said, I will admit the couple of times that I've been audited, the IRS employees I've communicated with were extremely competent, professional and fair. And made no adjustments to my taxable income BTW. I don't think that applies to certain individuals in Cincinnati that went on a witch hunt though.

The National Treasury Employees Union, the PAC that represents employees from the IRS and other Treasury agencies, allocates about 95% of its campaign contributions to Democrats. People who identified their employer as the IRS donated 30X more to Barack Obama's campaign than John McCain's. There are other examples where contributions by IRS employees to Democrats were as low as 2X contributions to Republicans. Anyway you slice or dice it, IRS employees are predominantly Democrats.

It is a fact that the Tea Party was a new political movement that emerged in 2009-10. Being a political movement, it is logical that a surge of Tea Party applications would raise flags, when the requirement for tax-exempt 501(c)(4) status was that the group not be mainly political. Was there a new left-leaning political movement at the same time, and a surge of 501(c)(4) applications with the same name? Nope. The circumstances around the Tea Party were unique, and the IRS had to figure out how to handle these cases.

The number of applications from "progressive" groups during 2010 to 2012 wasn't that much different than the number of applications from "Tea Party" groups, based on the NYT link I've repeatedly posted here. Your argument that "Tea Party" groups are some kind of a new political movement and that justifies putting their applications off to the side for two years is baseless. It's an excuse to give your side a leg up with its "anti-Tea Party" agenda -- higher taxes, bigger government, more corporate welfare for your favorites, more unemployment and government dependency (i.e. more people who will vote for Democrats), a complicated and irrational system of taxation, and a system of entitlements that will eventually bankrupt the country.

Dccpa

01-21-14, 12:19

Tiny12

01-21-14, 12:41

Esten, Do you read your links? Or is it just that if you're pulling something from the mainstream press instead of the DailyKos you can't find unambiguous support for your case? Your USA Today article says that after the IRS ex-employee's 501 (c) 4 was approved, there wasn't another Tea Party application approved for 27 months. It notes that groups with liberal sounding names had their applications approved in as little as 9 months. It quotes Lois Lerner, the IRS employee who took the 5th amendment instead of testifying to Congress. It quotes Jeff Cohen, a member of a Progressive (pro-Obama) group, who says "if the IRS can hold up legitimate Tea Party applications today and get away with it, then who knows if progressive groups will be held up and specially scrutinized in a few years. It's utterly unacceptable, if that's what happened.".

Esten

01-22-14, 00:46

Tiny12

01-22-14, 02:54

I certainly do read my links, Tiny. None of them support your thesis. Jeff Cohen only said "if that's what happened", meaning he doesn't know what happened. The IG report found no political motivation. BTW, the article also states Cohen's IRS application for the group "Action for a Progressive Future" took 18 months, and also involved intrusive questions. I thought that only happened to Tea Party groups.

Let me know when you find some evidence of political motivation, Tiny. Most IRS staffers being Democrats (if true) isn't evidence, certainly not with this story. Concerning the use of "Tea Party" as a screening criteria for 501(c)(4) applications, it is documented fact that it was a Republican who started it, and a Democrat who stopped it.

Got to love Doppel's reaction. Though not surprising from a conservative who has bought into his party's hype hook, line and sinker.Goodness, I know you're very smart, so all I can figure is that you've either brainwashed yourself or you're so partisan that you don't care what the truth is. In the past, several times you've made me admit to myself that I didn't know as much as I thought I did about an issue, or it wasn't as clear as I thought. This is not one of those times. This is like the time you said George Bush was responsible for the tax increases that occurred January 1, 2013 and Obama had nothing to do with that.

Cohen undoubtedly knows the IRS delayed the applications. It's the irrefutable truth -- approvals for tea party groups were preferentially held up and some of them and some of their donors were harassed. Apparently you want Lois Lerner and a mysterious anonymous Republican IRS employee and others to come forth and explicitly say there was political bias (or have it explicitly stated in their emails) before you'll admit what's already clear based on the historical record. Jackson's analogies are better, and this one is highly exaggerated. But if several million Jews died in concentration camps, would you demand that Nazis provide documentary evidence or come forth and confess they intended to exterminate Jews before you labeled it as genocide? After all, for every 10 Jews that were killed, a Christian was gassed as well. It was just an innocent bureaucratic mistake. The fact that prominent Nazis considered Jews to be subhuman and spoke about their annihilation is irrelevant, you must show direct communication between the top brass and the staff rounding up and killing political prisoners. Besides, there's no way this could have been race or religion based, the original instructions came from an Austrian with partial Jewish ancestry.

Btw, some Republicans are more hostile to Tea Party ideals than some Democrats.

WorldTravel69

01-22-14, 14:24

You Right Wingers are right.

The government should remove all regulations.

Jackson

01-22-14, 14:47

You Right Wingers are right.

The government should remove all regulations.WT,

Please find one instance on this forum where anyone has advocated that "The government should remove all regulations.".

Otherwise, STFU.

Thanks,

Jax.

Daddy Rulz

01-22-14, 15:33

WT,

Please find one instance on this forum where anyone has advocated that "The government should remove all regulations.".

Otherwise, STFU.

Thanks,

Jax.What sort of regulation for business do you favor?

Don B

01-22-14, 17:08

You Right Wingers are right.

The government should remove all regulations.If there was a regulation in place, why was there a spill?

Don.

