View Full Version : American Politics during the Obama Presidency
Suffering from sometimers Esten? You are seriously crowing about 6 consecutive months of 200 k+ jobs when we already exposed the prior month was a loss of several hundred thousand full time jobs and gains of part time jobs? You know those full time jobs that Obamacare killed and the part time jobs that Obamacare created. You can keep on spinning, but those previously employed on a full time basis are not singing BO's praises.Cherry-picking and lies. Here is the data from BLS:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t09.htm
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12032194
Full-time jobs did indeed drop from May to June. But they increased from June to July. Year-over-year, full-time jobs are up 2.4M while part-time jobs are down 0.1M. The May to June change was a complete outlier. In the BLS chart in the second link, "Part-Time for Economic Reasons" jobs are clearly in a downtrend. The drop in part-time jobs ("Working part time, but want full-time work") is also shown in this NYT table: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/08/01/business/jobs-0802.html.
More importantly, there is no clear evidence that the Affordable Care Act is having any significant effect on jobs. There were some right wing propaganda sites that tried to spin the June jobs report that way, but not all. The conservative Washington Examiner wrote last month "There's no conclusive evidence linking Obamacare to the growth in part-time employment. " If it was such a fact, no conservative media outlet would be so out of step. Looks like you've been duped, Dccpa.
Cherry-picking and lies. Here is the data from BLS:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t09.htm
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12032194
Full-time jobs did indeed drop from May to June. But they increased from June to July. Year-over-year, full-time jobs are up 2.4M while part-time jobs are down 0.1M. The May to June change was a complete outlier. In the BLS chart in the second link, "Part-Time for Economic Reasons" jobs are clearly in a downtrend. The drop in part-time jobs ("Working part time, but want full-time work") is also shown in this NYT table: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/08/01/business/jobs-0802.html.
More importantly, there is no clear evidence that the Affordable Care Act is having any significant effect on jobs. There were some right wing propaganda sites that tried to spin the June jobs report that way, but not all. The conservative Washington Examiner wrote last month "There's no conclusive evidence linking Obamacare to the growth in part-time employment. " If it was such a fact, no conservative media outlet would be so out of step. Looks like you've been duped, Dccpa.Speaking of lies, how about your first link? Here is a nice simple summary from your chosen web site that doesn't try to dazzle with details. Where oh where is that 2. 4 jobs you mentioned? I only see 330 k you for July and yoy for June showed a net loss.
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost
Now look at your second link. Notice the increase, let me say that again, INCREASE in part time jobs since Obamacare took effect. And before you try to spin the yoy decrease, that has been mentioned by employers that they cut jobs as Obamacare took effect in January. We won't know the full effect of the job damage from Obamacare for years.
We won't know the full effect of the job damage from Obamacare for years.The Congressional Budget Office tried to estimate it, and came up with the loss of 2. 5 million full time job equivalents by 2024:
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45010-breakout-AppendixC.pdf
I don't know that we want to go to the European extreme, but as society industrializes, the work week normally shrinks. So it might be time to re-think the idea of 40 hours as full time. I admit it's handy since it divides the 24 hour day nicely and if we wanted to maintain that the work week would have to go to 32 (or 4 eights) and that seems a bit low to remain competitive. You look at carbon footprints and so forth and it argues for more hours per day and fewer days per week. I think moving to 4 tens as the norm would increase productivity and reduce employee expenses. At least in my state, you would still be looking at 20 minutes of paid break and 30 minutes of unpaid lunch whether it's 5 eights or 4 tens, so you'd gain 20 minutes per week as an employer. Employees would largely prefer it and it would have positive externalities.
No new schools should be built until all schools are operating say 80 hours per week. Government offices should be open from 7 AM to 9 PM. Basically, physical facilities should be used exhaustively like they are in the private sector. That's going to mean more maintenance expense and we need to address the roads and bridges sooner rather than later. Now, the tax burden falls on the transporter. There is a free rider problem. I don't have a car, so I pay no gas tax, but yet I consume products that were transported by rail or truck, so I still have an interest in a good transportation infrastructure whether I drive or not.
Libertarians and their ilk tend to support usage-based fees and so do I, but the problem is, usage can be really tricky to figure out. I more think that infrastructure should be financed from general rather than specific revenues. Like an airport. Suppose I am afraid to fly so I never fly. Does that mean I don't benefit from the airport? I still do because people can visit me, and I can send freight, and some goods can be marketed more cheaply by air whether I fly or not, and so forth. Non-drivers are free riders. They don't pay for driver's licenses or gas or anything like that, but they still benefit from the existence of roads.
Obamacare is going to increase the free rider problem, but my guess is that the increase in the coverage rate will offset this. We can now see that the states that somewhat inexplicably decided not to expand Medicaid are not seeing coverage increases, but those states that expanded have seen very significant gains:
http://www.press-citizen.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/05/obama-health-law-tale-two-americas/13655519/
The truest test of any society is how it treats its weaker members and increased health care coverage, especially coverage for preventive care, is a definite step in the right direction. It might take 100 years to hit the tilting point where the future benefits are greater than the past costs, but I don't think so. I think we are already there. Just think about how heinous it was to not cover people with pre-existing conditions. What the fuck were they supposed to do, just curl up and die? I think that ultimately, the Affordable Car Act will increase labor force participation, due to better pre-natal, infant, youth, and adult continuing care, although that might take a generation or two.
Dccpa, the numbers are crystal clear in the first BLS link. In the row "Full-time workers", the number is 118489 for July 2014 and 116156 for July 2013. A difference of 2333 (thousands) or 2. 4 M (rounded up). No lies just facts. In the second link, you are again cherry-picking two points (July 2014 vs. January 2014) which show a very slight increase in part-time jobs. But it's easily within the noise observed over the clear multi-year downtrend, which includes other brief periods where the slope was positive before again going negative. And, there is nothing linking this with the ACA, as the employer mandate hasn't even gone into effect.
Tiny's CBO report is old news, but good news. The CBO clearly stated it's estimates were not of people losing jobs. Rather, they were for people voluntarily choosing to work less as health insurance becomes more affordable. Imagine, someone juggling 2 or 3 jobs to make ends meet and pay for insurance, now can work 1 or 2 jobs, spend more time with their family or pursue more education, etc. That is freedom, and likely to exert upward pressure on both labor demand and wages.
I know some right wingers are desperate to find any support they can, but it's hopeless. The data is overwhelming that the jobs market keeps getting stronger, and the data is absent that the ACA has significantly affected jobs. Get over it, your propaganda has been exposed as a fraud.
Meanwhile, millions of Americans are now benefitting from the ACA. Here is just one story of thousands. Even the NRA would applaud an outcome like this one.
Study: Obamacare helping more youth to get mental health treatment
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/study-obamacare-helping-more-youth-get-mental-health-treatment
Well, what do you know. What an elite force, just the team to go to Iraq and clean up the mess. And take care of Putin on the way home.
Sylvestor Stallone, Jason Statham, Antonio Banderas, Jet Li, Wesley Snipes, Harrison Ford, Chuck Norris, Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger and a host of others. Now if they only could resurrect Steve McQueen and Eli Wallach, I might even join them.
Funny, I am so out of it that I didn't even know about the Expendables till today.
Dccpa, the numbers are crystal clear in the first BLS link. In the row "Full-time workers", the number is 118489 for July 2014 and 116156 for July 2013. A difference of 2333 (thousands) or 2. 4 M (rounded up). No lies just facts. In the second link, you are again cherry-picking two points (July 2014 vs. January 2014) which show a very slight increase in part-time jobs. But it's easily within the noise observed over the clear multi-year downtrend, which includes other brief periods where the slope was positive before again going negative. And, there is nothing linking this with the ACA, as the employer mandate hasn't even gone into effect.
Who is cherry picking again?
Since you are using the most worthless seasonally adjusted numbers let us go with them.
May 118,727.
June 118,204.
July 118,489.
That would be 200 k jobs lost in the last two months. But wait, you claimed we have been gaining 200 k jobs a month.
No need to continuously debate numbers that are fake when there is a trump card to be played.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
Labor force participation rate shows a. 5% net loss yoy. Get back to me with your spin of how all those jobs are being created and yet the labor participation rate is declining.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
Labor force participation rate shows a. 5% net loss yoy. Get back to me with your spin of how all those jobs are being created and yet the labor participation rate is declining.Goodness, that is dismal! The last time I looked at the figures was about 3 months ago. I thought the participation rate had turned the corner and was headed upwards. And we wouldn't have poor Esten to beat up on anymore. Guess I was wrong. Obama et al need to get serious about doing things that will improve employment participation and increase middle class incomes instead of obsessing about redistribution.
Labor force participation rate shows a. 5% net loss yoy. Get back to me with your spin of how all those jobs are being created and yet the labor participation rate is declining.You don't understand.
According to Nancy Pelosi this is a good thing because it means that more people will be able to "follow their dreams", including their dream of never having to work to support themselves, their dream of having others pay for the things they need, and their dream of laying around waiting to vote for liberal politicans.
Since you are using the most worthless seasonally adjusted numbers let us go with them.
May 118,727.
June 118,204.
July 118,489.
That would be 200 k jobs lost in the last two months. But wait, you claimed we have been gaining 200 k jobs a month.
Dccpa, you're embarassing yourself. Let's put up all the numbers over the past year. There is a clear steady upward trend in full-time jobs. Part-time jobs are about flat, after dipping between summers. As for the LFPR, I suggest you do some digging into the underlying causes, such as changing demographics (baby boomers) and more people pursuing higher education.
Full-time Part-time
2013 Jul 116,156 28,184
2013 Aug 116,301 27,888
2013 Sep 116,883 27,421
2013 Oct 116,306 27,211
2013 Nov 116,951 27,461
2013 Dec 117,278 27,372
2014 Jan 117,656 27,540
2014 Feb 117,819 27,330
2014 Mar 118,003 27,695
2014 Apr 118,415 27,297
2014 May 118,727 27,219
2014 Jun 118,204 28,01
2014 Jul 118,489 28,070
Numbers in thousands
Source: http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea06.pdf
According to Nancy Pelosi this is a good thing because it means that more people will be able to "follow their dreams", including their dream of never having to work to support themselves, their dream of having others pay for the things they need, and their dream of laying around waiting to vote for liberal politicans.Pelosi was talking about how the ACA lowers the cost of health insurance for low-income Americans. This would indeed potentially allow some of these people to work fewer hours, and thus pursue other ambitions such as going back to school (to get a better job) or some other endeavor. The ACA doesn't support people financially otherwise, it is strictly about lessening the burden to pay for healthcare insurance. Apparently this runs contrary to the beliefs of some conservatives, who would rather increase the burden on low-income people, and if they can't afford it (but make too much to qualify for Medicaid), it's tough shitsky as some here would say.
Once again, the right wingers pull out their insulting "Americans are lazy" rhetoric to twist the words, views and intentions of liberals (who value hard work as much as anyone). As I have said before, misinformation is a core strategy for right wingers. They often seem unwilling or unable to make thoughtful, convincing arguments about why their views and policies are better. So they resort to misrepresenting others.
Dccpa, you're embarassing yourself. Let's put up all the numbers over the past year. There is a clear steady upward trend in full-time jobs. Part-time jobs are about flat, after dipping between summers. As for the LFPR, I suggest you do some digging into the underlying causes, such as changing demographics (baby boomers) and more people pursuing higher education.
Full-time Part-time
2013 Jul 116,156 28,184
2013 Aug 116,301 27,888
2013 Sep 116,883 27,421
2013 Oct 116,306 27,211
2013 Nov 116,951 27,461
2013 Dec 117,278 27,372
2014 Jan 117,656 27,540
2014 Feb 117,819 27,330
2014 Mar 118,003 27,695
2014 Apr 118,415 27,297
2014 May 118,727 27,219
2014 Jun 118,204 28,01
2014 Jul 118,489 28,070
Numbers in thousands
Source: http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea06.pdf
Population growth, United States of America:
2013 Jul 186443
2013 Aug 186554
2013 Sep 186664
2013 Oct 186775
2013 Nov 186996
2013 Dec 187107
2014 Jan 187217
2014 Feb 187328
2014 Mar 187439
2014 Apr 187549
2014 May 187661
2014 Jun 187771
2014 Jul 187883
Numbers in thousands.
Please note the increase in population is considerably more than the increase in jobs.
You are right Esten, retirement is responsible for part of the decline in labor force participation. So too are the policies and incompetency of the Obama administration and its allies in Congress.
Dccpa, you're embarassing yourself. Let's put up all the numbers over the past year. There is a clear steady upward trend in full-time jobs. Part-time jobs are about flat, after dipping between summers. As for the LFPR, I suggest you do some digging into the underlying causes, such as changing demographics (baby boomers) and more people pursuing higher education.
Full-time Part-time
2013 Jul 116,156 28,184
2013 Aug 116,301 27,888
2013 Sep 116,883 27,421
2013 Oct 116,306 27,211
2013 Nov 116,951 27,461
2013 Dec 117,278 27,372
2014 Jan 117,656 27,540
2014 Feb 117,819 27,330
2014 Mar 118,003 27,695
2014 Apr 118,415 27,297
2014 May 118,727 27,219
2014 Jun 118,204 28,01
2014 Jul 118,489 28,070
Numbers in thousands
Source: http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea06.pdfThat's the best you can do? The baby boomers have just started retiring, they aren't responsible for a 40 year low in the labor force participation rate. People are pursuing higher education because the first degree didn't get them a job. Just like people are pursuing disability because they cannot find a new job. I have hundreds of clients I see each year and that keeps me aware of what is really happening vs. The government statistical fairyland. BTW, you ever going to acknowledge that fracking created a million real jobs in the last few years, in spite of BO?
Since the BLS added the birth / death rate assumption, the statistics have been meaningless.
Looks like they started falsifying the numbers even more starting with. January, 2014! Of course, the timing is just a coincidence.
http://www.bls.gov/sae/benchmark2014.pdf
The ACA doesn't support people financially otherwise, it is strictly about lessening the burden to pay for healthcare insurance.It lessens the burden on some people by placing the burden on others, along with the bureaucratic costs necessary to effect the transfer.
How the fuck is that fair?
Once again, the right wingers pull out their insulting "Americans are lazy" rhetoric to twist the words, views and intentions of liberals (who value hard work as much as anyone).Americans aren't lazy in general, only the able-bodied ones who demand other people's money be given to them in exchange for doing nothing.
In case I wasn't clear anough before, let me say it again: Any able-bodied person who takes money from the government in exchange for doing nothing is a lazy fuck!
As I have said before, misinformation is a core strategy for right wingers. They often seem unwilling or unable to make thoughtful, convincing arguments about why their views and policies are better. So they resort to misrepresenting others.Jajajajaja! This, from the Master of Dis-information!
Here, let me fix that for you.
"As I have said before, misinformation is a core strategy for right left wingers. They often seem unwilling or unable to make thoughtful, convincing arguments about why their views and policies are better. So they resort to misrepresenting others."
Commissioner of Labor Statistics admits unemployment figures "doctored" by Obama administration
The current Commissioner of Labor Statistics Erica Groshen admitted in a press conference today that the Bureau of Labor Statistic's official unemployment figures are "completely meaningless".
When aggressively questioned by MSNBC reporters, the Commissioner went on to say "The government's unemployment rate statistics are so easily manipulated. Want a lower unemployment number, then just claim that everybody whose has exhausted their unemployment benefits are now magically no longer looking for jobs, and thus they may be dropped from the unemployment statistics."
Commissioner Groshen continued "Anyone with any brains knows that the only relevant number is the percentage of Americans who actually have jobs, as this number is not subject to bureaucratic or political manipulation like the easily redefined number of Americans who are 'looking for jobs'."
"By using the Obama Administration's current system, if everybody stopped looking for jobs tomorrow, we would have an unemployment rate of 0.0, which the administration would call 'full employment'."
"The fact is that fewer Americans actually have jobs now than when Obama took office 5 years ago, and that's the only statistic that counts."
http://www.newsday.com/business/columnists/carrie-mason-draffen/executive-suite-erica-groshen-u-s-labor-statistics-chief-1.4694753
http://www.boston.com/jobs/news/2013/09/07/the-hot-seat-bureau-labor-statisticscommissioner-erica-groshen/SgEfKWcQXZp8z01mEaDIsM/story.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-leadership/wp/2013/05/22/meet-the-new-bureau-of-labor-statistics-commissioner
The Big Picture is that the Financial Crisis in 2007 was a disaster in jobs. Familiar with all that?
We read about the slow recovery. Companies that did not closed shop learned to cope with a leaner look. Outsourcing, temporary workers, robotics were already trending even before that.
Any crisis of that magnitude will result in in a large part of the labor force never quite recovering the tsunami. E. g. 40-65 age group.