WorldTravel69

01-22-14, 17:38

Time after time you White Wingers keep saying there are too many Regulations.

It must be tough getting old and can't remember things.

WT,

Please find one instance on this forum where anyone has advocated that "The government should remove all regulations.".

Otherwise, STFU.

Thanks,

Jax.

Jackson

01-22-14, 17:40

Time after time you White Wingers keep saying there are too many Regulations.

It must be tough getting old and can't remember things.In your first post you wrote "The government should remove all regulations.", not "too many regulations".

I challenged you on your original statement.

Now you're pretending you wrote the words "too many regulations".

Back peddling again, just like Obama.

I repeat my challenge: Please find one instance on this forum where anyone has advocated that "The government should remove all regulations.".

Thanks,

Jax.

WorldTravel69

01-22-14, 20:42

I was saying what you Rite Wingers really would like.

No Controls by the Government.

It is not about what I posted, it's about what you are thinking and wishing for.

In your first post you wrote "The government should remove all regulations.", not "too many regulations".

I challenged you on your original statement.

Now you're pretending you wrote the words "too many regulations".

Back peddling again, just like Obama.

I repeat my challenge: Please find one instance on this forum where anyone has advocated that "The government should remove all regulations.".

Thanks,

Jax.

Esten

01-23-14, 02:15

I was saying what you Rite Wingers really would like.

No Controls by the Government.

It is not about what I posted, it's about what you are thinking and wishing for.Actually when this has come up before, the AP right wingers have said they believe there need to be some regulations. It would be ridiculous to say no regulations are needed.

What I don't like is when Republicans chant their mantra "We're being suffocated by too much regulation". They should be specific in what specific regulations they want to abolish. But their strategists have learned that simple, slick messaging, void of detail, works best with their LIV base. Just like with their phony scandals. Grab a narrow, simplistic anti-government message, and run with it.

Rev BS

01-23-14, 02:41

Esten

01-23-14, 03:06

Goodness, I know you're very smart, so all I can figure is that you've either brainwashed yourself or you're so partisan that you don't care what the truth is. In the past, several times you've made me admit to myself that I didn't know as much as I thought I did about an issue, or it wasn't as clear as I thought. This is not one of those times. Thank you for the comments. Regarding the IRS 'scandal', I think you are focusing too narrowly on a certain set of facts and data, and extrapolating from that your conclusion of political bias. The additional scrutiny, the delays, the intrusive questions.. Sure on their own, it could have the appearance of bias. But you have to dig deeper, and look at the entire picture and context. I smelled the Republican hype in this story from the get-go, and my research confirmed it. Like I keep saying, the Tea Party was a very political party in it's nature. So when the IRS got a surge of Tea Party applications, and especially this being soon after Citizens United, I think the IRS was 1000% correct in their decision to flag these for additional review. It's their job to figure out whether or not these groups are mostly social or political. Their motives were correct, but they probably should have been more politically savvy in their execution, and simply used "Party" in their BOLO list, than "Tea Party". As I've pointed out though, left-leaning groups were also flagged, and "Tea Party" groups were only about a quarter of the 300 groups that went into a bucket of applications getting more scrutiny. Even if you think the Tea Party groups got it worse, there would be justification because, repeating this for the umpteenth time, the Tea Party was known to be highly political. A good question is, even with the added scrutiny, why the delays were so long. Again you have to look into the environment within the IRS. Potential elements of excessive workload, lack of clear guidelines, and inadequate oversight have been cited as contributing factors, and I find them entirely plausible. Republicans were all over this, but still found absolutely zero evidence of political motivation.

Here is a quote which sums it up nicely. I encourage you to read the entire article.

But in reality, this is a story about how bureaucratic bungling was turned into scandal by right wing politicians desperate to spin gold from straw.The IRS Scandal That Wasn't
http://billmoyers.com/2013/09/30/the-irs-scandal-that-wasn%E2%80%99t/

Tiny12

01-23-14, 03:50

Esten, the writer of the article is politically-biased. He works for Demos, a support wing for the Democrat party. I did read the article.

Jackson

01-23-14, 14:41

Rev BS

01-24-14, 00:56

I wonder if Obama will be so candid when reflecting on his presidency?http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/01/27/140127fa_fact_remnick

January 27,2014 New Yorker, Going the Distance by David Remnick.

Obama: "The President of the United States cannot remake our society and that's probably a good thing. Not probably. It's definitely a good thing. I'm not particularly an ideological person. So there are values I'm passionate about, but I'm pretty pragmatic when it comes to how we get there.".

The article is very long and covers a wide range of subjects. If not for the "rejection" by older tired white men (the polls show it) Obama definitely could have make America better.

Tiny12

01-24-14, 03:26

Washington Times, January 22,2014, Cheryl K Chumley.

"I remember (my time at Fox) as an awful time of fun, and I made alot of mistakes. I think I played a role, unfortunately, in tearing the country apart. I wish I could go back and be more uniting in my language.".

He forgot to say that he also made alot of money by telling half-truths, misleading statements, and presenting situations and language out of context. In other word, he sold himself to the highest bidder. All the while, presenting himself as a man of religious convictions and patriot.
Tearing the country apart? How about Bill Maher, Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Lawrence O'Donnell? Not to mention people in power -- Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi for example. Your "tired old white men" like Boehner and McConnell have been more willing to compromise.

[URL]
Obama: "The President of the United States cannot remake our society and that's probably a good thing. Not probably. It's definitely a good thing. I'm not particularly an ideological person. So there are values I'm passionate about, but I'm pretty pragmatic when it comes to how we get there."

True. He's very pragmatic about winning elections. He doesn't much care about anything else.

WorldTravel69

01-24-14, 03:45

Bush, has not been Candid about his BIG Mistake about WMDs in Iraq.
He does know not what to say, same as he was in power, too dumb to say anything.
Keep your mouth shut and maybe people will forget. Sure We Will.

I wonder if Obama will be so candid when reflecting on his presidency?

Tiny12

01-24-14, 04:23

What I don't like is when Republicans chant their mantra "We're being suffocated by too much regulation". They should be specific in what specific regulations they want to abolish. But their strategists have learned that simple, slick messaging, void of detail, works best with their LIV base. Just like with their phony scandals. Grab a narrow, simplistic anti-government message, and run with it."War on the Little Guy" is running on Stossel this week. Here's an excerpt: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gI5XJl4-Reo.

That gives plenty of examples of stupid regulations that should be abolished.

I could give an example from my own business, where if I were properly complying with regulations, I'd be spending about 8,000 hours per year generating completely worthless numbers for the benefit of a federal agency in the event it should decide to audit the business. Since I only work about 2,000 to 2,500 hours per year total, that would be difficult. As I'm not complying with the regulations, it wouldn't be wise to provide additional details, so make of that what you want.

Rev BS

01-24-14, 06:52

Tearing the country apart? How about Bill Maher, Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Lawrence O'Donnell? Not to mention people in power -- Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi for example. Your "tired old white men" like Boehner and McConnell have been more willing to compromise.

True. He's very pragmatic about winning elections. He doesn't much care about anything else.MSNBC was a channel I had no time for when I was still in the USA. O'Donnell, Schultz & Maddow, totally no exposure to them. Olberman, I dislike him even when he only a sportcaster. Bill Maher can be funny but mostly obnoxious. Chris Matthews, I have seen but have no opinion.

Reid & Pelosi are career politicians, and answering to their masters and self interests. Same with Boehner & McConnell. The younger John McClain, I could vote for him. As you know, he was an advocate for campaign & immigration reform. Even in 2008, it was pretty much over for him even though he was able to run for president.

I am not going defend Obama against your opinion. You will never change your mind about him. Just reflect of what you thought of Clinton now, against back in 1996 when he had 2 years to go in office. Be at least truthful to yourself, if nothing else.

Esten

01-27-14, 01:36

Tiny, I watched the video. Stossel does lots of programs like that, they are sometimes entertaining. They do showcase some apparently non-sensical regulations, but even with some of them, if you think about it you can see some downside if those regs didn't exist. For example, maybe it sounds ridiculous to regulate tour guides, or home improvement contractors. But maybe if they didn't set certain standards, you'd see tourists upset they got crappy tours and home owners upset they got crappy or fraudulant home repairs. You trade one set of 'victims' with another set. Sometimes people take consumer protections for granted, but remove them and something bad happens, and they'll be screaming why it isn't regulated. You have to weigh the pros and cons before making a judgement. I do agree there are most likely regs that could be abolished or implemented less onerously. You just have to do something to make it happen, like they changed the regs for the Mountain Man. Of course, Stossel has to portray it like the government is waging war on people, his program is paid by Fox News. You could easily do a program showing just the opposite.

Esten

01-27-14, 02:09

WorldTravel69

01-27-14, 04:11

How Many Independents are in the Congress?

Since you Right Wingers have no New News other than bringing up old the Old News Word Benghazi.

Check out where The New World Started for Money and Greed.

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/klondike/videos

There were some good headlines this month worth noting. It's OK to talk about good things too.

1. Unemployment fell below 7%, to 6.7%. We've come a long way from 10.2% in 2009.

2. Affordable Care Act signups now exceed 3 Million.

3. Obama made some favorable comments on marijuana. And Holder says he is planning to roll out regulations soon that would allow banks to do business with legal marijuana sellers. Maybe that's an example of some good regulation.

4. We got a bipartisan budget agreement with little fighting and no brinksmanship.

Don B

01-27-14, 12:27

If there was a regulation in place, why was there a spill?

Don.I'm still waiting for answer from Mr. Know-it-all.

Don.

Dccpa

01-27-14, 12:39

There were some good headlines this month worth noting. It's OK to talk about good things too.

1. Unemployment fell below 7%, to 6.7%. We've come a long way from 10.2% in 2009.

2. Affordable Care Act signups now exceed 3 Million.

3. Obama made some favorable comments on marijuana. And Holder says he is planning to roll out regulations soon that would allow banks to do business with legal marijuana sellers. Maybe that's an example of some good regulation.

4. We got a bipartisan budget agreement with little fighting and no brinksmanship.1. Most of the decline in the unemployment rate is due to the unemployed running out of benefits and no longer being counted and the million plus jobs created in the fracking industry. Although I personally consider fracking to be an economic lifesaver for America, the politically acceptable response is to put it in the negative category.

2. I believe it was 7 million people who lost their healtcare insurance due to Obamacare, myself included. So, you are saying that at least 4 million people are now without healthcare insurance? Yay?

3 & 4 I agree are good things.

Jackson

01-27-14, 20:55

That is modeling it's policies on Venezuela where those same policies failed. I heard this this morning. Shudder!And yet you are completely unfazed by the fact that Obama is pursuing exactly the same course in the USA.