We already talk at length that Americans are behind in technical & science abilities & training.
Technological innovations will result in traditional jobs being made obsolete.
And so on. I know the bashing here is kind of fun & stimulating for some people. But the blinders-on talking points are ridiculous.
I have read the three threads that you recommended and I think for someone to come away with the opinion that you have you are looking for anything that is detrimental to what the Obama admin is doing. I failed to find anything in any of these threads that justified your stinging accusation that this admin is cooking the books. Are you so naiev to think in this day of such partison politics that the executive branch could get away with falsifying such an important statistic as employment numbers? I don't mean to sound nasty but I wonder if you spend a lot of time watching fox news.
I have read the three threads that you recommended and I think for someone to come away with the opinion that you have you are looking for anything that is detrimental to what the Obama admin is doing. I failed to find anything in any of these threads that justified your stinging accusation that this admin is cooking the books. Are you so naiev to think in this day of such partison politics that the executive branch could get away with falsifying such an important statistic as employment numbers? I don't mean to sound nasty but I wonder if you spend a lot of time watching fox news.If you believe that the numbers aren't manipulated, you are very naive. The executive branch doesn't need to falsify numbers. By virtue of the changed definitions, the exclusions, the seasonal adjustments, etc. , the numbers are falsified by government employees following the rules.
Anyone who has paid any attention to government economic statistics knows that the numbers are manipulated, massaged, seasonally adjusted and recalculated. The number manipulation goes back to at least the Kennedy administration and every President since has added his own special adjustment. If unemployment numbers don't look good, create several levels and start using one with a lower unemployment number. Inflation too high, remove food and energy from the equation. Inflation still too high because of rising housing prices, switch to using rent. Are you aware that over $1 T of our GDP is the rent a homeowner could be paying himself and the interest income you could be earning on your interest free checking account? I am not joking.
Most small businesses I know don't even send in labor reports. Why would a small business waste its time on a useless government report that doesn't benefit the business? And when they are sent in, the numbers are worthless as compiling accurate numbers would take even more time away from productive work.
Don't watch tv news shows, so I can't speak to whatever you were talking about on Fox News.
If you want to truly learn about how the last several Presidents have falsified the true economic numbers watch Chris Martenson's original crash course series.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7E8A774DA8435EEB
I have read the three threads that you recommended and I think for someone to come away with the opinion that you have you are looking for anything that is detrimental to what the Obama admin is doing. I failed to find anything in any of these threads that justified your stinging accusation that this admin is cooking the books. Are you so naiev to think in this day of such partison politics that the executive branch could get away with falsifying such an important statistic as employment numbers? I don't mean to sound nasty but I wonder if you spend a lot of time watching fox news.You are correct, the government uses a standardized approach to gather and report employment and economic statistics, that has been more or less consistent for decades. We covered this topic before. Even if someone thought the methods were skewed to makes things look more favorable (not that it is), it's been that way consistently so you can compare with past years and past presidents apples to apples.
The post by "The Truth" was a complete fabrication, none of those quotes were in any of the three links. Think about it, would someone running the BLS actually say something like "Anyone with any brains knows ". Probably something written here...
This is all part of the right wing denial of the strong jobs data we have been seeing recently. The last 6 months of 200K+ jobs is the strongest jobs growth since 1997. 2.4 Million jobs in the past year. First some here tried to claim it was all or mostly part-time jobs, but in fact the data shows it's mostly full-time jobs. Then they try to claim the numbers are phony or fabricated, but that's simply not true. The fact that someone would go to the length of creating a false news story and posting it here, reveals the utter, craven desperation of the AP right wingers. They are beyond Fox News, if that is possible. The strong jobs data flies in the face of every lie and distortion they have posted, and they have difficulty dealing with it.
The last 6 months of 200K+ jobs is the strongest jobs growth since 1997. 2.4 Million jobs in the past year. Esten, you're confusing the crap out of me. Earlier you said,
Dccpa, you're embarassing yourself. Let's put up all the numbers over the past year. There is a clear steady upward trend in full-time jobs. Part-time jobs are about flat, after dipping between summers. As for the LFPR, I suggest you do some digging into the underlying causes, such as changing demographics (baby boomers) and more people pursuing higher education.
Full-time Part-time
2013 Jul 116,156 28,184
2013 Aug 116,301 27,888
2013 Sep 116,883 27,421
2013 Oct 116,306 27,211
2013 Nov 116,951 27,461
2013 Dec 117,278 27,372
2014 Jan 117,656 27,540
2014 Feb 117,819 27,330
2014 Mar 118,003 27,695
2014 Apr 118,415 27,297
2014 May 118,727 27,219
2014 Jun 118,204 28,01
2014 Jul 118,489 28,070
Numbers in thousands
Source: http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea06.pdf
So how are you coming up with 200K+/month job growth over the last 6 months or 2.4 million over the past year?
Interesting observation Tiny, but the 200K+ per month is widely reported. Perhaps the BLS numbers I quoted reflect adjustments or revisions after the fact, I am not entirely sure. But those numbers do show 2.4 Million jobs year over year, consistent with 200K+/month over half the period.
BTW, your population numbers show a one-year change 187883-186443 = 1.4M, which is less than the 118489-116156 = 2.4M increase in jobs. What population metric is that?
Steady USA Job Growth Stretches Into Sixth Consecutive Month
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-08-01/u-dot-s-dot-jobs-growth-continues-in-july-jobless-rate-ticks-up-to-6-dot-2-percent
July jobs report comes in above 200 K for 6th consecutive month
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/3708808200001/july-jobs-report-comes-in-above-200k-for-6th-consecutive-month/#sp=show-clips.
Former Press Secretary Jay Carney admits White House "massaged" unemployment numbers before 2012 election.
In a stunning interview today on the Daily Kos website, Former Press Secretary Jay Carney admits that the Department of Labor was instructed by White House "officials" to "massage" the unemployment numbers before 2012 election, this resulting in the magical drop of the official unemployment figures from 8.3% to 7.8%, putting the number in the coveted 7% zone.
Carney went on to state "In hindsight, I can't believe we weren't challenged on what was an unbelievable drop in the unemployment number, but the news media simply accepted the new number without question. With the help of the media, we would have never gotten away with this. Even now, the media continues to ignore the story. Can you imagine how they'd howl if a Republican President had done the same thing?"
When questioned further by aggressive Daily Kos interviewers, Carney said "Fortunately, The President did not have any direct involvement in the situation, and in fact the President only learned about the manipulation of the unemployment numbers when it was belatedly reported on the TV news."
http://nypost.com/2013/11/18/census-faked-2012-election-jobs-report/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/11/27/did-the-bls-give-obama-a-major-election-2012-gift/
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/11/19/did-census-bureau-fake-unemployment-numbers-leading-2012-election
In a stunning interview today on the Daily Kos website, Former Press Secretary Jay Carney admits that the Department of Labor was instructed by White House "officials" to "massage" the unemployment numbers before 2012 election, this resulting in the magical drop of the official unemployment figures from 8.3% to 7.8%, putting the number in the coveted 7% zone.
Carney went on to state "In hindsight, I can't believe we weren't challenged on what was an unbelievable drop in the unemployment number, but the news media simply accepted the new number without question. With the help of the media, we would have never gotten away with this. Even now, the media continues to ignore the story. Can you imagine how they'd howl if a Republican President had done the same thing?"
When questioned further by aggressive Daily Kos interviewers, Carney said "Fortunately, The President did not have any direct involvement in the situation, and in fact the President only learned about the manipulation of the unemployment numbers when it was belatedly reported on the TV news."
http://nypost.com/2013/11/18/census-faked-2012-election-jobs-report/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/11/27/did-the-bls-give-obama-a-major-election-2012-gift/
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/11/19/did-census-bureau-fake-unemployment-numbers-leading-2012-electionLooking forward to more postings from an old timer. Your pioneer BA days give you legitimate credibility.
Just watch the "friendly fire". You are exposing and wiping out your own foxholes. DonB, watch out!!
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/12/rush-limbaugh-robin-williams-killed-himself-due-le/
Every day, I say to myself, take a break from posting. And yet I can't help myself.
http://nypost.com/2013/11/18/census-faked-2012-election-jobs-report/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/11/27/did-the-bls-give-obama-a-major-election-2012-gift/
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/11/19/did-census-bureau-fake-unemployment-numbers-leading-2012-electionI looked at these 3 links for amusement. While there's no mention of Jay Carney, they do discuss what became another right-wing conspiracy theory around the jobs numbers just before the 2012 election.
The genesis and development of it is very interesting. It started with an article in the New York Post, a right wing trash tabloid that specializes in Obama and Democrat hit-pieces, owned by the same owner as Fox News. They publish an article quoting an anonymous source who says that some data going into the jobs report is fake. We have no idea who this source is, and no explanation how some fake data (if true) doesn't get caught but has a major impact on a jobs report. NYP publishes it under the title "Census 'faked' 2012 election jobs report".
Then a Libertarian writer (Peter Ferrara) at a right wing financial site (Forbes) quotes the NYP article, presenting it as "evidence". Mr. Ferrara, BTW, was at the time selling a book called "Obama and the Crash of 2013". LOL. And Fox News is right there regurgitating the story as fact as well. All based on some anonymous source.
While "The Truth"'s post is creative fiction, it is a real fact that right wing media and politicians cooperate regularly to deceive Americans.
American Society of News Editors: "Left wing media and politicians cooperate regularly to deceive Americans."
In a recent speech before the American Society of News Editors, it's president David Boardman candidly discussed his profession's "overt" left wing bias. "It's time for us to acknowledge that those of us in the media do have a liberal bias, and this bias has been good for America."
Boardman further stated "The fact is that this country would never have elected it's first black president without the help of the liberal media, and I say it's time for journalists to be proud of their liberal agenda and to be equally proud of their influence in shaping the positive direction of this country."
http://gigaom.com/2014/07/16/newspaper-companies-need-to-stop-lying-to-themselves-says-longtime-newspaper-editor/
http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/top-stories/259122/essay-hey-publishers-stop-fooling-us-and-yourselves/
http://ajrarchive.org/article.asp?id=4870
Daddy Rulz
08-28-14, 16:23
The guys who this is for know who they are.
29207
JW runs Shadowstats which is a site that keeps the economic numbers using the pre bastardized changes that started with the Kennedy administration. The entire interview is well worth listening too, but for the unemployment information start about the 11 minute point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clrpVNoPHII#t=692.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-california-judges-censured-sex-courthouse-20140902-story.html
Why worry about foreign threats, when you are self destructing at home. And not laughing about Argentina so much.
And not laughing about Argentina so much.Who on this forum is laughing about Argentina?
Who on this forum is laughing about Argentina?I apologize, my mistake/. I took the snorts for laughter.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-dick-cheney-blindly-beats-the-drums-of-war/2014/09/10/0ccda798-3921-11e4-9c9f-ebb47272e40e_story.html?tid=trending_strip_2
More money making schemes from the used car salesman. Albeit a very rich & successful legal con man.
Punter 127
09-13-14, 03:29
War drums beating again!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-dick-cheney-blindly-beats-the-drums-of-war/2014/09/10/0ccda798-3921-11e4-9c9f-ebb47272e40e_story.html?tid=trending_strip_2
More money making schemes from the used car salesman. Albeit a very rich & successful legal con man.Dick Cheney is just another "successful old white guy", you know, the kind you love to hate!
29225
I assume you prefer the double talk of the lost in la la land community organizer great divider.
Dick Cheney is just another "successful old white guy", you know, the kind you love to hate!
29225
I assume you prefer the double talk of the lost in la la land community organizer great divider.
And such a heavy burden to carry around. I prefer the word "dislike" better. "Irritated" or "annoyed" might even be more correct.
And you do take the liberty of labeling all the "old white" guys" that I hang around with as being "poor white trash"?
Punter 127
09-13-14, 11:58
And such a heavy burden to carry around. I prefer the word "dislike" better. "Irritated" or "annoyed" might even be more correct.
And you do take the liberty of labeling all the "old white" guys" that I hang around with as being "poor white trash"?You may think of them as "poor white trash" but those are your thoughts and your words, not mine.
Dick Cheney is just another "successful old white guy", you know, the kind you love to hate!I did not make them up.
Punter 127
09-13-14, 21:01
Dick Cheney is just another "successful old white guy", you know, the kind you love to hate!
29225
I assume you prefer the double talk of the lost in la la land community organizer great divider.
I did not make them up.Those are my words and I stand by them, spin it how ever you want.
Those are my words and I stand by them, spin it how ever you want.I get the message, Donald Sterling!
Punter 127
09-14-14, 00:37
I get the message, Donald Sterling!Donald Sterling? Absurd!
But not surprising considering the source.
Mid-term elections is only around 6 weeks away. The main focus will be for the battle for the Senate. On it will ride Obama's legacy because given the opportunity, the Republicans will try to impeach Obama and dismantle the Affordable Care Act. The fangs have already been sharpen and the barks will become ferocious tearing bites if the Senate swing Republican. It will be a feeding frenzy unseen since Attila the Hun swept through Europe. A fitting description, no?
While I have not been following the key races that closely, it seems that the AP Glee Club gloating boasts of a few months ago is now somewhat subdued. A lesson learned from 2012 when cockiness turn to incredulous despair. But it is also true that the Democrats will be fighting for their lives this time around.
Having been notified that I often made rash statements, perhaps, I should refrain from making a prediction. Or should I? Very interesting.
Nobody is going to impeach Obama. They are too damn scared. I hear he's really good at killing people.
http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-said-hes-really-good-at-killing-people-2013-11
It's so quiet, it's eerie!Some conservatives may be down at the Koch Freedom Jamboree. They are trying to develop a new strategy for the upcoming midterms, now that their ObamaScare and "Obama has no strategy" bullshit has dried up.
Some conservatives may be down at the Koch Freedom Jamboree. They are trying to develop a new strategy for the upcoming midterms, now that their ObamaScare and "Obama has no strategy" bullshit has dried up.I think Republicans already have a strategy. It is called we are not Obama. I haven't met anyone who likes the Republican Senate candidate in my state. Yet he leads over an incumbent Democrat. That should tell you that the public isn't buying what Obama is selling. If Republicans take over the Senate, you are going to be in for a real eye opener. You are going to see the real Barack Obama, the one who believes the US Constitution is an inconvenience to be ignored.
After President Obama stated that they didn't have a strategy for the isis problem I think it was interesting that people like me thought this is great, their thinking this out.
If W was the commander in chief his response would of been-- well I hadn't heard that but if its true we will invade, probably next week.
Punter 127
09-29-14, 07:01
After President Obama stated that they didn't have a strategy for the isis problem I think it was interesting that people like me thought this is great, their thinking this out.
If W was the commander in chief his response would of been-- well I hadn't heard that but if its true we will invade, probably next week.Really? Can you name one place that "W" invaded without the approval of congress?
Now tell us how many times Obama has used military force without the approval of congress?
Punter 127
09-29-14, 07:11
Nobody wants to be Obama.
I think Republicans already have a strategy. It is called we are not Obama. I haven't met anyone who likes the Republican Senate candidate in my state. Yet he leads over an incumbent Democrat. That should tell you that the public isn't buying what Obama is selling. If Republicans take over the Senate, you are going to be in for a real eye opener. You are going to see the real Barack Obama, the one who believes the US Constitution is an inconvenience to be ignored.Some Democrats are using that same "I'm not Obama" strategy.
Look what Democrat Alison Grimes in Kentucky is saying.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7Pa16JPUlY
If Gimes is to be believed, why would the Democrat party support her?
You guys are going to love this. So even though the government is subsidizing my health insurance, they stubbornly refuse to give me any spending money, so I've been working part-time. I have one job where I stand there doing nothing so I figured I would get another one where I could sit there doing nothing in case I got tired of standing. So I got a job as an on-line tutor for some outfit, working Saturday and Sunday evenings.
I have now done six 5 hours shifts and I have had exactly one student. I am not really complaining but last night I was so bored, I started investigating the company. I was kinda wondering how they could make any money since they were paying me and no one seemed to be paying them. So guess who is paying them?
That's right; the federal government. It seems they get federal funds to have assholes like me available to answer questions for not just high school kids but college students who are eligible under TRIO criteria (first generation college student, Native American, blah blah blah). This is Bush's brainchild: "No Child Left Behind" (Jerry Sandusky misread this as "Leave No Child's Behind"). And, they have to have tutors available for all kinds of subjects whether there is really any demand for them or not. I wondered from the very beginning because they had a two-tiered pay structure and some of the classes they were paying a premium for were like Hmong and Lao and such like. And my subjects are also premium ones, and would not commonly be offered at the high school level.