Gandolf50

01-27-14, 21:31

And yet you are completely unfazed by the fact that Obama is pursuing exactly the same course in the USA.And how do you figure that?

Jackson

01-27-14, 21:57

And how do you figure that?Both Obama and Cristina were elected and re-elected with votes bought by promising free money to their supporters.

However, neither of them have the cash or the tax revenue to actually pay for the votes that they've promised to buy.

Nevertheless, Obama can borrow the money from the Chinese to pay for his votes, whereas Christina's only option is to print the money to pay for her votes.

Both strategies will result in the same failed economys, but the effects of the borrowed money take longer to develop.

Thanks,

Jax.

Gandolf50

01-27-14, 22:14

Rev BS

01-27-14, 22:14

And yet you are completely unfazed by the fact that Obama is pursuing exactly the same course in the USA.Only a propagandist of the highest order can make the same comparison. As usual, you are blaming Obama for the 1998 financial meltdown, and 50+ years of American partying. Plus every itch in your body.

Jackson

01-27-14, 22:31

Only a propagandist of the highest order can make the same comparison. As usual, you are blaming Obama for the 1998 financial meltdown, and 50+ years of American partying. Plus every itch in your body.On the contrary, I believe that it only takes a person of average intelligence, abet one who is NOT being bribed with free money, to see what's going on and subsequently draw the same conclusion.

FYI, I do not blame Obama for the 1998 financial meltdown, but I do blame him for pursuing his politically expedient socialist agenda instead of having the political balls to do what was really needed to fix the US economy.

However, I understand the angst in your comments, given that it is becoming clearer by the day that your emperor, like Christina, has no clothes.

Thanks,

Jax.

Tiny12

01-27-14, 23:07

Only a propagandist of the highest order can make the same comparison. As usual, you are blaming Obama for the 1998 financial meltdown, and 50+ years of American partying. Plus every itch in your body.Brother Black Shirt,

You are a very trusting individual. This has certain advantages. But it has its disadvantages as well. For example, when you encounter someone with an Adam's apple, large fingers and vagina who swears she(?) is not a post-op lady boy. Or when you start listening to what U.S. presidents say. You were a big Bush supporter until you realized the truth. Someday you will come to the same conclusion about Obama, because Obama is Bush on speed. Government deficits as a % of GDP under Obama have been the highest since World War II. The percentage of Americans in poverty is the highest since the early 1960's. Middle class incomes have fallen more than any period since World War II. And, at this point in time, 5 years later, it's ridiculous to blame it on George Bush. Kirchner and Obama make a big deal of helping the poor and middle class, but their policies in the long run do the opposite, by stifling economic growth and encouraging dependency.

I am slowly-but-surely reading the article you recommended by the way. I get the hardcopy New Yorker, and this week's edition is sitting in front of my commode.

Rock Harders

01-28-14, 01:14

Both Obama and Cristina were elected and re-elected with votes bought by promising free money to their supporters.

However, neither of them have the cash or the tax revenue to actually pay for the votes that they've promised to buy.

Nevertheless, Obama can borrow the money from the Chinese to pay for his votes, whereas Christina's only option is to print the money to pay for her votes.

Both strategies will result in the same failed economys, but the effects of the borrowed money take longer to develop.

Thanks,

Jax.Jackson-.

Are you completely delusional? Under the Obama Administration the stock market is at an all time high and housing prices have rebounded from the utter destruction wrung upon them by the Bush Administration's gross mismanagement (two bankrupting wars, housing market collapse, wall street collapse, resultant unemployment). Yes, the middle class in the USA is declining but this is the continuation of a process that began over thirty years ago; the current underemployment is at its root structural in the sense that many people are unemployable because they are not trained / educated in the "jobs of today". Comparing Obama to any Argentine political figure simply makes you appear to be an ignorant misinformed racist. Instead of making such a ridiculous comparison, why don't you just admit that you despise Obama because he is black, that the very thought of a black president causes you to foam at the mouth in disgust, and that to this day you simply are incapable of accepting the results of two elections in which Obama was elected president by a majority of voters. You dismiss Obama voters as "people who vote themselves free money"; if this is the case, how do you explain the fact that ALL of the wealthiest and most highly educated states (by per capita income, percentage of population with college degrees, or use any yardstick you want) voted for Obama?

Thanks.

RH.

Esten

01-28-14, 01:43

Tiny12

01-28-14, 02:00

When you take into account people who are no longer looking for jobs, and not counted as unemployed, it's not a pretty picture:

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000

In the long term, as the baby boom generation retires, the employment-population ratio should decrease. However, for the time period in the graph, you can't put much of the blame on demographic or secular trends. There was a big fall off in the % of the population that was employed in 2008 and 2009, and it hasn't rebounded as was the case for past recoveries from recessions.

Government is partly responsible. Policies to grow the economy and get cheaters out of the social security disability system would help. And, as Esten says, reducing corporatist influences would help, although we may differ as to our definitions of corporatism.

1. These data easily demonstrate that Republicans were wrong when they said the Stimulus failed, and that the Affordable Care Act was going to be a huge job-killer.

Esten, the graph above supports the Republicans. The stimulus did fail. It probably is too early for the effects of the ACA to have shown up in the employment data though.

Tiny12

01-28-14, 02:44

Comparing Obama to any Argentine political figure simply makes you appear to be an ignorant misinformed racist. Instead of making such a ridiculous comparison, why don't you just admit that you despise Obama because he is black, that the very thought of a black president causes you to foam at the mouth in disgust, and that to this day you simply are incapable of accepting the results of two elections in which Obama was elected president by a majority of voters. You dismiss Obama voters as "people who vote themselves free money"; if this is the case, how do you explain the fact that ALL of the wealthiest and most highly educated states (by per capita income, percentage of population with college degrees, or use any yardstick you want) voted for Obama?
WTF? You've got at least part of that ass backwards. Poorer people overwhelmingly voted for Obama. More wealthy people voted for Romney. There wasn't much of a correlation between education level and voting preference.

It's ironic, someone playing the race card who obviously believes people from the northeast and Pacific coast are superior to the poor and uneducated inbred hayseeds who populate southern states, Wyoming, etc.

Peter Sideburn

01-28-14, 03:05

I love it when liberals call rational people delusional and then blame the malady on their own delusional belief that not admiring King Obama has something to do with Race. How racist is it that you assume everyone who doesn't like this present must be a racist. Not even mentioning the fact that Obama shares far more in common with the narrative liberals ascribe to the elite class of evildoers etc. Obama's fiscal policies have held back the economy on all fronts and are driving us into the ground. His health care lunacy alone will be untenable let alone all of his other brilliant non-capitalist ideas. In fact, Jackson is dead on correct in his drawing parallels between the political leadership of Argentina and the US. How can you blame Bush for the housing mess when it was he and numerous Republican legislators who desperately tried to point out to the Democrats the Freddie and Fanny were broken and that the loans being given out were dangerous etc. Do you not remember all the Democrats like Barney Frank, whose lover was at the head of one of these agencies, all coming out and claiming there was no housing bubble and that Republicans were just trying to scare people and keep houses away from the poor? You can still find the video on you tube if you want to check it out. Our economy has had and incredibly slow recovery as can be seen in the eyes of the huge number of people who still can't or won't get a job; partially because to buy votes Obama continues to try to provide more benefits to them. Your post truly proves that Liberal have had some form of lobotomy in childhood leaving them incapable of rational thought and consideration of the facts. I used to argue with liberals until I realized they simply can't see facts any more than the color blind can see green. If our economy is so great then explain why we have so many more people on food stamps. What happened to Obama's promises of lower health care premiums and lower college tuition? Wasn't there something about transparency in there also? He is a complete and utter failure and will go down in history as the most egotistical, pathetic, ineffective, partisan President of all time. He also recurrently seems to forget this little thing called the Constitution he swore to uphold and which is the only instrument giving him any power. Without it he is a community organizer so before he tramples it again he should consider that if the rest the country treated it with the same disdain that he does, he would be out of a job. Have you seen his majesty's approval rating lately? By the way, the only racism I have seen in regard to this President was the fact that nearly every black american voted for him and when asked again and again why, the response almost uniformly was, "Because he is black." That is racism. I did not vote for him because I quickly realized he was all smoke and mirrors and had an agenda that he elevated far above his actual duties as President and would stop at nothing to try to force his will over due process. This is very very dangerous and has been the same mentality that brought us Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler, Chiang Kia-sheck, Leopold II, Tojo, Pol Pot, Jim Jones and Mao Zedong to name just a few. The only delusional ones are those who still think this President has done anything other than alienate us from our allies and kited checks onto the accounts of our children and their children.

Pete.

Jackson-.

Are you completely delusional? Under the Obama Administration the stock market is at an all time high and housing prices have rebounded from the utter destruction wrung upon them by the Bush Administration's gross mismanagement (two bankrupting wars, housing market collapse, wall street collapse, resultant unemployment). Yes, the middle class in the USA is declining but this is the continuation of a process that began over thirty years ago; the current underemployment is at its root structural in the sense that many people are unemployable because they are not trained / educated in the "jobs of today". Comparing Obama to any Argentine political figure simply makes you appear to be an ignorant misinformed racist. Instead of making such a ridiculous comparison, why don't you just admit that you despise Obama because he is black, that the very thought of a black president causes you to foam at the mouth in disgust, and that to this day you simply are incapable of accepting the results of two elections in which Obama was elected president by a majority of voters. You dismiss Obama voters as "people who vote themselves free money"; if this is the case, how do you explain the fact that ALL of the wealthiest and most highly educated states (by per capita income, percentage of population with college degrees, or use any yardstick you want) voted for Obama?

Thanks.

RH.

Rock Harders

01-28-14, 03:15

WTF? There wasn't much of a correlation between education level and voting preference.

Wrong. Highly educated urban voters overwhelmingly voted for Obama.