So the government is paying someone to pay me to do nothing. Well, not nothing; they are paying me to watch sports and last night I created a spreadsheet to analyze the effective interest rate on credit card balance transfers. Now that I know this is the case, maybe I will sign up for some more hours. Even if I did accidentally get some students, there is no audio or camera, just a whiteboard, so I could still be watching the games. Plus this job I can take with me when I leave the country again.
The education industry is about as corrupt as the prison industry these days.
After President Obama stated that they didn't have a strategy for the isis problem I think it was interesting that people like me thought this is great, their thinking this out.
If W was the commander in chief his response would of been-- well I hadn't heard that but if its true we will invade, probably next week.Their is not a contraction of they are.
Don B.
If W was the commander in chief his response would of been...If W was the Commander in Chief, those sex-starved lunatics in the desert would never have been embolden enough to form ISIS, not to mention beheading American citizens, given that they would have known that they would have been the targets of a swift and certain destruction by the US Military.
Peace through Strength, but of course, you have to have the balls to use it.
Yea I must agree congress hasn't authouized the air war in Iraq and Syria they have too busy voting 52 times to defund Obamacare. Maybe if we had a secretary of state that would be willing to lie to the world and say Isis has weapons of mass destruction in no time we could send an ill equiped and undersized army to win this war in 6 months because they would be received as liberators. I would like to remind parents of soldiers to buy their kids bullet proof vests while there still here because like the last 6 month war the military won't have enough to go around. But heck in no time we can alienate the entire world and no one will send a suicide bomber near any of us. They will be much too scared. My goodness we all long for the good old days when we were the laughing stock of the world.
Rc Collins
09-29-14, 23:27
ISIS is a direct result of the Iraq invasion but the right will never admit that. Daniel Pearl was beheaded in in Pakistan and Nick berg was beheaded in Iraq while Bush and Cheney was in office touting their mighty power to the world. Irrational people do not fear politicians or militaries. North Korea continually taunted Bush the entire time he was in office and he did nothing about it. Russia invaded Georgia while Bush was in office and he did nothing about it. Russia shot down a Korean Airliner with many Americans on board and Reagan did nothing about it.
There were 11 attacks on US Embassies during the Bush years killing over 70 Americans. These attacks were from the same irrational people who were supposed to be afraid of Bush/Cheney. Bush or any conservative "war" president in command is not a deterrent nor would not put fear in the hearts of any irrational country or groups. If irrational people feared military power, 9-11 would never had occurred.
ISIS is a direct result of Obama's withdrawal of the American military after Bush's successful liberation of Iraq from a brutal dictator, but the left will never admit that.
Thanks,
Jax.
ISIS is a direct result of Obama's withdrawal of the American military after Bush's successful liberation of Iraq from a brutal dictator, but the left will never admit that.
Thanks,
Jax.Wow! This is so wrong I can't quite believe that you can actually believe it! Saddam H was a brutal dictator, for sure, but everything else is nonsense. Suggest that you extend your news gathering to other sources other than Fox.
If I'm not mistaken 6 weeks before W turned the presidency over to Obama, after several years of negotiating with the Iraq government w signed an agreement with the waco in charge of Iraq A Mr Malike The agreement said all American troops must be out of Iraq by Dec 31 2011. Thats when the agreement with Iraq that they would not prosicute any US soldier for any crimes that they may commit such as shooting someone in self defense. An agreement that every country has agreed to that has US troops. My departure date may be off but I'm sure the rest is correct. When Iraq refused to extend that agreement the US had no choice but to leave.
I just looked it up and Its called the status of forces agreement. It seems that that agreement isn't the same in every country we have troops in. Some countrys have more leeway when handling an incident with a soldier. In Iraq we demanded That any us military Personal involved in any incident would be handled by the US military. Iraq wouldn't agree to it so here we are. Some of our right wingers in congress have stated that Obama didn't negotiate hard enough. Come on W signed the agreement not O. Also Senator Mccaine said there were loop holes in the agreement. Before we sent advisors back into Iraq the new president signed a new status of forces agreement. Case closed.
I just love these circular reasoning contests. Or not.
ISIS is a direct result of Obama's withdrawal of the American military after Bush's successful liberation of Iraq from a brutal dictator, but the left will never admit that.
Thanks,
Jax.If ever there was a line from Hannity, that was it. Spoken with total sincerity, too.
ISIS is a direct result of the Iraq invasion but the right will never admit that.If ever there was a line from Rachael Maddow, that was it. Spoken with total sincerity, too.
Rc Collins
09-30-14, 15:44
If ever there was a line from Rachael Maddow, that was it. Spoken with total sincerity, too.Setting your verbal gymnastics aside, the statement below is a factual conclusion no independent voter can deny. BTW, I don't watch Maddow's show so I have no idea what her lines are.
ISIS is a direct result of the Iraq invasion but the right will never admit that.
History is history, no matter who is at fault. ISIS is a very real threat, now and in the future. They are well financed and well organized. Freedom loving people the world over must unite to stop ISIS before it is too late.
Tres3.
LOL. I am now reminded why I stopped reading these threads years ago. State propaganda 101.
Remember, we were dealing with a bad Iraqi president who refused the terms of a Status of Forces Agreement with the U.S., who fostered sectarian division, and who failed to ensure strong, effective leadership in the Iraqi military. If we had kept our troops in Iraq, nothing would have changed in Iraq, ISIS would have continued growing and planning in Syria, and there would not have been a regional and global coalition to address them.
Fast forward, and all of that has changed for the better. Not without a cost, but Iraq, the region and the world had to see the threat they faced to force this change.
It's a game of chess. We can debate whether it would have been better to keep troops in Iraq indefinitely. But since then, ISIS made some bad moves and Obama made some good moves. They will be contained, especially now that the campaign has moved into Syria.
As usual, the right is once again attempting to dumb-down a complex story into a simple message: It's Obama's Fault. It works well on their LIV base, not so much on those who apply some critical thinking. Critical thinking is a threat to conservatives; Bill Clinton said as much recently, when he said "The last thing they want you to do is think. "
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/217679-clinton-republicans-trying-to-get-you-to-check-your-brain-at
In my lifetime its hard to choose the best president from Harry Truman to Obama. Its easy to name the worst W. I voted for papa Bush the first term. Never voted for W so you can't blame me. Truman Eisenhower and nixon were probably the most influental I mean that in a positive way. Johnson and Carter passed the best legislation. Clinton raised taxes and that put our economy in such good shape we ran surpluses. I think this will light up this site. So Ok it needs a little life.
Punter 127
10-02-14, 01:10
Setting your verbal gymnastics aside, the statement below is a factual conclusion no independent voter can deny.
ISIS is a direct result of the Iraq invasion but the right will never admit that. I'm a (registered) "independent voter" and I deny your so called "factual conclusion", I view your statement as an "argument from ignorance" because it can't be proven or disproven. I think the problem started before Bush.
Bush or any conservative "war" president in command is not a deterrent nor would not put fear in the hearts of any irrational country or groups. If irrational people feared military power, 9-11 would never had occurred.Obama the bomber has bombed seven countries in six years!
Some of the bombings I refer to started under Bush but Obama continued them and even increased some. Apparently bombings from a Nobel Peace Prize holding president hasn't struck much fear in their hearts either.
So where do you suggest we go from here?
Punter, when W approved bombings he was trying to defeat bad guys and encourage democracy. When O approved bombings he was trying to clean up the mess W left behind.
It took our country 100 years to perfect democracy. OK this is debatable but in my opinion not until we fought a civil war did our democracy take hold. W and his cronies thought all they had to do was create a situation were citisens got to vote for their leader and that was democracy. W should of spent a little time studying history and what took place in Paris in 1917.
When W took out Hesein he removed the only force that was a balance against Iran. Hell we supported Iraq in their 8 year war with Iran. The world will be dealing with the mess W created for mucho mucho years.
Ok this is serious. If my bail bondsman comes through I will be in BA on Oct 08. I would love to meet any of you members for a beer. If the truth were known I am a well experienced rookie. Let me pick your brain for info. I have been to BA many times and I really love it. But with your knowledge and insight things would be better.
Has anyone been to the bar toward the end of Florida Street with the Alto sax player. I can't remember his name but if you walk to the end of Florida st he is on the left side standing just a little in the street. I can be found most nights in the outside cafe listening to his great music You can recognize me as I am a very handsome, slim, tall well dressed guy with girls hanging all over me.
Well OK I am short pudgy and you can recognize me being alone.
Join me for a beer.
Rc Collins
10-02-14, 07:44
I'm a (registered) "independent voter" and I deny your so called "factual conclusion", I view your statement as an "argument from ignorance" because it can't be proven or disproven. I think the problem started before Bush.
Obama the bomber has bombed seven countries in six years!
Some of the bombings I refer to started under Bush but Obama continued them and even increased some. Apparently bombings from a Nobel Peace Prize holding president hasn't struck much fear in their hearts either.
So where do you suggest we go from here?You're an independent voter in the same vein as Bill O'Reilly who also regularly claims to be independent but spends his nights bashing Obama and the democrats for everything while exculpating Bush and the right on most issues. An independent would go after both sides equally unless they've reached a conclusion as to which party they prefer as you seem to have done by your postings. Which is fine BTW, but in that case you cease to be independent.
What are the chances you will vote for a democrat in the next election given that their policies will always be liberal and appear to be in direct contrast to your postings? Your countering of the factual conclusion with an opinion is so not persuasive. Prior to Bush no groups dared to operate from Iraq because of the tyrant that was running the country and that is not an opinion. You missed the point about war presidents as that was a response to the post below and not anything you wrote but your derisive labeling of Obama again eliminates any doubts as to where your allegiance lies.
As to where do we go from here, we need more independent lawmakers to take action for the good of the country domestically and internationally. The two party system is screwing the tax payers royally. Very little gets done while both sides continually blame each other while they get rich off the tax payers. A large threat to the tax payers is right under our noses, our own law makers. Specifically as it relates to ISIS or any other terrorist groups which affect all countries; its quite simple, ALL countries need to step up and participate in or support the war against these groups. The US cannot be the constables of the world, the US needs to sit one or two of these conflicts out and let the chips fall. A lot of these countries sit on their hands because they know that America will always give up its citizens to die for the cause.
Member #4112
10-02-14, 10:11
Collins, there is nothing wrong with the system, the problem lies with career politicians both liberal and conservative and I use those labels lightly. They are more interested in reelection and feathering their own nests than the people's business. I don't remember the last time a poor boy got elected to Congress and did not leave a millionaire. Which raises the perfect argument for term limits, if it's good enough for the president then it's good enough for the House and Senate. At least in Texas we reduce our state legislature's mischief by limiting their ability to meet to 140 days every two years, maybe a good yardstick for Washington? Idle hands are the devil's play things.
The country elected a clown and now we have a circus; foreign policy, what foreign policy?; domestic policy. What domestic policy? ObamaCare, bears no resemblance in fact to what was promised and is about to collapse after the ruling there is no provision for subsidies under the federal program which I am sure is going to the Supremes making it the last nail in the coffin for that Frankenstein of a program.
Depending on the poll, Obama's numbers are in the high 30's or very low 40's, so we are talking Bush territory for the "Savior of American".
LOL yall talk politics with the chicas too? Who gives a shit about iraqi islamic whatevers they got pussy all over the place here.
Rc Collins
10-02-14, 11:39
Collins, there is nothing wrong with the system, the problem lies with career politicians both liberal and conservative and I use those labels lightly. They are more interested in reelection and feathering their own nests than the people's business. I don't remember the last time a poor boy got elected to Congress and did not leave a millionaire. Which raises the perfect argument for term limits, if it's good enough for the president then it's good enough for the House and Senate. At least in Texas we reduce our state legislature's mischief by limiting their ability to meet to 140 days every two years, maybe a good yardstick for Washington? Idle hands are the devil's play things.
The country elected a clown and now we have a circus; foreign policy, what foreign policy?; domestic policy. What domestic policy? ObamaCare, bears no resemblance in fact to what was promised and is about to collapse after the ruling there is no provision for subsidies under the federal program which I am sure is going to the Supremes making it the last nail in the coffin for that Frankenstein of a program.
Depending on the poll, Obama's numbers are in the high 30's or very low 40's, so we are talking Bush territory for the "Savior of American".Gosh that was an odd and contradictory statement! You stated that there was nothing wrong with the system then went on to list a number of problems affecting said system and even offered a solution to fix the system. The last paragraph of your post is as oxymoronic as the first but too vitriolic to respond to.
In my lifetime its hard to choose the best president from Harry Truman to Obama. Its easy to name the worst W. I voted for papa Bush the first term. Never voted for W so you can't blame me. Truman Eisenhower and nixon were probably the most influental I mean that in a positive way. Johnson and Carter passed the best legislation. Clinton raised taxes and that put our economy in such good shape we ran surpluses. I think this will light up this site. So Ok it needs a little life.I believe the Clinton surpluses were a result of counting social security / medicare revenues in the general budget. Another key factor was going to short term financing for our national debt. That change is going to hurt the US greatly at exactly the wrong time in the next few years. Clinton also oversaw the repeal of Glass Steagal Act and that has lead to the financial chaos of the last few years.
For me, Nixon and Obama are clearly the worst two Presidents during my lifetime. I never thought anyone could challenge Nixon's record of economic incompetence, but Obama is catching up and I think he can pull it off in two more years.
Best President for me would probably be a choice between Eisenhower and Kennedy.
If anyone wants to see a competent leader, look at John Key of New Zealand. That country has gone through the GFC, two major earthquakes in its 3rd largest city and their current bickering is over how to spend the projected surplus and why their currency and housing prices are too high.
Bill Clinton said as much recently, when he said "The last thing they want you to do is think. "
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/217679-clinton-republicans-trying-to-get-you-to-check-your-brain-atBill Clinton says something at a fundraiser and you are trying to present that as his real position? Everyone with a functioning brain cell knows that what is said at fundraisers is red meat for the target audience. With Clinton, you will need him to clearly define what each word means. Because, after all, it depends on how you define "is".
Member #4112
10-02-14, 14:40
Gosh that was an odd and contradictory statement! You stated that there was nothing wrong with the system then went on to list a number of problems affecting said system and even offered a solution to fix the system. The last paragraph of your post is as oxymoronic as the first but too vitriolic to respond to.Nothing odd or contradictory about it at all. Please follow along, I'll use little words for you.
We have a representative republic form of government, not a problem there as it is in my opinion the best option currently available.
The problem comes with the rise of career politicians and inherent conflicts of self interest vs public interest. Career politicians were not foreseen by the founding fathers when these documents were drafted, they foresaw people would serve their term then return to their "day jobs" after their term was over. Can you follow along so far?
The examples presented were suggestions to fix the current form of government making it more effective in its delivery of services to the electorate.
When Congress passed the 22nd Amendment to limit presidential terms in office it was not considered "odd or contradictory". Perhaps you disagree?
Regarding the reference to Obamacare, Obama's trademark legislative accomplishment, Obama's lack of foreign or domestic policy and Obama's poll numbers, as those poll numbers support the majority of the nation agrees the preceding are a disaster, if in your opinion this represents being oxymoronic and vitriolic then please feel free to stick your head back in the sand and don't look up again until after the mid-terms or possibility November 2016.
Regarding the worst presidents of my lifetime it would have to be Carter, Obama and Nixon in that order. Of course Carter is loving Obama as he will probably replace Carter at the very bottom of the list.
I think Republicans already have a strategy. It is called we are not Obama.
LOL !
In other words, another strategy based on emotion.
I have made a few comments on this site. Most of you may not recognize that I am a social liberal but a fiscal conservative. I demand that my congresional representative spend my tax revenue wisely. No one can disagree with that. Also I think we need to refresh and update our infrastructure. The benefits from working on our infastructure are gigantic. Putting people to work increases our tax revenue. Also, even though we spent. Off budget. A trillion dollars fighting a war in Iraq, we must never loose site that our military must be the best trained with the most advanced equipment available. Bad things will happen if we loose site of this. I can't remember his exact words but Eisenhower warned us that the military equipment providers were a future problem. Wow, how do we balance a need for superior military equipment with the understanding that equipment providers have always and will always try to rip us off.
Most people have a great deal of respect for former defense secretary Gates. I just wonder if Mr Gates has rested enough and ready for another challenge and become the head of a new cabinet post. Head of government military procurement. Military procurement represents a huge chunk of the military budget.
OK so again I'm just babbling. I'm sure the retired english teachers will have a field day with this and of course the scalars in our group are licking there chops. Just think about it.
Punter 127
10-03-14, 07:17
You're an independent voter in the same vein as Bill O'Reilly who also regularly claims to be independent but spends his nights bashing Obama and the democrats for everything while exculpating Bush and the right on most issues. An independent would go after both sides equally unless they've reached a conclusion as to which party they prefer as you seem to have done by your postings. Which is fine BTW, but in that case you cease to be independent.I know it's a hard pill for progressives to swallow but you and your ilk (yes that means you Rev BS) do not get to decide who is and who is not an independent voter. We are a free country and as such we all get to decide for ourselves what our political alliances will be, and we have the freedom to change our alliances at any time. Furthermore an independent does not have to "go after both sides equally" they have the freedom to speak out selectively. Sorry but independents also do not have to meet your self serving definition of being an independent, you simply don't get a say in the matter other than for yourself. End of story.