Rock Harders

01-28-14, 03:25

I love it when liberals call rational people delusional and then blame the malady on their own delusional belief that not admiring King Obama has something to do with Race. How racist is it that you assume everyone who doesn't like this present must be a racist. Not even mentioning the fact that Obama shares far more in common with the narrative liberals ascribe to the elite class of evildoers etc. Obama's fiscal policies have held back the economy on all fronts and are driving us into the ground. His health care lunacy alone will be untenable let alone all of his other brilliant non-capitalist ideas. In fact, Jackson is dead on correct in his drawing parallels between the political leadership of Argentina and the US. How can you blame Bush for the housing mess when it was he and numerous Republican legislators who desperately tried to point out to the Democrats the Freddie and Fanny were broken and that the loans being given out were dangerous etc. Do you not remember all the Democrats like Barney Frank, whose lover was at the head of one of these agencies, all coming out and claiming there was no housing bubble and that Republicans were just trying to scare people and keep houses away from the poor? You can still find the video on you tube if you want to check it out. Our economy has had and incredibly slow recovery as can be seen in the eyes of the huge number of people who still can't or won't get a job; partially because to buy votes Obama continues to try to provide more benefits to them. Your post truly proves that Liberal have had some form of lobotomy in childhood leaving them incapable of rational thought and consideration of the facts. I used to argue with liberals until I realized they simply can't see facts any more than the color blind can see green. If our economy is so great then explain why we have so many more people on food stamps. What happened to Obama's promises of lower health care premiums and lower college tuition? Wasn't there something about transparency in there also? He is a complete and utter failure and will go down in history as the most egotistical, pathetic, ineffective, partisan President of all time. He also recurrently seems to forget this little thing called the Constitution he swore to uphold and which is the only instrument giving him any power. Without it he is a community organizer so before he tramples it again he should consider that if the rest the country treated it with the same disdain that he does, he would be out of a job. Have you seen his majesty's approval rating lately? By the way, the only racism I have seen in regard to this President was the fact that nearly every black american voted for him and when asked again and again why, the response almost uniformly was, "Because he is black." That is racism. I did not vote for him because I quickly realized he was all smoke and mirrors and had an agenda that he elevated far above his actual duties as President and would stop at nothing to try to force his will over due process. This is very very dangerous and has been the same mentality that brought us Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler, Chiang Kia-sheck, Leopold II, Tojo, Pol Pot, Jim Jones and Mao Zedong to name just a few. The only delusional ones are those who still think this President has done anything other than alienate us from our allies and kited checks onto the accounts of our children and their children.

Pete.Thank you for illustrating the exact kind of rabid foaming at the mouth senseless anti-Obama obsession that Jackson has so often represented in his rants and ridiculous comparisons on this thread. Again, I reiterate that anyone who can even begin to compare the Obama administration with the policies of the Kirchners and / or what is happening in Argentina knows and understands less than nothing about Argentina.

Tiny12

01-28-14, 03:39

Wrong. Highly educated urban voters overwhelmingly voted for Obama."Urban" voters? Your prejudices show themselves again. Anyone who's not from a city is a hick.

I wrote "There wasn't much of a correlation between education level and voter preference." That's true. Exit polls indicated people with college educations were more likely to vote for Romney than people who didn't go to college. It is true that people with postgraduate degrees were more likely to vote for Obama than other voters, but not "overwhelmingly" so.

Rev BS

01-28-14, 11:05

I am slowly-but-surely reading the article you recommended, by the way. I get the hard copy New Yorker, and this week's edition is sitting in front of my commode.

Yeah, try to finish before 2016! Otherwise, use it to wipe your ass.

TejanoLibre

01-28-14, 12:06

Thank you for illustrating the exact kind of rabid foaming at the mouth senseless anti-Obama obsession that Jackson has so often represented in his rants and ridiculous comparisons on this thread. Again, I reiterate that anyone who can even begin to compare the Obama administration with the policies of the Kirchners and / or what is happening in Argentina knows and understands less than nothing about Argentina.This has nothing to do with RH's comment or anything else on this thread but TL is currently receiving anti-rabies injections to avoid "Rabid Foaming at the Mouth" due to a Fucking Bat that ended up in his living room a week ago!

Holy Shit Batman!

There I was watching TV and a fucking Bat ended up next to me! Now I have to get a bunch of shots! In the states it could be about $7,000.00 dollars!

Now that's socialized medicine working for you because here it's free.

My ex-partner told me not to worry because worse things have been in my place sitting on the sofa next to me! Chicas?

Not to worry though! I'm not contagious unless I'm foaming at the mouth!

TL.

Dccpa

01-28-14, 13:02

1. I'm not sure how much of a factor the loss of unemployment benefits was on the December report, but to the extent that loss of benefits caused the unemployment rate to go down, all that tells me is that the rate could have dropped below 7% sooner if the benefits had not been extended so long. With regard to 1 Million fracking jobs, that's great if true, but one component of the 6 Million jobs created since the recovery began in 2009. These data easily demonstrate that Republicans were wrong when they said the Stimulus failed, and that the Affordable Care Act was going to be a huge job-killer. It is true we could have been lower than 6.7% at this point, but our challenges have been more with large government job losses (700 K), and the effects of Corporatism. 2. I think the number was more like 5 million policies cancelled, due to ACA and the decisions of insurance companies. Insurance companies have been cancelling policies for years before ACA came along. There are not millions of people who are now without insurance because of ACA. In December, it was estimated that fewer than 500,000 people who received cancellation notices have not yet signed up for new coverage. Why are you one of them, Dccpa? I don't think the cancellations and signups can be directly added / subtracted. It gets complicated to dissect the numbers. Ultimately, a key and simple number to follow is simply the overall uninsured rate. It was at 17.3% in December, and at 16.1% earlier this month. We should expect ACA will keep moving that number lower.1. A lot of truth in your first lines. What you said is that the unemployment rate would have gone down sooner if we had stopped counting more of the unemployed sooner. We are already doing that, it is called the U3 unemployment rate. But why don't we stop counting all unemployed and have full employment? That makes as much sense as not counting the unemployed whose benefits have run out. The key true measure of unemployment is the labor force participation rate and it is at a multi-decade low. They will probably start counting housewives / househusbands and we will be back to record participation rates.

I didn't follow what conservatives stated regarding Obamacare costing jobs. My opinion has always been that Obamacare would create jobs, but cause overall detriment to the workers. For low end jobs, businesses are cutting worker hours to stay under the 30 hour Obamacare limit. So, yay, we have more burger flippers and waitresses. They just don't work enough hours to earn over the poverty level. That and the fact that the young, I am invincible, citizens, were not going to want to pay for healthcare. Anyone with functioning brain cells knew that the young people were not going to be interested in signing up for Obamacare. Yet, from the beginning, it was stated by the Democrats, that young people signing up in large numbers was essential for Obamacare to function without subsidies. Obamacare is and always was destined to become another government subsidy program by a government that is broke. As far as Corporatism, I have as much use for it as I do for Republicans and Demcrats.

2. The number depends upon whether you actually count those that lose their health insurance or not. What I saw from conservative sources was 16 million and what I saw from liberal sources was around 4-5 million. Don't know how the conservatives got their 16 million number, as it seemed too high. AP and other liberal sources got to their lower numbers by only counting some of the states. For example, I live in Arkansas and they counted none from my state. So, the low end numbers are deliberately false. In my office there are two separate single person businesses. Both of us have different plans and both of us lost our health insurance due to the policies not meeting the Obamacare requirements. It really isn't difficult to determine how many people lost their health insurance as they received notices by October 1st. And for both of us, the premiums are far higher than what we were paying before. Obamacare essentially takes away your consumer choice as a healthy individual to somewhat self insure through catastrophic insurance coverage.

Esten

01-29-14, 03:09

Dccpa, not that it is worth quibbling about, but I did not say what you claim. It was your original statement about the effect of the unemployed running out of benefits, and I only said 'to the extent that what you said is true'. The U3 is the official rate, and it has not, should not and will not be calculated any differently. It provides the apples-to-apples comparison with historical rates. You are correct about the LFPR, however the underlying factors should be dissected out (mainly, the baby boomer effect) to properly gauge it's meaning. Overall, while I think we have made good progress with the creation of 8 Million new jobs (I previously underestimated it at 6 M), I absolutely agree we need to do more to create more good paying jobs.

For low end jobs, businesses are cutting worker hours to stay under the 30 hour Obamacare limit. So, yay, we have more burger flippers and waitresses. Well, Darden experimented with this and pulled back after it became a huge public relations disaster. Walmart actually elevated 35,000 part-time staff to full-time status last fall, making them eligible for healthcare benefits. So, please post some links to data so we can see how big this ACA effect is. Here's a link for you:

Bartiromo says Obamacare is turning us into 'a part-time employment country'.
PolitiFact Rating: False
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/oct/22/maria-bartiromo/bartiromo-says-obamacare-turning-us-part-time-empl/

For example, I live in Arkansas and they counted none from my state. So, the low end numbers are deliberately false. In my office there are two separate single person businesses. Both of us have different plans and both of us lost our health insurance due to the policies not meeting the Obamacare requirements. It really isn't difficult to determine how many people lost their health insurance as they received notices by October 1st. And for both of us, the premiums are far higher than what we were paying before. Obamacare essentially takes away your consumer choice as a healthy individual to somewhat self insure through catastrophic insurance coverage.Could you please post a link that insurance policy cancellations were not counted in your state. Concerning your situation, I have little sympathy for it. First, your 'hardship' pales in comparison to that of someone who needed healthcare and was denied, or was forced into bankruptcy getting it. Second, based on your income, you may be eligible for subsidies to make your insurance more affordable. Third, we all pay the costs when someone with inadequate insurance needs emergency care. Fourth, in addition to people under the age of 30, people in your situation have been made eligible for a hardship exemption, making you eligible to apply for the same type of catastrophic coverage you claim you are being denied.

Esten

01-29-14, 03:36

Jackson

01-29-14, 03:43

Republicans must hate it when Obama comes out with positive statistics and a positive message. It goes against the wet blanket of pessimism that Republicans are constantly trying to drape over the country.

Aside from the race comment, Rock Harders is spot-on with his assessment. How amusing to see Mr. Sideburn pop in to resurrect an old dinosaur I thought Republicans had retired, namely the argument that Fannie and Freddie were a significant contributor to the financial meltdown. Wall Street insiders admit it was Wall Street, Bush said it was Wall Street, and even tonight on Fox News, O'Reilly said it was because of the banks. Why did he not keep up the narrative that it was Fannie and Freddie? Did he forget? LMAO! Fannie and Freddie, birtherism, phony IRS and Benghazi scandals, claims that left-wing policy is driven by buying votes with free money; you wonder how Republicans don't connect the dots and understand their false and deceptive narratives are actually a key reason why their brand has been so badly damaged.The speech was just one misleading statistic after another, and really amounted to simply more fodder for the LIVs.

For example, bragging about the economy having created 8 million new jobs since Obama took office. The number sounds great to the LIV, but in fact 8 million jobs over 5 years in a country with 315 million people is pathetic and lags every other economic recovery in the past 100 years. Hell, it's not even enough to keep pace with the country's population growth.