What are the chances you will vote for a democrat in the next election given that their policies will always be liberal and appear to be in direct contrast to your postings? Your countering of the factual conclusion with an opinion is so not persuasive. Prior to Bush no groups dared to operate from Iraq because of the tyrant that was running the country and that is not an opinion. You missed the point about war presidents as that was a response to the post below and not anything you wrote but your derisive labeling of Obama again eliminates any doubts as to where your allegiance lies.The chances of me voting for a Democrat are slim to none, but I do not accept that their policies are and always will be "liberal". In fact I don't think todays Democrat party is "liberal" at all, it's progressive totalitarian (aka: nannyism) and that's a far cry from being "liberal". Show me a Democrat that meets the following definitions of "liberal" and I'll consider voting for them.
1. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism, especially the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties.
2. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
3. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression.
4. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
5. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant:
Individual freedom or rights, get it?
Your claim that ISIS is a direct result of the Iraq invasion is so not persuasive. ISIS is a spin off of al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda is a global militant Islamist organization founded by Osama bin Laden, Abdullah Azzam, and several other militants, al-Qaeda formed long before the US invaded Iraq. Using your way of thinking one might say ISIS is a direct result of the killing of Osama bin Laden. Both claims are absurd if you ask me. Even if ISIS wasn't in Iraq it wouldn't prove they would not be in some other country such as syria.
If your conclusion was correct (which it's not) you act as if Bush got us in the Iraq war all by himself, do I need to remind you that Bush had bipartisan support for going into Iraq. And "Congress had many months to investigate and debate the administration's claims that Iraq was a threat as well as the likely implications of a US invasion. Members of Congress also fully recognized that the resolution authorized a full-scale invasion of a sovereign nation and a subsequent military occupation of an indefinite period. ".
Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, John Kerry, Dianne Feinstein, and Chuck Schumer just to name a few Democrats who voted for the Iraq Resolution authorizing military action against Iraq.
As to where do we go from here, we need more independent lawmakers to take action for the good of the country domestically and internationally. The two party system is screwing the tax payers royally. Very little gets done while both sides continually blame each other while they get rich off the tax payers. A large threat to the tax payers is right under our noses, our own law makers. Specifically as it relates to ISIS or any other terrorist groups which affect all countries; its quite simple, ALL countries need to step up and participate in or support the war against these groups. The US cannot be the constables of the world, the US needs to sit one or two of these conflicts out and let the chips fall. A lot of these countries sit on their hands because they know that America will always give up its citizens to die for the cause.Are you suggesting a single party system? We don't have a two party system per se, we have a system that two parties dominate, but the system is not limited. FYI, I didn't vote for Obama or Romney in the last election, but I did vote. I pretty much agree with the rest of what you say here, but we might not agree on what's good for the country.
As usual, steam emanating from your head and vaporizing into thin air.
Punter 127
10-03-14, 08:42
Why so angry?
As usual, steam emanating from your head and vaporizing into thin air.I just call it the way I see it.
I have an opinion, and you have yours, remember?
Are you could circle the wagons again, up to you.
Anyway I'm ROFLMAO.
Rc Collins
10-03-14, 09:19
I know it's a hard pill for progressives to swallow but you and your ilk (yes that means you Rev BS) do not get to decide who is and who is not an independent voter. By the process of deduction reasoning, a reasonable and impartial trier of fact would reach the conclusion that you are not independent. If any other poster was here consistently bashing the right the way you do to the left, say that the chances they would vote for a republican is slim to none, then claim to be independent, you and your fan club would similarly draw the same conclusion. You can venture down the semantical road as politicians love to do but at that point the conversation becomes useless.
The Iraq war has been debated enough so I'll skip that as we won't change each other's view on that topic. I will maintain what I wrote and will say that people voted for that war based on the intentionally inaccurate information and "faulty intelligence" that was presented to them. Flip the script where a democratic president did what Bush did and the right would also claim ex post facto that their vote was based on the faulty intelligence presented to them and therefore not responsible for it.
and
Both claims are absurd if you ask me I didn't ask you but its now becoming an argument which won't accomplish anything so I'll maintain what I wrote and am sure you'll do the same.
As it relates to the worst presidents in our history, Bush has to be at the top of the list. On his watch, over 3000 Americans were needlessly killed as a result of the ineptitude of his administration not sharing intelligence and not following up on intelligence leads despite being warned on multiple occasions about the suspicious behaviors of the 9-11 killers. The inept manner in which they governed the Iraq war costing countless Americans lives which drew the ire of both parties. An embarrassingly incompetent Defense Secretary being forced to resign after members of his own party called for it because of his poor management of the aforementioned war. Bush's Katrina debacle and his extreme economic failings, put it all together and he is the top candidate for worst president. If a democratic president did what Bush did the right would use every bit of those instances to make the same point.
Why so angry?
I just call it the way I see it.
I have an opinion, and you have yours, remember?
Are you could circle the wagons again, up to you.
Anyway I'm ROFLMAO.Hardly! I just have fun on AP. You think I am serious about all this? And all because I gave kudos to RC Collins, so silly. I am getting worried about you.
For sheer ineffectiveness: Carter. Maybe nice guys really do finish last.
For pure evil: Nixon. When Nixon was re-elected in 1972 (also the year I fucked my first hooker), I knew I was living with some stupid people.
For sheer stupidity and cluelessness: Bush II. Not too impressed with my fellow citizens for re-electing him after there were no weapons of mass destruction.
Now as far as the best, there is not a lot to choose from but I choose Clinton because things went pretty smoothly under him. The president gets too much credit when things go well and too much blame when they go astray.
I am also a social liberal and fiscal conservative and I would also add that I favor a largely isolationist foreign policy. I really don't care how many diaper heads kill each other in the name of religion. Oh yeah, and despite being (mostly) a social liberal, anyone who's in the country illegally, kick their asses out and if they sneak back in, shoot them. Just call it an extension of my isolationist policy.
The one statistic Esten can't spin.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-10-03/labor-participation-rate-drops-36-year-low-record-926-million-americans-not-labor-fo
Obama has taken forward to the past.
"the collapse in the labor force participation rate, which in September slid from an already three decade low 62.8% to 62.7% - the lowest in over 36 years, matching the February 1978 lows. And while according to the Household Survey, 232,000 people found jobs, what is more disturbing is that the people not in the labor force, rose to a new record high, increasing by 315,000 to 92.6 million!
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2014/09/participation%20rate%20sept%202014_0.jpg
The labor force participation rate, peaked. Notice that about 70-80% of the decline in the labor force participation rate has happened under BO's Presidency.
248,000 jobs created in September, and a 69,000 jobs upward revision for July and August. As a chief economist at RBC Global Asset Management said today, "This is a very muscular report. Its showing powerful job creation, no matter how one cares to slice it.". Once again, more evidence that Republicans lied to the American people when they said the Affordable Care Act would be a big jobs killer.
Does Obama get the credit? Partly. But most of it is simply because we have a fundamentally private-sector driven capitalist economy. The structure of the U.S. economy hasn't changed significantly because of anything Obama did.
Wet blanket Republicans will continue trying to make things sound bad anyway they can, like Dccpa posting about the LFPR. I wonder if he can explain why the decline in LFPR is a bad thing (which he seems to imply), and what the underlying causes are.
This is an excellent jobs report, and a milestone to have brought the unemployment rate back into the 5's. All Americans should see this as a good thing.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/10/03/hiring-rebounds-in-september-unemployment-rate-falls-to-5-9-percent/
Punter 127
10-04-14, 03:28
By the process of deduction reasoning, a reasonable and impartial trier of fact would reach the conclusion that you are not independent.You just don't get it do you? I have declared myself as an independent, I have meet the legal requirements of being an independent and my home state has recognized me as an independent. That trumps your bullshit "process of deduction reasoning" and leaves it inconsequential. So you can scream your meaningless opinion from the fucking roof tops if you like, but at the end of the day I'll still be an independent, like it or not.
The Iraq war has been debated enough so I'll skip that as we won't change each other's view on that topic.OK works for me.
I will maintain what I wrote and will say that people voted for that war based on the intentionally inaccurate information and "faulty intelligence" that was presented to them. Flip the script where a democratic president did what Bush did and the right would also claim ex post facto that their vote was based on the faulty intelligence presented to them and therefore not responsible for it.I will repeat myself "Congress had many months to investigate and debate the administration's claims that Iraq was a threat as well as the likely implications of a US invasion. Members of Congress also fully recognized that the resolution authorized a full-scale invasion of a sovereign nation and a subsequent military occupation of an indefinite period. " It's Congress job to investigate the facts before authorizing military action or war. Congress is the only branch with the power to declare war, the president can only request that they do so. I'm not giving them a pass for for failing to perform their duties just because there Democrats, as apparently you do. If Bush did something illegal why hasn't he been prosecuted? Without said prosecution your argument is trivial and hackneyed.
You just don't get it do you? I have declared myself as an independent, I have meet the legal requirements of being an independent and my home state has recognized me as an independent. That trumps your bullshit "process of deduction reasoning" and leaves it inconsequential. So you can scream your meaningless opinion from the fucking roof tops if you like, but at the end of the day I'll still be an independent, like it or not.Say RcCollins, the man is right. He is a force unto himself. Reminds me of the guy I met on the subway who told me he was Juan Peron. And he was!!! He even show me his ID.
Rc Collins
10-04-14, 07:18
That trumps your bullshit "process of deduction reasoning" and leaves it inconsequential. So you can scream your meaningless opinion from the fucking roof tops if you like, but at the end of the day I'll still be an independent, like it or not.
.Typical response of someone who has been exposed, and you're the only one screaming.
Why so angry?
I just call it the way I see it.
I have an opinion, and you have yours, remember?
Are you could circle the wagons again, up to you.
Anyway I'm ROFLMAO.Actions over words.
Punter 127
10-04-14, 11:34
Now you guys are a tag team? Birds of a feather and all that.
Typical response of someone who has been exposed, and you're the only one screaming.Typical, really? I thought it was rather original, Oh well.
OK OK you got me, you're right I've been "exposed," now everybody knows I'm an independent voter.
ROFLMAO.
An independent voter, often called an unaffiliated voter in the United States, is a voter who does not align him or herself with a political party. An independent is variously defined as a voter who votes for candidates and issues rather than on the basis of a political ideology or partisanship; a voter who does not have long-standing loyalty to, or identification with, a political party; a voter who does not usually vote for the same political party from election to election; or a voter who self-describes as an independent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_(voter). Guys I don't even vote in primary elections because I refuse declare a party affiliation, I wouldn't expect either of you to understand that. I will let the cat out of the bag and tell you a little secret, years ago I was a registered Democrat. But
"I didn't leave the Democratic party, the Democratic Party left me. ".
Time to get back to the issues now, we're a bit off topic.
248,000 jobs created in September, and a 69,000 jobs upward revision for July and August. As a chief economist at RBC Global Asset Management said today, "This is a very muscular report. Its showing powerful job creation, no matter how one cares to slice it.". Once again, more evidence that Republicans lied to the American people when they said the Affordable Care Act would be a big jobs killer.
Does Obama get the credit? Partly. But most of it is simply because we have a fundamentally private-sector driven capitalist economy. The structure of the U.S. economy hasn't changed significantly because of anything Obama did.
Wet blanket Republicans will continue trying to make things sound bad anyway they can, like Dccpa posting about the LFPR. I wonder if he can explain why the decline in LFPR is a bad thing (which he seems to imply), and what the underlying causes are.
This is an excellent jobs report, and a milestone to have brought the unemployment rate back into the 5's. All Americans should see this as a good thing.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/10/03/hiring-rebounds-in-september-unemployment-rate-falls-to-5-9-percent/I laughed my ass off at that news yesterday. The stock market is on the brink of falling sharply and magically, months of employment get revised upwards. Just think, the way the government counts unemployment, we should be at about 4% when Obama leaves office. The 1. 9% lower unemployment rate won't be people finding jobs, the government excluded them.
Esten, if you don't understand why a decline in the LFPR (ie. Less people employed) is a bad thing, explaining it will not do any good. But I will make one attempt. These people are no longer working, but their unemployment benefits have run out and the government has stopped counting them as unemployed. A majority of families need two incomes to maintain their current lifestyles. Now take away one of the two jobs and tell me that isn't a bad thing for them. With extremely few exceptions, most of the people I know work because they have to. Take away their jobs and tell me it isn't a bad thing. Those people didn't retire, they lost their jobs and have given up finding new ones. But hey, their lack of work isn't a bad thing.
Two branches of the Federal Reserve have issued reports stating that Obamacare is hurting the US economy. Get to spinning Esten.
http://www.sovereignman.com/trends/federal-reserve-survey-obamacare-is-hurting-the-economy-15116/
It takes about 190,000 jobs each month for the high & college graduates entering the market.
Now you guys are a tag team? Birds of a feather and all that.
Typical, really? I thought it was rather original, Oh well.
OK OK you got me, you're right I've been "exposed," now everybody know I'm an independent voter.
ROFLMAO.
Guys I don't even vote in primary elections because I refuse declare a party affiliation, I wouldn't expect either of you to understand that. I will let the cat out of the bag and tell you a little secret, years ago I was a registered Democrat. But
"I didn't leave the Democratic party, the Democratic Party left me. ".
Time to get back to the issues now, we're a bit off topic.Yes, an "ilk" team by default. Of course, you have never been part of a tag team on AP! Ok, the mirror is foggy again. By the way, you do roll on the floor more than my dog. Watch out for the fleas!
Dccpa, the LFPR can decline simply because people retire, or go (back) to college, or any other number of reasons why a person able to work does not. So the LFPR is not inherently a bad thing. The retiring baby boomer population is in fact a primary reason for the declining LFPR over the past decade, especially the last five years. Your characterization of all these people hurting because their unemployment benefits ran out, is beyond simplistic. I knew your response would be weak, but never expected it to be so ridiculous.
Usually, the right wing LFPR argument is that large numbers of people are giving up looking for jobs because of a poor economy. However, not even that argument passes muster anymore. The number of so-called 'discouraged workers' has dropped steadily since 2010 (in parallel with the dropping unemployment rate). Just last month, the number of discouraged workers shrank to 698,000 from 775,000 the prior month.
Drop in U.S. Labor Force Hard to Pin on Discouraged Workers
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-03/drop-in-u-s-labor-force-difficult-to-pin-on-discouraged-workers.html
Here's another interesting statistic: 2014 is on track for the strongest year of job creation since 1999. Imagine that, a year stronger than any year under the great, failed experiment of Bush's laissez-faire free market capitalism. And the strongest year is the year the Affordable Care Act was rolled out.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/06/upshot/republicans-maintain-edge-in-senate-races-poll-finds.html?ref=us&_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1
Can the Democrats manage to hang on to the Senate? Probably, but as you know, anything can happen. But what is amazing is that AP is so quiet on this subject that there might as well be no elections. And oh yes, I need to keep my big mouth shut. Nothing to haunt me next month just in case the GOP win the lottery. I would be toast, then. But I promise not to crow if & when the Democrats retain the Senate. And the witch-hunt is averted.
ElAlamoPalermo
10-09-14, 05:03
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/aides-despite-denials-knew-of-white-house-tie-to-cartagena-prostitution-scandal/2014/10/08/5b98dc90-4e7e-11e4-aa5e-7153e466a02d_story.html?hpid=z1
Breaking scandalous news just published in the Washington Post today; apparently a White House staffer (political appointee, son of a Obama campaign donor) brought a prostitute to his room at the Hilton in Cartagena and the White House engaged in a significant coverup (including putting three investigators on administrative leave, forcing IG office to soften findings of investigation) to prevent the scandal from influencing the November 2012 presidential election.
"Your characterization of all these people hurting because their unemployment benefits ran out, is beyond simplistic. " My statements are based upon daily interactions with businesses and their employees. I guess only having facts instead of ivory tower theories puts me at a disadvantage. Please inform my clients that gave up looking for work that they voluntarily retired. They will feel so much better about themselves. For those under 62, they don't have a job or social security. With nothing but time and nothing to lose, the new game is to do whatever it takes to qualify for disability. That subject is worthy of its own post. Here is an article that shows how much disability claims are increasing. But hey, at least they aren't unemployed anymore.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-09/number-us-citizens-disability-now-larger-population-greece
And going back to the topic of fraudulent government employment data:
http://nypost.com/2014/10/06/denver-census-staffer-brings-data-falsification-to-light/
Her claims are only regarding falsification of data within the DOL. Data sent to the DOL is false. So, you have false data that is further manipulated by the US Government.