Another example, bragging about the increase in the domestic oil and gas production when in fact he opposed offshore drilling, the Keystone Pipeline, and fracking, which is in fact the primary reason why domestic oil and gas production is so strong.

I did note that the President couldn't stop himself from promising yet more free money to his constituents, in this case raising the minimum pay for government contractors. How nice of him to so cavalierly spend my money by raising the cost of constructing and maintaining every government building in the country.

Anyway, his agenda was all "small ball" stuff and clearly showed a man who has come to realize in the beginning of his 5th year in office that his presidency is a failure.

Good job presenting the speech though, and I'm sure that it had the intended effect on the targeted LIVs, thus making another win for the liberals.

Thanks,

Jax.

Rev BS

01-29-14, 13:51

Don B

01-29-14, 17:14

Tiny12

01-29-14, 17:39

For example, bragging about the economy having created 8 million new jobs since Obama took office. The number sounds great to the LIV, but in fact 8 million jobs over 5 years in a country with 315 million people is pathetic and lags every other economic recovery in the past 100 years. Hell, it's not even enough to keep pace with the country's population growth.Both Jackson and President Obama were correct. Obama was selective in the definition of job growth and the time period he selected.

Fact Check -Jackson

Population growth of USA during 2010 to 2013: 0.7% to 0.8% per year
8 million jobs / 4 years = 2 million jobs per year

Population of USA = 315 million
Job growth / year = 2 million / 315 million = 0.6%/ year

Growth of private sector jobs was indeed less than population growth.

I am only able to verify the statement that employment gains (as a % of population) "lag every other economic recovery in the past 100 years" back for 66 years, before the data runs out:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=ra9

Fact Check - President Obama

8 million jobs were indeed created in the private sector over the last 4 years. Including jobs lost in government, however, only 7.5 million nonfarm jobs were added in the last 4 years, since 2010. The net job creation since Obama took office in 2009 was 3.2 million jobs. See the table below the graph in the following for data:

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth

Esten, if you're reading this, the only reason I dug this up was because of your belief that the declining unemployment numbers are encouraging. I don't believe they are.

Rev BS

01-29-14, 22:32

The Fool-in-charge says give me a plan re healthcare.

Well here is not just a proposal but what is actually working now.

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2013-fall/dr-josh-umbehr-on-concierge-medicine-revolution.asp

BTW, he also said that prescription cost for seniors had been lowered, 1/1/13 I paid 142.75 for one, on 1/8/14 same thing was 199.00. That is lower by -56.25.

Don.Ever heard that mantra before? Meanwhile, I am paying $5 per visit, per procedure, per prescription. I know, I am lucky. Last weekend, had to endured a visit to a Chinese Temple. Was told by my gf that my birthyear was not aligned with the Year of the Horse. After the cleansing ceremony, I never saw a happier trio of women, my gf, future mother-in-law, and my gf's niece. I knew it was not working because had it been, it would been a nice threesome after lunch. Meanwhile, the temple is raking in cash like a casino.

Peter Sideburn

01-29-14, 23:16

Liberal proof: "I think, therefore it is and everyone should just accept it. Enough said.".

Rabid and foaming.."When no actual response can be created just demonize again and again until most the sheep believe it is true.".

Basis for your last statement of "fact" according to Rock Harder is ...? Your credentials that makes you grand inquisitor of all that Argentine? Let me guess, you live there and therefore you know all?

Cheers,

Pete.

Thank you for illustrating the exact kind of rabid foaming at the mouth senseless anti-Obama obsession that Jackson has so often represented in his rants and ridiculous comparisons on this thread. Again, I reiterate that anyone who can even begin to compare the Obama administration with the policies of the Kirchners and / or what is happening in Argentina knows and understands less than nothing about Argentina.

Peter Sideburn

01-29-14, 23:33

I completely disagree. I do not expect a handout or an advantage. I expect and opportunity. If America stopped giving handouts and got back to expecting its citizens to earn their own keep and to strive for excellence and not mediocrity then the same elements that propelled America to greatness would keep it in good stead. When you have the left preaching doom, gloom, race, and a million reasons why people are picked on, less advantaged, etc. Etc. It only drives them down thinking they have to accept their current position, status, finances etc. If instead we rewarded hard work, intellectual thought, excellence etc. And stopped with all the excuses we would remain exceptional on the World stage. If we instead behave like the mediocre handout striving don't leave me behind masses then we will become more and more similar by regression toward the social mean we have chosen to emulate. When there are true winners and losers in any sport or life, the losers or initially less successful get better. In all cases they improve faster than in sports where there is not "score." In many cases the initial underdogs over take the "obvious winners." Not thinking of ourselves as too this or too that but rather as works in progress heading toward an individual defined goal would a great start to a wonderful American future.

Your comment about mongering is interesting. It is only the supply that is adapting and setting the stage for their own success. I applaud them for it. The consumers can choose the threshold at which they stop supporting the activity. In Obama's World we would need to offset the increase in "ask" with subsidies to mongers with incomes less than X and we would need to open free schools for the supply side so the poorest performers could be elevated while we apply a tax to the highest performers so that we can spread the wealth evenly.

Pete.

The world is changing, America is changing. You had it good but your time is up. And in case you are not convince, mongering has change, too. The glory days are over, be it BA or Bangkok. More expensive, more lousy service, less pickings, etc. There is nothing that you and I can do. Take it or leave it.