If Republicans take the Senate, it will be stalemate. Since I don't trust either party, I really like the idea of stalemate.
Dccpa, the LFPR can decline simply because people retire, or go (back) to college, or any other number of reasons why a person able to work does not. So the LFPR is not inherently a bad thing. The retiring baby boomer population is in fact a primary reason for the declining LFPR over the past decade, especially the last five years. Your characterization of all these people hurting because their unemployment benefits ran out, is beyond simplistic. I knew your response would be weak, but never expected it to be so ridiculous.
Usually, the right wing LFPR argument is that large numbers of people are giving up looking for jobs because of a poor economy. However, not even that argument passes muster anymore. The number of so-called 'discouraged workers' has dropped steadily since 2010 (in parallel with the dropping unemployment rate). Just last month, the number of discouraged workers shrank to 698,000 from 775,000 the prior month.
Drop in U.S. Labor Force Hard to Pin on Discouraged Workers
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-03/drop-in-u-s-labor-force-difficult-to-pin-on-discouraged-workers.html
Here's another interesting statistic: 2014 is on track for the strongest year of job creation since 1999. Imagine that, a year stronger than any year under the great, failed experiment of Bush's laissez-faire free market capitalism. And the strongest year is the year the Affordable Care Act was rolled out.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/aides-despite-denials-knew-of-white-house-tie-to-cartagena-prostitution-scandal/2014/10/08/5b98dc90-4e7e-11e4-aa5e-7153e466a02d_story.html?hpid=z1
Breaking scandalous news just published in the Washington Post today; apparently a White House staffer (political appointee, son of a Obama campaign donor) brought a prostitute to his room at the Hilton in Cartagena and the White House engaged in a significant coverup (including putting three investigators on administrative leave, forcing IG office to soften findings of investigation) to prevent the scandal from influencing the November 2012 presidential election.Whereas any European or other sensible person would say, "So the fuck what?" A prostitute influencing an election. Right. By the way, I don't really give a shit about the elections since I just figure out how best to fuck with whatever system I'm presented. But, there will be no "hanging chads" in my municipality because I, Dickhead, will be the independent voter on the Resolutions Committee to determine voter intent.
And I am independent in the same sense that Punter is independent, only opposite!
If Republicans take the Senate, it will be stalemate. Since I don't trust either party, I really like the idea of stalemate.This. Absolutely this, and nothing but this. In fact, think of the money we could save by just declaring a 50/50 split between the two parties. Each state gets one Republican senator and one Democratic senator. This in and of itself would guarantee that absolutely nothing got done. Eventually everyone in Washington could just go home. And the debates would be interesting for a couple of weeks or so.
That communist muslim is still hell bent on ruining the country. The Congressional Budget Office announced this week that last year saw the deficit drop nearly one-third. This was the fifth year in a row of a falling deficit and it's now at a level lower than the average for the past 40 years.
Is Sean Hannity still screaming about Obamas out of control spending? I don't watch his show so perhaps one of Fox News' regular viewers could enlighten us.
http://profit.ndtv.com/news/economy/article-us-fiscal-2014-budget-deficit-down-at-486-billion-report-676727
...the new game is to do whatever it takes to qualify for disability. That subject is worthy of its own post. Here is an article that shows how much disability claims are increasing. But hey, at least they aren't unemployed anymore.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-09/number-us-citizens-disability-now-larger-population-greeceFor Democrats the increase in disability claims is a good thing because every person receiving disability payments is a permanent "bought and paid for" Democrat voter.
Of course the USDA Food Stamp program is a much more efficient program for this purpose as the price per voter is much cheaper, which is why John Podesta spent his out-of-government years running a wildly successful Democrat program that recruited food stamp recipients in a way that the Federal Government is prohibited from doing directly.
Thanks,
Jax.
That communist muslim is still hell bent on ruining the country. The Congressional Budget Office announced this week that last year saw the deficit drop nearly one-third. This was the fifth year in a row of a falling deficit and it's now at a level lower than the average for the past 40 years.
Is Sean Hannity still screaming about Obamas out of control spending? I don't watch his show so perhaps one of Fox News' regular viewers could enlighten us.
http://profit.ndtv.com/news/economy/article-us-fiscal-2014-budget-deficit-down-at-486-billion-report-676727Or as we say in the real world, every year under BO has resulted in a budget deficit higher than in any of his predecessors' worst years. Nice try at spinning the pathetic.
Of course the USDA Food Stamp program is a much more efficient programI don't think the food stamp program is very efficient. I used almost half of mine just to mail the watermelon.
Democratic politicians buy off the average American with 'benefits' (sometimes good and sometimes BS) while Republicans are BOUGHT off by the *Cock* (Koch) Brothers and Corporate America. Payback is a *****.
The Republican base is dying off with the death of every white male, over the age of about 45, and in perhaps 20 years will only be able to control the House. As long as they continue to on hate on gays, women and all minorities (pretty much anyone who is not white and male) they will ever so slowly become a regional party. For now, the *Cock* brothers money will buy elections but eventually Repubs (of which I was one 20 years ago) will find themselves isolated from the young (as they are more and more now), women and minorities.
Just hope for a slight change in the Supremes and that may override the Citizens United decision which would mean no more buying of elections (at least via so obvious and direct means, that is). The US is really MORE corrupt than most other countries because they actually legalize their political corruption whereas in other countries it is still illegal but it is done anyway.
I actually feel a bit sorry for Repubs still trying to live in the 1950's. It is a new time, a new country-learn to adjust whether we like it or not and evolve in the new society or become extinct. Time to progress-JUST A LITTLE.
Happiness to all (unless u watch Fox the foremost, but not exclusive, purveyor of fear, hate and anger).
Stowe.
For Democrats the increase in disability claims is a good thing because every person receiving disability payments is a permanent "bought and paid for" Democrat voter.
Of course the USDA Food Stamp program is a much more efficient program for this purpose as the price per voter is much cheaper, which is why John Podesta spent his out-of-government years running a wildly successful Democrat program that recruited food stamp recipients in a way that the Federal Government is prohibited from doing directly.
Thanks,
Jax.
My statements are based upon daily interactions with businesses and their employees. I guess only having facts instead of ivory tower theories puts me at a disadvantage. Please inform my clients that gave up looking for work that they voluntarily retired. They will feel so much better about themselves. We are in agreement that job loss and difficulty to find work are bad things. But I provided a link showing the number of discouraged workers is declining, along with the unemployment rate. The decline in LFPR can't be declared a bad thing if these numbers are both moving in positive directions. Given the strength in the economy lately, you should be advising your clients to get off their ass and look for a job.
You seem determined to focus on the negative and ignore the positive. I guess if unemployment falls below 5%, you'll still be complaining how tough it is for your clients who gave up.
BTW, the New York Post has no credibility. It's a vile, disgusting piece of right-wing trash, owned by the same owner as Fox News, but far worse. They specialize in hit pieces on Democrats, and serve as a so-called "legitimate" news source to propagate false or questionable stories across right wing media to people who don't know better. Try to find a more credible source to back up your claims of fraudulent government data.
For Democrats the increase in disability claims is a good thing because every person receiving disability payments is a permanent "bought and paid for" Democrat voter.
Democratic politicians buy off the average American with 'benefits' (sometimes good and sometimes BS) These are perversions of the Democratic philosophy. Democratic policies are based on moral and economic arguments, not on buying votes.
These are perversions of the Democratic philosophy. Democratic policies are based on moral and economic arguments, not on buying votes.Esten.
Totally agree that the Democratic philosophy is about moral and humanistic philosophies as opposed to acquiring the most money which is the Republican philosophy. Unfortunately, sometimes even the best of philosophies are taken to the extreme-in BOTH parties!!
Stowe.
These are perversions of the Democratic philosophy. Democratic policies are based on moral and economic arguments, not on buying votes.Hahahahahahaha!
Stop it Esten, you're killing me.
The fact is that if you removed the Democrats ability to give free money to their constituents, they'd never win another election.
Thanks,
Jax.
PS: Coming next: Amnesty for illegal aliens, which should buy another 12 million permanent Democrat voters.
We are in agreement that job loss and difficulty to find work are bad things. But I provided a link showing the number of discouraged workers is declining, along with the unemployment rate. The decline in LFPR can't be declared a bad thing if these numbers are both moving in positive directions. Given the strength in the economy lately, you should be advising your clients to get off their ass and look for a job.
You seem determined to focus on the negative and ignore the positive. I guess if unemployment falls below 5%, you'll still be complaining how tough it is for your clients who gave up.
BTW, the New York Post has no credibility. It's a vile, disgusting piece of right-wing trash, owned by the same owner as Fox News, but far worse. They specialize in hit pieces on Democrats, and serve as a so-called "legitimate" news source to propagate false or questionable stories across right wing media to people who don't know better. Try to find a more credible source to back up your claims of fraudulent government data.As opposed to the saintly liberal news sources that you frequent? And I have proven to you that millions are no longer counted as unemployed because their benefits ran out. Yet you continue to tout the falsified unemployment rate.
Absolutely Esten, they just snap their fingers and find jobs. You seem to ignore every single statistic that says the longer you are unemployed, the harder it is to find a job. Common sense tells you an employer will question why that person couldn't find a job when others did. Esten why would you want them to go off disability and go to work? After being on disability for a while, they will get used to the free money and become Democrats.
On another board, read a report from a guy who had been unemployed for over a year. Finally found a job. Thirty minutes into the job, he decided the place was too messy and told the employer this job wasn't for him. If that person wasn't receiving government assistance, you think he would have been so picky? That person should have the god given right to starve to death for sheer stupidity, but liberals will keep this person alive and voting for more welfare.
Going back at lest 100 years the only US president that signed into law a congressional law issuing amnesty to illegal immigrants was the creator of trickle down economics...I suppose all presidents at one time or another granted individual amnesty fora specific allian but the great communicator signed a bill , ok I'm not sure of the number but I think it covered 9 million.
Going back at lest 100 years the only US president that signed into law a congressional law issuing amnesty to illegal immigrants was the creator of trickle down economics...I suppose all presidents at one time or another granted individual amnesty fora specific allian but the great communicator signed a bill , ok I'm not sure of the number but I think it covered 9 million.Actually, Reagan signed the law that granted amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens after the Democratic leaders of the house promised the funding necessary to actually secure the border.
The Democrats lied.
As a result, we now have 12 million MORE undocumented Democrats illegal aliens in the country.
This is why the Republicans are so adamant now that the border be secured BEFORE and as a part of any "immigration reform".
Thanks,
Jax.
On another board, read a report from a guy who had been unemployed for over a year. Finally found a job. Thirty minutes into the job, he decided the place was too messy and told the employer this job wasn't for him. If that person wasn't receiving government assistance, you think he would have been so picky?This is why we need a Guest Worker program.
Actually, Reagan signed the law that granted amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens after the Democratic leaders of the house promised the funding necessary to actually secure the border.
The Democrats lied.
As a result, we now have 12 million MORE undocumented Democrats illegal aliens in the country.
This is why the Republicans are so adamant now that the border be secured BEFORE and as a part of any "immigration reform".
Thanks,
Jax.And Reagan told me that I could get my hands on Nancy, but he never came through. You and your take on history is from Donald Trump's School of Distortion.
Big Boss Man
10-13-14, 18:24
I hate to laugh at others misfortunes (maybe that is a lie because I found the gun instructor getting shot by the 9-year old girl with the automatic weapon funny also) but I read this today and found it hilarious.
"I've had to seriously downgrade my living situation, said Alex Gomez, a 42-year-old with a masters degree in entrepreneurship. Gomez lost his last full-time job in 2009 and has been looking for work since a short-term contract position ended in 2012." If there ever was a guy who majored in the wrong subject, I think we found him.
We Democrats are part of the problem. In California, we are raising the minimum wage to $10 in January. My girlfriend who works for minimum wage plus tips is losing her 5 days paid sick leave beginning January. She is net ahead. Minimum wage raise is $2000(1- tax rate) > 40 hours * $10 = $400 sick pay.
I wish they would hire some people where she works. She rants daily about all the overtime she is working. Maybe I will head to BA for three weeks to get some time off. I am tired of hearing it.
I'm betting your boy Gómez got his master's degree from a for-profit school like University of Phoenix or Argosy, most likely on-line. I worked in an on-line MBA program for eleven years (at an actual university) and even there the amount of cheating was phenomenal (and the reason I eventually quit a cake job). We had students from Iranafranaghanistan we'd never even see. Who in the fuck knows who was actually doing the coursework? One time I e-mailed some student Amaranda Panesh Yummy Yogurt or something like that, that he or she needed to improve his or her writing skills. Suddenly the submitted assignments came in, in perfect English. Problem was, it wasn't British English, so it wasn't him or her writing it. The cheating itself pissed me off but thinking I would be too stupid to notice it probably pissed me off more.
I can't say I thought the 9 year old shooting the firearms instructor was funny but I shed no tears for the stupid motherfucker.
Actually, Reagan signed the law that granted amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens after the Democratic leaders of the house promised the funding necessary to actually secure the border.
The Democrats lied.
As a result, we now have 12 million MORE undocumented Democrats illegal aliens in the country.
This is why the Republicans are so adamant now that the border be secured BEFORE and as a part of any "immigration reform".
Thanks,
Jax.One of main two things Reagan did that pissed me off. Make all the illegal aliens legal. That won't encourage others to illegally enter the US.
And Reagan told me that I could get my hands on Nancy, but he never came through. You and your take on history is from Donald Trump's School of Distortion.Really?
Perhaps you can enlighten me as to exactly which of my assertions is inaccurate.
Or perhaps you'd prefer just to shoot your mouth off spewing idiotic nonsense as usual.
Thanks,
Jax.
The above quote was attributed to Ronald Reagan in Jeb Bush's book, Immigration Wars.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128303672
A few notes on the 1986 Immigration Reform & Control Act.
"The law,,,,,,,was considered largely unsuccessful because the strict sanctions on employers were stripped out of the bill for passage." I wonder which lobby group would have have fought for that. Take a guess, (1) Red Cross (2) Chamber of Commerce (3) Hell's Angels.
Alan Simpson(R), Senator from Wyoming and co-author of the Bill says that the Amnesty provision saved the Act from being a total loss. "If you can bring one person out of an exploited relationship, that's good enough for me."
As for border security, "That's always the palliative that makes people(red necks) feel good......how do we get re-elected? Well, you just put some money into the border."
Border Security is nothing but a red herring when it come to amnesty. There are people who like to shove horse shit around and pretend it is good compost, but even dummies like me know better.
I ha te to keep harping on this but it does seem interesting that anything that goes wrong during a republican term at the helm the conservatives somehow find a way to blame it on the liberals. I have researched this and can find no reference to Tip Oneill promising the great communicator that he would provide funds to secure the borders. I did find many references from Regan speaches that this law was a cure all for our immigration problem. Regan contended that the section of the new law That would penalize employers who knowingly hired illegals was a game changes. Could this of been a secret agreement between Oneill and regan SOMETHING ON THE ORDER OF THE Regan --- Olie North secret affair with the famous CONTRA agreement with Israil???????
Did Ronnie somehow have his name changed from Reagan to Regan posthumously ? I suspect that most Republicans are unaware of this, particularly the Boush family.
Yes it's a little known fact but the creator of Vodoo economics did change the spelling of his last name.
Yes it's a little known fact but the creator of Vodoo economics did change the spelling of his last name.I knew about the change from Brylcreem to Vitalis but this name thing comes as a great surprise !
Or as we say in the real world, every year under BO has resulted in a budget deficit higher than in any of his predecessors' worst years. Nice try at spinning the pathetic.Think you're being more than slightly disingenuous here, but hey, he's the black President, fuck him. And as for living in the real world..... Come and join us!
Think you're being more than slightly disingenuous here, but hey, he's the black President, fuck him. And as for living in the real world..... Come and join us!Even the smallest budget deficit under BO has been larger than the largest budget deficit of any of his predecessors. You tried to deceive us by posting this nonsense:
"it's now at a level lower than the average for the past 40 years.".
BO's black? I thought he was half white and half black. I guess everyone has been lying about his heritage. Pathetic but common liberal attempt to cry race when caught falsifying facts.
Even the smallest budget deficit under BO has been larger than the largest budget deficit of any of his predecessors. You tried to deceive us by posting this nonsense:
"it's now at a level lower than the average for the past 40 years.".
BO's black? I thought he was half white and half black. I guess everyone has been lying about his heritage. Pathetic but common liberal attempt to cry race when caught falsifying facts.Dccpa, you're embarassing yourself. The 2014 federal deficit is estimated to be 2.9% of GDP, versus the average of 3.1% over the past 40 years (see http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45653 ). That's a result of both spending cuts and higher tax revenues, including those from an improving economy that has brought unemployment down to 5.9%. Your efforts to dismiss these statistics are hollow and baseless.
We've come a long way from the disaster of Bush's laissez-faire free market policies. But we still have more work to do. Obama tried to work out a large deficit reduction package with Boehner a couple years ago, but it fell through when Cantor and others balked at the revenue side and pulled Boehner back. They were unwilling to compromise and raise taxes, they would only allow additional revenue through economic growth. The common theme we see under Bush and then Obama is clear: conservative ideology decreasing federal revenues, and increasing deficits.
Dccpa, you're embarassing yourself. The 2014 federal deficit is estimated to be 2.9% of GDP, versus the average of 3.1% over the past 40 years (see http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45653 ). That's a result of both spending cuts and higher tax revenues, including those from an improving economy that has brought unemployment down to 5.9%. Your efforts to dismiss these statistics are hollow and baseless.
We've come a long way from the disaster of Bush's laissez-faire free market policies. But we still have more work to do. Obama tried to work out a large deficit reduction package with Boehner a couple years ago, but it fell through when Cantor and others balked at the revenue side and pulled Boehner back. They were unwilling to compromise and raise taxes, they would only allow additional revenue through economic growth. The common theme we see under Bush and then Obama is clear: conservative ideology decreasing federal revenues, and increasing deficits.Boehner tried to work out a large deficit reduction package with Obama a couple of years ago, but it fell through when the Democrat political strategists balked at the spending side and pulled Obama back. They were unwilling to compromise and cut spending. The common theme we see under Obama and Reid is clear: liberal ideology increasing federal spending and increasing the national debt.
Annual deficits ran in excess of a trillion dollars for four years during the Obama administration. They never ran over $500 billion in any year before that. I have not adjusted for inflation or size of the economy.
Boehner tried to work out a large deficit reduction package with Obama a couple of years ago, but it fell through when the Democrat political strategists balked at the spending side and pulled Obama back. They were unwilling to compromise and cut spending. The common theme we see under Obama and Reid is clear: liberal ideology increasing federal spending and increasing the national debt.Just switching words around without any research, pretty pathetic Tiny.
The sticking point was the revenue side, this is from Boehner himself. He said "Obama moved the goal posts", this is well documented. Obama already had agreed to spending cuts Republicans wanted. He was not pulled back. Cantor and others pulled Boehner back, and then they pulled out instead of continuing negotiations. They were too spineless to try to convince their peers, and their peers too headstrong to be reasoned with.
Everyone knows it is mainly the Republican Party that is unwilling to compromise. If we had more people in Washington willing to compromise, we could reach a big debt deal.
Dccpa, you're embarassing yourself. The 2014 federal deficit is estimated to be 2.9% of GDP, versus the average of 3.1% over the past 40 years (see http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45653 ). That's a result of both spending cuts and higher tax revenues, including those from an improving economy that has brought unemployment down to 5.9%. Your efforts to dismiss these statistics are hollow and baseless.
We've come a long way from the disaster of Bush's laissez-faire free market policies. But we still have more work to do. Obama tried to work out a large deficit reduction package with Boehner a couple years ago, but it fell through when Cantor and others balked at the revenue side and pulled Boehner back. They were unwilling to compromise and raise taxes, they would only allow additional revenue through economic growth. The common theme we see under Bush and then Obama is clear: conservative ideology decreasing federal revenues, and increasing deficits.Ah another liberal tactic of attacking facts by trying to divert attention to meaningless statistics. You keep pointing to the falsified unemployment statistics that millions of not working and no longer counted as unemployed Americans will tell you is a lie.
You know what has helped the GDP during BO's time in office? The evil fracking industry. They have helped the USD, the unemployment rate, the balance of trade, income, the deficit, etc. Etc. All of these improvements from fracking are in spite of BO, not because of him. BO has blocked the Keystone Pipeline which would have been better for the environment and better for the American economy. But avoiding pissing off the Environmental Wing of his party is far more important than the American economy. And any idiot, Democrat or Republican, can get the percentage down as the overall deficit has exploded. What I stated was 100% factual. The percentage deficit argument you are making is as stupid as the argument made by Republican operatives under Reagan that deficits don't matter.
Now that the BO has sufficiently pissed off the Saudis and they are going to attempt to kill off our fracking industry, we are going to find out just how much deficits matter. Who are you going to blame when the deficits start widening as a percentage of the GDP as fracking start declining?
When fracking declines, I personally will clap my hands.
http://www.nydailynews.com/jobs/u-s-unemployment-claims-14-year-article-1.1976301
US unemployment claims drop to lowest level in 14 years. This from the NY Post, the Fox of Print Media. The original report came from the Associated Press.
Is that good or bad news? Is the cup half-full or half-empty? Should we be cheering or moping? Does this mean that things are better now or worse compare to 6 years ago? Ah, so confusing! So many unhappy people in AP. Well, I guess you would be if things were so bad that you are eating wieners and beans everyday. No wonder, so much flatulence in the air.
Just switching words around without any research, pretty pathetic Tiny.
The sticking point was the revenue side, this is from Boehner himself. He said "Obama moved the goal posts", this is well documented. Obama already had agreed to spending cuts Republicans wanted. He was not pulled back. Cantor and others pulled Boehner back, and then they pulled out instead of continuing negotiations. They were too spineless to try to convince their peers, and their peers too headstrong to be reasoned with.
Everyone knows it is mainly the Republican Party that is unwilling to compromise. If we had more people in Washington willing to compromise, we could reach a big debt deal.Everyone knows it is mainly Obama, Harry Reid and other Democrats who are unwilling to compromise. If we had more people in Washington willing to compromise, we could reach a big debt deal.
The reason negotiations fell apart was because Obama backtracked from his agreement with Boehner and Cantor to raise taxes by "just" $800 billion, and instead insisted on raising them by $1.2 trillion. This is well documented.
Just cause I want to see Esten try and spin it.
Smoke and mirrors accounting.
Bill Clinton claimed to have a budget surplus for several years which was nonsense. Now Obama is back with more smoke and mirrors accounting.
If the US Deficit is ‘only’ $483 Billion, why does the Government Have to Borrow $1.1 Trillion to Fill the Hole?
By Wolf Richter • October 16, 2014.
On Wednesday, the Treasury Department released its Monthly Treasury Statement for September and the fiscal year 2014. It’s the official account of how the US government arrives at its infamous deficit. And it was a doozie.
Without giving it a second thought, the media gushed about the headline number, how good it looked, how the US government was getting its fiscal mess in order.
Receipts rose $247 billion to $3,021 billion, outlays rose $50 billion to $3,504 billion (including “on-budget” and “off-budget” items) for a deficit of $483 billion. At 2.8% of GDP, as the media gleefully pointed out, it was proportionately the smallest since 2007. The deficit monster has been tamed. And unthinkable as that seemed a couple of years ago, it has disappeared as a political issue, even before the election!
There is just one teeny-weeny problem:
To fill that $483 billion hole, the US government borrowed $1.086 trillion.
Turns out, the US gross national debt, as I’d reported in early October, ended fiscal 2014 at 17.824 trillion, up $1.086 trillion from fiscal 2013. This is the real increase in real Treasury debt that real taxpayers will have to deal with in the future.
The chart of the gross national debt below is a mesmerizing picture of America’s fiscal condition as it developed over the years, with some peculiarities:
One, the US, had four years of official “surpluses” between 1998 and 2001 that at one point exceeded 2% of GDP. They should have brought down the gross national debt by the amounts of the surpluses. But not these “surpluses!” Instead, the debt increased in every one of those four years, in total by $394 billion. That’s how much real debt it took to cover these government accounting “surpluses.”.
Two, following four years of “surpluses,” the debt began to grow exponentially. Since 2002, the government has borrowed $12 trillion, or two-thirds of the total debt! Since 2008, it has borrowed $8.8 trillion, or about half of the total debt.
Three, in fiscal 2014, with that smallish deficit of $483 billion, well, look what happened: the debt soared by $1.1 trillion.
US-Gross-National-Debt-1972-2014-B.
We’re shocked and appalled.
Are they lying to us here in the land of open and transparent governance? Well, they’re not actually lying. They’re using government accounting. It’s like corporate accounting: a purposeful mix of revelation and obfuscation.
Part of the discrepancy is a result of last year’s debt ceiling charade. In March 2013, Treasury debt hit the ceiling set by Congress. To fund the government deficit, the Treasury Department borrowed from other accounts to be repaid later. “Extraordinary measures,” it was called. On October 17 last year, so in fiscal 2014, after Congress and the White house had agreed on a deal to avoid default, the gross national debt jumped by $328 billion in one fell swoop. Since most of it was spent in fiscal 2013, we can subtract it from the $1.086 trillion debt increase in fiscal 2014, which brings it down to $758 billion.
In the same vein, the debt jumped on October 1 – the first day of fiscal 2015 – by $51 billion, which kicked that portion of the debt increase into fiscal 2015. So, to get a better feel for fiscal 2014, we add it to the $758 billion debt increase. Hence, $809 billion (more on that below).
And then what happened?
Government accounting. On page 3 of the Treasury Statement, under the bottom line of “Total On-Budget and Off-Budget Financing” of $483 billion – so the official deficit – there is a section with three more lines, called “Means of Financing.” It explains the mega-difference between the official deficit and the official increase in the debt.
It states right there, in clear text:
“Borrowing from the Public”: $797.6 billion. That’s how much the Treasury admitted it borrowed in fiscal 2014 to cover the deficit of $483 billion; one line beneath the other. Pretty close to my estimate above of $809 billion. So let’s go with the Treasury’s number. And how was that $797.6 billion in newly borrowed money used?
$483 billion of it covered the official deficit. Got it.
$69.9 billion was ascribed to an “Increase in operating cash.” Ok, makes sense.
And the remaining $244 billion in borrowed money? That’s the doozie. It’s in the last line labeled “By Other Means.” It’s over 50% of the “deficit.”.
But it’s NOT included in the deficit.
That line doesn’t shows up again. After a brief appearance of how $244 billion was borrowed from the public and loaded onto future taxpayers, it disappeared from the statement into a complex web of government accounting to never be seen again by the public.
But it’s part of the deficit, as much as it is part of the debt. With it, the US deficit in fiscal 2014 amounted to $727 billion – over 50% higher than the stated deficit of $483 billion.
That’s one way to solve a nagging problem.
OK, I get it. Government accounting, like corporate accounting, is designed to pull a bag over our heads. We minions don’t need to know these silly details. This is the equivalent of Wall Street: don’t dig through the footnotes, just buy, buy, buy! It works with the mainstream media which abounded in praise for the economy and the government’s adroit fiscal management as the deficit is withering away before our very eyes. At this pace, pretty soon, they’re going to discuss once again how to spend the “surplus.”.
Theories abound why this is suddenly happening, after years of deceptive calm. Read… Toxic Mix Blows up: Oil Price Collapse & Junk Bond Insanity.
Where do the fines and settlements paid by corporate America come into play? The government minions obviously do not think they are part of government intake from taxpayers, because rather than debt reduction, they want to spend this "windfall" on new furniture, cars, offices, etc. In other words, when corporate America rips off the taxpayer and gets caught, rather than apply the penalty to the debt, and reduce the deficit, government wants to spend this money as if it belonged to the government, and not the taxpayers who were ripped off.
Tres3.
Everyone knows it is mainly Obama, Harry Reid and other Democrats who are unwilling to compromise. If we had more people in Washington willing to compromise, we could reach a big debt deal.
The reason negotiations fell apart was because Obama backtracked from his agreement with Boehner and Cantor to raise taxes by "just" $800 billion, and instead insisted on raising them by $1.2 trillion. This is well documented.Who walked away from the table ?
BTW, the $800 billion was not a tax increase in terms of tax rates. It was $800 billion mainly from an improving economy, done in a way so that Republicans wouldn't violate their Tax Pledge to Grover Norquist. So really, there wasn't any compromise from the Republican side, and Obama was correct to ask for more revenue. Most Americans supported a balanced approach to deficit reduction, but the headstrong Republicans would not accept any tax increase.
Ah another liberal tactic of attacking facts by trying to divert attention to meaningless statistics. You keep pointing to the falsified unemployment statistics that millions of not working and no longer counted as unemployed Americans will tell you is a lie.I hope you're comfortable in your little cocoon of self-delusion.
The unemployment rate has been calculated essentially the same way for decades. You have to be working or looking for work to be counted. That figure is now at 5.9%. The pool of "discouraged workers" shrank to 698,000 in September and is in a multi-year downtrend. So only a fraction of these "millions" of people you keep mentioning gave up. The rest have not re-entered the workforce for other reasons -- and if they don't want a job, why should they be counted in the unemployment rate ? I know you're upset the private sector has come back strong under Obama, but you were lied to by right wing politicians and media.
Who walked away from the table ?
BTW, the $800 billion was not a tax increase in terms of tax rates. It was $800 billion mainly from an improving economy, done in a way so that Republicans wouldn't violate their Tax Pledge to Grover Norquist. So really, there wasn't any compromise from the Republican side, and Obama was correct to ask for more revenue. Most Americans supported a balanced approach to deficit reduction, but the headstrong Republicans would not accept any tax increase.Go ahead and re-write history. Obama agreed to $800 billion in increased tax revenues, which indeed would not have come from higher rates, but rather elimination of loopholes. In addition, the Republicans were counting on some contribution to tax revenues from a more rational, simplified tax system, and Democrats were not. But they would have come together, except that Obama got push back from his party, especially after it looked like the majority of the Senate (but not the House) would support even higher taxes. So instead of sticking with the framework, he demanded 1.2 trillion in revenues, and the deal fell apart.
This is typical of Democrats. They have no concept of the distortions caused by the tax system, and the time and expense eaten up complying with it.
The unemployment rate has been calculated essentially the same way for decades.OK, but the problem is that there is no precedent for the current situation.
Look at labor stats going back 70 years - the size of the labor force grows at the rate of population growth, or higher.
Until 2009, when the labor force stopped growing.
I hope you're comfortable in your little cocoon of self-delusion.
The unemployment rate has been calculated essentially the same way for decades. You have to be working or looking for work to be counted. That figure is now at 5.9%. The pool of "discouraged workers" shrank to 698,000 in September and is in a multi-year downtrend. So only a fraction of these "millions" of people you keep mentioning gave up. The rest have not re-entered the workforce for other reasons -- and if they don't want a job, why should they be counted in the unemployment rate ? I know you're upset the private sector has come back strong under Obama, but you were lied to by right wing politicians and media.You poor delusional liberal. BO has really done a number on your psyche. You can't argue the facts, so spin the trend. Unlike you Esten, I don't pollute my mind with sources from the either fringe. All deficits under BO have been larger than the largest deficits of any of his predecessors. Spin away. Must be hard being a liberal under the worst liberal President since Richard Nixon. BO will probably set up a government funded support group for you.
"The unemployment rate has been calculated essentially the same way for decades. You have to be working or looking for work to be counted." Not true Esten and you know better. There are several versions of unemployment. That is why they are called U3, U6, etc. Of course, they now use the rate that counts the least unemployed. But that was not the rate that was used in the days of less dishonest government.
And as far as the calculations themselves not being changed, wrong as usual Esten. Do you research any of these things or just defend BO with liberal spin? The funny thing about this article is that it proves my point against a liberal and it was written by liberals attacking Republicans.
http://chipshirley.blogspot.com/2012/05/obama-did-not-change-unemployed.html
You are making this way too easy Esten.
The arguments, the debates, the trash talk point to one Barack Obama. You dislike him in 1998, and you dislike him even more in 2014. But unfortunately, you still have 2 more years of the man. You have stated that you prefer gridlock over any progress. You have never been fair enough to give the man a chance. All you have done is ridicule, taunt, name-call and more bitching. You have said that the Fuller Brush salesman would beat Obama in 2010. So yes, you have been found guilty of being prejudiced from Day One. Especially when you are still defending Bush, Jr.
So how can you have any credibility? Especially when you are in favor of one Sarah Palin, that drowned McClain. Romney was a good pick, but you saddled him with a Paul Ryan. And so your claims of being Independents have me laughing all the way to the outhouse.
The arguments, the debates, the trash talk point to one Barack Obama. You dislike him in 1998, and you dislike him even more in 2014. But unfortunately, you still have 2 more years of the man. You have stated that you prefer gridlock over any progress. You have never been fair enough to give the man a chance. All you have done is ridicule, taunt, name-call and more bitching. You have said that the Fuller Brush salesman would beat Obama in 2010. So yes, you have been found guilty of being prejudiced from Day One. Especially when you are still defending Bush, Jr.
So how can you have any credibility? Especially when you are in favor of one Sarah Palin, that drowned McClain. Romney was a good pick, but you saddled him with a Paul Ryan. And so your claims of being Independents have me laughing all the way to the outhouse.
Another blind liberal. 1998? Find anything I posted about him BO in 1998. Heck let's move forward to this millennia look at 2008 or 2009. Don't see any posts there either.
Here is my first political post on this board (8-12-10).
"Toymann,
I am curious as to how you think the Republicans will take the Senate? I don't believe there are enough Democratic Senators up for reelection to realistically expect the Senate to turn over. I agree about the House turning Republican.".
Yep that's me, guilty of having eyes to see and common sense to think. Credibility. Seems like being 100% correct about that election gives me credibility. How was your call on that election?
And then there's you. Blinded by the need to defend a bad President. Everything you wrote was false, but then to apologize you would have to admit you were wrong. Btw, that stuff you wrote shows how far detached you are from reality. To give you a little guidance back the real world, BO wasn't up for election in 2010, that was a mid term election. Esten is way off on most of the stuff he writes, but you aren't even on planet Earth. But please come back for more verbal abuse, I think you enjoy it.
Oh Esten,
Bragging about the deficit improving as a percentage of GDP? Did you actually look at the chart or stick with the large print? I will use your own source to make a fool of your statements. Look at the first few years under Obama. Notice the extreme increase in deficits as a percentage of the GDP. I believe you wrote the decade average was 3.1%. Looking at the CBO's own chart in 2012, it shows Obama's first deficits were in the 8-10% range. Looking at the historical data, the average for the last decade would be closer to 5%. That 5% average is due to Obama's terrible percentages. He raised the average so high that he could walk under it and you are bragging about that. Wow. That is some shameless spinning. And did you notice the deficit percentage starts increasing in a couple of years. Obama has to get credit for that too.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/08-22-2012-Update_to_Outlook.pdf
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/images/pubs-images/45xxx/45653-land-table.png
When the government doesn't like the statistics they change the inputs. And voila instant improvement in the numbers. I give you the instant 3% increase in GDP.
http://blog.bea.gov/2013/07/23/gdp_changes/
Keep spinning Esten, that way you can keep your eyes closed to what is really happening.
The 2014 federal deficit is estimated to be 2.9% of GDP, versus the average of 3.1% over the past 40 years
I will use your own source to make a fool of your statements. Look at the first few years under Obama. Notice the extreme increase in deficits as a percentage of the GDP. I believe you wrote the decade average was 3.1%. Look who's the fool, reading too fast in his excitement to prove me wrong ! I said 40 years not 10 years. LOL You keep embarrassing yourself, give it up.
BTW, the deficits in Obama's first few years were triggered by the financial crisis -- a result of Wall Street greed and conservative free market ideology. Funny how conservatives always fail to mention that.
The deficit is now at a manageable level, but we need to get back to surpluses. I am a strong supporter of balanced budgets and hope we can get there soon. But we need politicians who can compromise. Americans should not (and won't) accept cuts to social programs and entitlements without corresponding tax increases on the top 1%, who have realized 95% of income gains in recent years, while incomes for the middle class have been largely flat. This is a result of capitalism, which is increasingly dominated by large corporations and Wall Street interests.
Esten is of the belief that a good lie will travel half way around the world before the truth gets its boots on.
Tres3.
Another blind liberal. 1998? Find anything I posted about him BO in 1998. Heck let's move forward to this millennia look at 2008 or 2009. Don't see any posts there either.
Here is my first political post on this board (8-12-10).
"Toymann,
I am curious as to how you think the Republicans will take the Senate? I don't believe there are enough Democratic Senators up for reelection to realistically expect the Senate to turn over. I agree about the House turning Republican.".
Yep that's me, guilty of having eyes to see and common sense to think. Credibility. Seems like being 100% correct about that election gives me credibility. How was your call on that election?
And then there's you. Blinded by the need to defend a bad President. Everything you wrote was false, but then to apologize you would have to admit you were wrong. Btw, that stuff you wrote shows how far detached you are from reality. To give you a little guidance back the real world, BO wasn't up for election in 2010, that was a mid term election. Esten is way off on most of the stuff he writes, but you aren't even on planet Earth. But please come back for more verbal abuse, I think you enjoy it.My post was not a reply to your post and not directed specifically at you, but you have chosen to shoulder the cross. Good for you, and I appreciate your reply. I woke up early and was inspired to write it. I wrote 2010 instead of 2012, and most independent thinking person would have pick up on that typo. But everything I said can be validated by going to the thread archives. My thoughts on the Presdential candidates are my own, of course.
And yes, I live in Bangkok and it flies on it's own orbit. And as far as verbal abuse, I have been getting it on AP regularly, so nothing new.
TejanoLibre
10-18-14, 18:26
A Suspended Lawyer.
An Illegal Alien.
A Pathological Liar.
A Muslim,
A Communist,
A Terrible golfer.
And a Black Guy walk into a BAR.
Bartender says.
"What'll it be Mr. President?".
Remember when they said that if you didn't make somewhere around half a million, you were not rich in America?
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/10/23/no_one_is_rich_or_happy_because_we_always_want_more.html
Come to my summer camp in Bangkok.
Obama bashers are just unhappy people!You've got a real problem here, because by my observation Obama supporters are pretty unhappy people also.
Jajajajajaja.
Thanks,
Jax.
I've spent the majority of my life working for the government in one form or another. Eight years with the federal government, fifteen years at three different states' universities, and I've worked for county governments, several city governments, a water and sewer district, and on and one. So I have seen lots of waste and inefficiency.
Now, I am working for a private sector company. I did not know when I was hired that it is largely government funded through the No Child Left Behind Act. The company gets $40 for each hour I am available to work with these underprivileged or low-income students, and they pay me $12. So that is a healthy profit margin and they have little overhead beyond the computer platform, and even that is largely a one-time sunk cost.
But the thing is, there are no students. Now I have "worked" about 70 hours and I have had two students, for a total of about 45 minutes. So 70 x $40 / 3/4 = $3,733 per hour, is what the government / taxpayers are paying. I'm only making $1,120 an hour which hardly seems fair. If you collapse the steps of the whole thing, the government is paying me $12 an hour to watch sports, read, and post on Argentina Private (I'm on the clock as we speak).
If the government simply hired me as an employee, they could just pay me $12 an hour to sit on my ass and eliminate the $28 an hour profit for the private company. That would remind me of the government job I had in college. I got paid for 8 hours to make dinner for 25-30 lowlifes at the county halfway house and then make them sack lunches. It took me about an hour, at the most, and paid about 50% more than a similar job in the private sector would have.
As an auditor, I saw just as much waste and fucking off in private sector as I did in the public sector. I really think it's a toss-up. And from an economic standpoint, if you have a large public sector presence, you have a greater ability to apply fiscal policy and decrease your reliance on monetary policy.
So really, the internet has definitely changed my working career. Before, I had to fuck off in more or less a specific location, which left me vulnerable. Now, I can fuck off anywhere in the world there is broadband. Progress is a wonderful thing.
I saw just as much waste and fucking off in private sector as I did in the public sector. I really think it's a toss-up. .Now you know why private sector companies want all those government service contracts. They do not have to make anything, useful or not, just charge the government and get paid. The government only loses "attrition" employees because someone has to look over the shoulder of the contractors to keep them "honest". That is why 20% of the people make 80% of what we consume, and many federal, state, or local jobs are nothing more than giveaways that keep the people in those jobs "gainfully" employed and off the streets. My dos centavos worth.
Tres3.
Punter 127
10-29-14, 14:16
Are black Americans finally starting to wake up? Of all places this comes from Chicago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUSRZo1BE5o
This could be the beginning of a big problem for the Democrat Plantation party.
So there is a big fuss in one of the neighboring counties because not enough Republican election judges have been hired. Accusations of favoritism and other isms are being bandied about. That county is majority Democratic but only about 55% and only about 30% of the judges are Republicans (if you throw the independents out of the denominator). Well, I can tell you why that is: the jobs pay $11 an hour. It has nothing to do with any malfeasance but rather the demographics of the hiring pool. The Republicans in that county probably have 2x the per capita income of the Democrats, for various reasons. My county is 60% Republican and since I was involved with the screening process, I can tell you that registered Democrats outnumbered registered Republicans by over 2 to 1 in the applications we received.
By the way, this had the affect that almost all the Republican applicants got hired and we got way, way down into loser range. I'm not saying there was a higher percentage of losers in the Republican pool than in the Democratic pool; I'm just saying we got the cream of the Democrats and the full range of Republicans. And our county pays $12.75 an hour so what kind of applicants the neighboring county got, I can only imagine.
So I don't know about paying fast-food workers $15 an hour but do you really want $11 an hour clowns running your elections? I went to the informational meeting for that county and some of the people there looked they had been dumped out of a vacuum cleaner bag.
The Republicans are frothing and slobbering at the mouth at the prospect of taking control of the Senate. I figure if that happens there wont be much done in 2015-16, because Pres. Obama will be vetoeing bills to:
-Repeal the Affordable Care Act.
-Ban Gay Marriage.
-Ban all abortions.
-Blame the Democrats for Fast & Furious.
-Blame Hilary Clinton for the Bengazi attack.
-Blame the PO for Republican front groups not getting tax breaks.
-Trying to Impeach Pres. Obama.
We will see what happens Nov. 4 on election day.
The Republicans are frothing and slobbering at the mouth at the prospect of taking control of the Senate. I figure if that happens there wont be much done in 2015-16, because Pres. Obama will be vetoeing billsAnd I'm okay with nothing being done, and maybe in 2016 we can have a Republican president and a Democratic senate and a bunch more nothing can get done. I think the ideal political situation resembles the Cincinnati-Carolina game.
My state looks to end up the same way so I am looking forward to as much nothing as possible on the state level as well. Except, we have a budget surplus and they might have to give us some of it back. That would be good, considering I was not here when the surplus accumulated but will still get the refund.
The Republicans are frothing and slobbering at the mouth at the prospect of taking control of the Senate. I figure if that happens there wont be much done in 2015-16, because Pres. Obama will be vetoeing bills to:
-Repeal the Affordable Care Act.
-Ban Gay Marriage.
-Ban all abortions.
-Blame the Democrats for Fast & Furious.
-Blame Hilary Clinton for the Bengazi attack.
-Blame the PO for Republican front groups not getting tax breaks.
-Trying to Impeach Pres. Obama.
We will see what happens Nov. 4 on election day.The 1st item is accurate.
The rest is blatant fear-mongering.
Jax.
I was trying to find a rational reason for the Dow Jones to erupt these last 2 weeks. And so it dawned on me, it must be the impending takeover of the Senate by the GOP next week, and therefore Congress, that has the market in such an explosive and ebullient mood. After all, what has that Obama clown done in the last 6 years to be able to claim any credit for all the money the "egg-throwers" have in their pockets. And all that despite raising the taxes, that we were told was the "death knell" of growth. So difficult to comprehend! But I get it, I didn't finish 26th in my class of 40 for nothing.
Well money talks, and I am no exception. After all, Wall Street is carrying the load of whatever luxury I do happen to be able to enjoy. Otherwise, it would be rice & soya sauce,with a chunk of pineapple thrown in. So with much hand-wringing, I feel I have to throw Obama to the lions, if only the market can continue to roar. A sacrifice to the the money gods, eh!
I was trying to find a rational reason for the Dow Jones to erupt these last 2 weeksThe Dow is a price-weighted index, ridiculous, hugely flawed. Attention should not be paid.
I was trying to find a rational reason for the Dow Jones to erupt these last 2 weeks. And so it dawned on me, it must be the impending takeover of the Senate by the GOP next week, and therefore Congress, that has the market in such an explosive and ebullient mood. After all, what has that Obama clown done in the last 6 years to be able to claim any credit for all the money the "egg-throwers" have in their pockets. And all that despite raising the taxes, that we were told was the "death knell" of growth. So difficult to comprehend! But I get it, I didn't finish 26th in my class of 40 for nothing.
Well money talks, and I am no exception. After all, Wall Street is carrying the load of whatever luxury I do happen to be able to enjoy. Otherwise, it would be rice & soya sauce,with a chunk of pineapple thrown in. So with much hand-wringing, I feel I have to throw Obama to the lions, if only the market can continue to roar. A sacrifice to the the money gods, eh!The stock market is not much different than a ponzi scheme. The institutional investors and the rich have DIRECT access to Wall Street servers (computers) and get advance notice of sell-offs, etc., before any of the 'average' day-to-day traders. Thus, those 'special' investors are notified in advance to sell and avoid losses which the 'average' investor ends up bearing the brunt of any loses.
Which is why I, and many others, are leaving the stock market as it is a "no win" game used to trick middle America into investing in it to increase the values so those with direct knowledge can increase their wealth but sell off before anyone else and avoid losses.
This isn't just my opinion but the opinion of my investment advisor- a Vice President with Zacks investments.
Suerte.
Stowe.
Well I sure as fuck won! The stock market might be rigged against idiots who trade all the time (and the tax system is stacked against those people as well), but the road to wealth is paved with equities. Always has been and always will be. I just saw an interesting article about the differences between the stock market and a Ponzi scheme; I'll see if I can find it.
Here we go:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102125181#.
The key point is the existence of an open market. You look at Ponzi, Madoff, so forth, there is never a secondary market. Even if you look at Enron, a major problem there was the derivatives they invested in had no secondary market. Then there was the promise of unreasonable returns in Ponzi and Madoff's schemes. The equity market doesn't promise unreasonable returns and pigs get slaughtered. Recently Robert Shiller made his data dating back to 1871 available. He has a calculator where you can see what has historically been the probability of achieving X% return on average compounded over Y years. So what's a reasonable return, after inflation? Let me see if I can paste in this chart:
Percentage of times S & P has outperformed Y% over X years (1871-2012).
Inflation adjusted.
Years 1 5 10 20 40
4%: 59.81% 62.53% 71.28% 77.12% 97.79%
5%: 57.51% 59.00% 65.28% 71.72% 87.42%
6%: 55.26% 54.26% 57.70% 60.79% 56.29%
7%: 53.19% 49.21% 48.93% 49.25% 33.01%
8%: 50.77% 43.25% 42.80% 36.20% 12.09%
9%: 47.58% 38.32% 36.11% 22.34% 6.54%
10%: 44.98% 34.25% 28.79% 12.84% 0.82%
Next line shows the median return:
50% 8.30% 6.82% 6.91% 6.95% 6.31%
The bottom line gives you the median. Buying and holding for twenty years, you can expect close to 7% (6.95%) after inflation and after accounting for variation in the returns. Your chance of getting 5% is over 70% and if you look at 40 years, a common time frame for the accumulation stage, you'd beat inflation by 5 percentage points close to 90% (87.42%) of the time. So you just ignore the sell-offs. Ignore everything. You don't want to "sell before the sell-offs" anyway. Then when do you buy back in? Instead, you want to buy the piss out of the sell-offs, just like I did in 2008. Not because I'm a genius but because my system forces me to buy low and sell high.
I guess people who think the stock market is rigged can invest in some other asset that has produced better returns over time. Oh, wait a minute; there isn't one!
(Edit: The chart looks real good on the preview. Too bad what you see ain't what you get. Sorry)
The big question today is whether the Republicans will take majority control of the Senate. But I recall 2 years ago that was the same question. There were 6 key races in the country and the Dems won all of them. And guess what I remember from 4 years ago, that was the same issue, and the Dems kept control the Senate that time too.
We will see what happens today.
The big question today is whether the Republicans will take majority control of the Senate. But I recall 2 years ago that was the same question. There were 6 key races in the country and the Dems won all of them. And guess what I remember from 4 years ago, that was the same issue, and the Dems kept control the Senate that time too.
We will see what happens today.hahahahaha
Member #4112
11-05-14, 09:37
I wait for Esten's response to the new Republican Controlled House & Senate. How could a bunch of homophobic, racists, Bible toting, gun loving people who cling to their religious beliefs in fear of the liberal anti-Christ have won such a resounding victory?
Now the Republicans must govern, which I believe they will do well, but not from the stand point of the liberal elite. Wonder if the 2/3's majority in each chamber will materialize to override Obama's coming veto's? Will the democrats be running scared now they have lost both houses of Congress and fear for their own reelection or defeat in 2016 based on how they work with the Republicans? Could Obama's veto pen be out of ink?
While I don't believe impeachment of Obama would be a good thing for the country, it is now a very real threat after loss of control of the Senate. Perhaps this will reign in the Obama imperial presidency?
I await your response with amusement Esten.
WorldTravel69
11-05-14, 13:58
Us 99%ers will be really fucked now.
I wait for Esten's response to the new Republican Controlled House & Senate. How could a bunch of homophobic, racists, Bible toting, gun loving people who cling to their religious beliefs in fear of the liberal anti-Christ have won such a resounding victory?
Now the Republicans must govern, which I believe they will do well, but not from the stand point of the liberal elite. Wonder if the 2/3's majority in each chamber will materialize to override Obama's coming veto's? Will the democrats be running scared now they have lost both houses of Congress and fear for their own reelection or defeat in 2016 based on how they work with the Republicans? Could Obama's veto pen be out of ink?
While I don't believe impeachment of Obama would be a good thing for the country, it is now a very real threat after loss of control of the Senate. Perhaps this will reign in the Obama imperial presidency?
I await your response with amusement Esten.
I await your response with amusement Esten.He's waiting for the DNC to send him his talking points.
Us 99%ers will be really fucked now.Wow man, you just don't get it.
The 1%ers, the Race Card, the War on Women, they all failed.
Thanks,
Jax
And so the worst scenario for Obama did come true. As far as his agenda goes, he had been handcuffed since 2010. But now the soap opera goes into prime time. Shenanigans a-plenty coming your way for your entertainment. Hannity will reach cult status!
But never mind, it's just another piece of the puzzle that makes for America's greatness in the 21st century.
"The business of America is business" The market did not miss a beat.
Us 99%ers will be really fucked now.No Democratic president will allow legislation that will worsen income inequality. But we may have to wait beyond the next 2 years for legislation that will help address the issue. That's OK, we have gained some ground from provisions in the ACA, and the expiration of Bush tax cuts on high earners. The economy will likely continue to do well in the next 2 years. Stay tuned for another strong jobs report tomorrow.
Wow man, you just don't get it.
The 1%ers, the Race Card, the War on Women, they all failed.Nonsense. But that's what Fox News wants you to believe.
Republicans clearly excelled at messaging in the 2014 midterms, while Democrats clearly sucked at messaging. And what we learned is good messaging works, even if it's short on substance and long on spin, distortion and emotion. Well, at least it worked with the segment that helped Republicans.
That segment was small, about 20% of eligible voters in the country. Near record-low turnout, tilted older and white. Many of the races were in Republican-leaning states, including Senate pickups that Dems won six years ago in the 2008 wave election. Expect more spin from Republicans about how hugely significant it is, but putting it in context it's not much to crow about.
Little has changed. Government and the country are still divided and nothing will change without finding common ground or compromise. Polling continues to show strong support for many progressive positions and a 2016 Democratic President. Notice the states that voted to increase the minimum wage and legalize marijuana last night.
I am philosophical about things. The ACA was more than enough progress for Obama's two terms. I felt that way in 2010 and I feel the same today. It's a net shift forward. It's unrealistic to expect more near-term, a period of assimilation is needed before the next push forward.
Member #4112
11-06-14, 11:33
Republicans clearly excelled at messaging in the 2014 midterms, while Democrats clearly sucked at messaging. And what we learned is good messaging works, even if it's short on substance and long on spin, distortion and emotion. Well, at least it worked with the segment that helped Republicans.
That segment was small, about 20% of eligible voters in the country. Near record-low turnout, tilted older and white. Many of the races were in Republican-leaning states, including Senate pickups that Dems won six years ago in the 2008 wave election. Expect more spin from Republicans about how hugely significant it is, but putting it in context it's not much to crow about.
Little has changed. Government and the country are still divided and nothing will change without finding common ground or compromise. Polling continues to show strong support for many progressive positions and a 2016 Democratic President. Notice the states that voted to increase the minimum wage and legalize marijuana last night.
I am philosophical about things. The ACA was more than enough progress for Obama's two terms. I felt that way in 2010 and I feel the same today. It's a net shift forward. It's unrealistic to expect more near-term, a period of assimilation is needed before the next push forward.Jackson, you were exactly correct in stating Esten needed to get direction from the DNC before he could respond, nearly word for word response from the DNC.
Messaging? The Republicans ran on OBAMA's record and the dislike of his policies and the ACA, they did not run on any platform beyond they were not OBAMA.
Oh, the election does not count because a majority of the voters did not turn out therefore it did not represent the true view of the electorate. Then I guess neither of Obama's elections of 2008 and 2012 represented the majority view of the electorate either as he got just a bit more then 50% of the ballots cast in both elections but only 61% and 56% respectively of the electorate actually voted meaning only roughly 30% of the electorate supported Obama.
Then next thing we will here from Esten is the Republicans need to compromise. Yea, like the Democrats "compromised" the first 2 years and when they lost the House in 2010 they continued to "compromise".
Obama and the Democrats got their collective asses handed to them on Tuesday. Hopefully enough Democrats will be scared enough to provide the 2/3's majority in both houses to over ride Obama's veto's!
WorldTravel69
11-06-14, 12:48
We the People got fucked.
Big Business rules.
That is why this was the most expensive election Ever.
http://us7.campaign-archive2.com/?u=218404b9b7d17b8e087467c45&id=426bfe27de&e=edfb8e492c
Wow man, you just don't get it.
The 1%ers, the Race Card, the War on Women, they all failed.
Thanks,
Jax
I hope Pres. Obama has some ballpoint pens with a lot of ink in them because he's going to spend the next 2 years vetoeing one bill after another. It will be gridlock to the max.
That Immigration bill they're talking about; forget it. We'll be worrying about unborn babies in the womb, gay marriage, whos fault it was for the Bengazi attack etc.
I hope Pres. Obama has some ballpoint pens with a lot of ink in them because he's going to spend the next 2 years vetoeing one bill after another. It will be gridlock to the max.
That Immigration bill they're talking about; forget it. We'll be worrying about unborn babies in the womb, gay marriage, whos fault it was for the Bengazi attack etc.Sure, what a great cap to his legacy of incompetence: Spending 2 years vetoing bills that have overwhelming public support.
First up: The Keystone Pipeline. I want to watch as the President justifies vetoing a bill that would create 20,000 high paying construction jobs, thousands of permanent refinery jobs, cement our relationship with our neighbors to the north, and enhance our energy independence, all to appease a few tree huggers.
BTW, apparently you didn't get the memo: The "War on Women" is over, and the liberals lost. Nobody gives a fuck about "unborn babies in the womb" or "gay marriage".
Thanks,
Jax.
Speaking of lost, I guess the conservatives lost the gay marriage issue. Its legal now in over 30 states, all their efforts were a waste of time.
The Keystone Pipeline will make the Canadiens happy and the big oil refinery companies in Louisiana will be real happy. After the refining the oil will then be shipped to Japan, China, India etc. So what do Americans get?
The Keystone Pipeline will make the Canadiens happy and the big oil refinery companies in Louisiana will be real happy. After the refining the oil will then be shipped to Japan, China, India etc. So what do Americans get?The USA imports about 9 million barrels oil per day of oil and refined products, and exports 4 million barrels per day. Net imports are 5 million barrels per day. The Canadians have alternatives to the Keystone pipeline. They can build a pipeline to the Canadian west coast and export to China, Japan, etc. Or to their east coast and export to Europe, the USA, etc.
What do Americans get if the pipeline goes through the USA? Given that we will always be a net importer of oil / refined products, the answer is energy security. We would not be as compelled to intervene and spill blood every time there's a conflagration in the Middle East that would shut off oil supplies. It's a no brainer, even if you're an American tree hugger. The oil will be produced either way. If I were in Obama's shoes, I'd be doing everything I could to make sure North American oil production could stay in North America in the event of a worldwide crisis, like the 1967 and 1973 Arab oil embargoes.
Right now we have a glut of oil in the USA, that's why the price has been coming down lately. Theres drilling for shale oil in the Dakotas, Colorado and Wyoming etc. We don't need oil from Canada.
These drilling permits were approved by the Interior Dept. During the Obama years.
I saw an interview on C-Span with the executives from all the big oil producers here in the USA. They all said they couldn't guarantee that the refined oil from the Keystone Pipeline would be used here. All lot of it would be going to foreign countries.
Investing in additional infrastructure to produce and transport fossil fuels is counterproductive, because fossil fuels are on the way out. It would be like buying additional desktop computers. You'd see brief fiscal stimulus from the short to mid-term jobs created. I'm not sure we need fiscal stimulus now. Maybe five years ago. I'd rather see infrastructure dollars spent on bridge repair and flood repair/reclamation right now, maybe wildfire mitigation if that's even possible. That's assuming it can't be spent on producing say wind energy.
Member #4112
11-06-14, 18:39
Speaking of lost, I guess the conservatives lost the gay marriage issue. Its legal now in over 30 states, all their efforts were a waste of time.
The Keystone Pipeline will make the Canadiens happy and the big oil refinery companies in Louisiana will be real happy. After the refining the oil will then be shipped to Japan, China, India etc. So what do Americans get?Shows how uninformed you are. The XL is primarily going to TEXAS Gulf Coast refineries.
What do the American people get?
High paying skilled jobs and money from the sale of refined products to other countries. That money will be coming to the US not to Saudi, Iran, et al.
So what do Americans get?High-paying refinery and dockworker jobs, you ******* obtuse pinhead!
Right now we have a glut of oil in the USA, that's why the price has been coming down lately. Theres drilling for shale oil in the Dakotas, Colorado and Wyoming etc. We don't need oil from Canada.
These drilling permits were approved by the Interior Dept. during the Obama years.
I saw an interview on C-Span with the executives from all the big oil producers here in the USA. They all said they couldn't guarantee that the refined oil from the Keystone Pipeline would be used here. All lot of it would be going to foreign countries.Once again, you ******* obtuse pinhead, the Keystone Pipeline oil is not currently intended for domestic consumtion. It is expected to be refined in the USA (thus the high-paying refinery and dockworker jobs) and the subsequently value-added product will be exported, although that could be changed overnight should it be warranted by our national security interests.
I can't believe these ******* liberals. They can't get behind even the most obvious idea no matter how much common sense it makes.
Jax.
Member #4112
11-06-14, 18:42
Right now we have a glut of oil in the USA, that's why the price has been coming down lately. Theres drilling for shale oil in the Dakotas, Colorado and Wyoming etc. We don't need oil from Canada.
These drilling permits were approved by the Interior Dept. During the Obama years.
I saw an interview on C-Span with the executives from all the big oil producers here in the USA. They all said they couldn't guarantee that the refined oil from the Keystone Pipeline would be used here. All lot of it would be going to foreign countries.The vast majority of new production is taking place on PRIVATE not GOVERNMENT controlled land.
Investing in additional infrastructure to produce and transport fossil fuels is counterproductive, because fossil fuels are on the way out. It would be like buying additional desktop computers. You'd see brief fiscal stimulus from the short to mid-term jobs created. I'm not sure we need fiscal stimulus now. Maybe five years ago. I'd rather see infrastructure dollars spent on bridge repair and flood repair/reclamation right now, maybe wildfire mitigation if that's even possible. That's assuming it can't be spent on producing say wind energy.I support the idea of increasing government infrastructure spending, but that doesn't apply here because the Keystone Pipeline is to be built with private money, not government funds.
Investing in additional infrastructure to produce and transport fossil fuels is counterproductive, because fossil fuels are on the way out. It would be like buying additional desktop computers. You'd see brief fiscal stimulus from the short to mid-term jobs created. I'm not sure we need fiscal stimulus now. Maybe five years ago. I'd rather see infrastructure dollars spent on bridge repair and flood repair/reclamation right now, maybe wildfire mitigation if that's even possible. That's assuming it can't be spent on producing say wind energy.You don't read much about "peak oil" anymore. The recent reputable forecasts I've seen for energy consumption show worldwide oil, natural gas and coal production increasing for many years in the future. The U.S. EIA forecasts renewables will only be 12% of total USA energy consumption in 2040, up from 9% in 2012.
As to Jackson's point, I know you're not a communist, so what are you proposing? Should government mandate or otherwise ensure that oil, gas and pipeline companies not spend money on exploration, production and infrastructure because it's a dying industry? Jimmy Carter had the same idea about natural gas, and used price controls to shut down investment. He was very wrong. Considering what's happened in the oil and gas industry over the last 5 or 10 years, the large increases in production, I don't understand the basis for your beliefs.
I support the idea of increasing government infrastructure spending, but that doesn't apply here because the Keystone Pipeline is to be built with private money, not government funds.I understand that, but money is fungible and government and private investment compete for capital and for opportunities to deploy it (the "crowding out" effect). So I'm not concerned with whether dollars are private or public, only with where they are going. Now, whether and what types of infrastructure should be privately owned is a separate debate. The risk of private ownership of the pipeline is that the owners will engage in future rent-seeking behavior to the detriment of the public, and that seems like a safe bet to me. The advantages might outweigh those risks; I haven't looked at the particular project as far as that goes. I will say that it does seem like a transfer of negative externalities to the people disrupted by the pipeline, but those same people will probably benefit disproportionately from the positive (although mostly temporary) economic effects.
The risk of private ownership of the pipeline is that the owners will engage in future rent-seeking behavior to the detriment of the public, and that seems like a safe bet to me.It doesn't work that way. The owners of the pipeline would have to show that they lack significant market power, in order to set rates at the level they want. Otherwise, the rates will be set based on cost service, plus a reasonable rate of return on investment. This is regulated by FERC. If the owners of the pipeline engage in rent-seeking behavior then their customers will pursue a remedy through legal and regulatory means.
The advantages might outweigh those risks; I haven't looked at the particular project as far as that goes. I will say that it does seem like a transfer of negative externalities to the people disrupted by the pipeline, but those same people will probably benefit disproportionately from the positive (although mostly temporary) economic effects.I'm not sure what you're getting at, but you wouldn't argue that people should ride around in horse-drawn buggies when technology exists for automobiles. Transportation of oil by pipeline is much cheaper and also safer than by rail or truck. What you're calling "temporary" in the case of the Keystone pipeline would perhaps be in excess of 100 years, if you mean how long there will be beneficial economic effects from having the pipeline in operation.
You don't read much about "peak oil" anymore. The recent reputable forecasts I've seen for energy consumption show worldwide oil, natural gas and coal production increasing for many years in the future. The U.S. EIA forecasts renewables will only be 10% of total USA energy consumption in 2040, up from 8% in 2012.
As to Jackson's point, I know you're not a communist, so what are you proposing? Should government mandate or otherwise ensure that oil, gas and pipeline companies not spend money on exploration, production and infrastructure because it's a dying industry? Jimmy Carter had the same idea about natural gas, and used price controls to shut down investment. He was very wrong. Considering what's happened in the oil and gas industry over the last 5 or 10 years, the large increases in production, I don't understand the basis for your beliefs.I just think it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. We could easily move away from oil. It would take time, and there would be some short-term economic, but I believe it would be the right thing to do, including economically if you look at the fairly long-term (say 50 years). But as Keynes said, in the very long run everyone is dead, so there is no real motivation to take the steps to move toward renewables with any sense of commitment. The government is beholden to the oil industry, certainly. So not only do you have massive political pressure to continue to extract fossil fuels, you have the reality that they remain relatively cheap in the short run. Conservatives say that liberals are mortgaging the next generation's future with debt. Liberals say that conservatives are mortgaging the next generation's future environmentally.
But government mandates and price controls, certainly not. You know I would never favor price controls. Even more heinous would be trying to influence the direction of the focus of R & D, at least if you believe the private sector is best at development, which I certainly do. I'd look for the court of public opinion, in the form of the minds of the younger generation, to be the catalyst for real change in energy policy. If you want a short term, interventionist, Keynesian suggestion, I'd favor an up-front tax credit or penalty on new car purchases. Figure the current mileage of the US fleet, add X% to it to make it a goal for improvement, and that mileage would have a neutral tax. Purchasing a new vehicle with better mileage than the target figure would result in a credit and purchasing one with worse mileage would lead to a tax or surcharge. Make it a big one, like three or four thousand dollars for purchasing a car with twice the target mileage. Something like that. And as we know, new car purchases have a ripple effect through the economy. Emissions would fall as mileage rose. Rich people love tax credits and would buy luxury hybrids.
Of course wind energy looks good to me because of the part of the country I live in, but I do think it has potential, especially for some of the smaller co-ops that we have around here. You don't want to pump an industry up with credits too much because then you don't know if it would sink or swim on its own, but maybe a subsidy at the consumer level would encourage more wide-spread adoption and give the utilities more critical mass and economies of scale. Another measure I would favor would be basing the cost of a car's license plates on miles driven (which would not rule out a property-type tax based on value; that is a different discussion).
Wow Im an ---- obtuse pinhead.
The Canadian oil could be shipped by rail or truck to the refineries. Also theres refineries in other states like Ohio and Penn. Etc. That are a lot closer. Theres no reason to ship it to Louisiana or Texas.
We have enough oil and natural gas in the USA to last us 100 years. Theres no reason to mess up the environment in all those states by building this pipeline.
Guys try not to have a hissy fit over this.
It doesn't work that way. The owners of the pipeline would have to show that they lack significant market power, in order to set rates at the level they want. Otherwise, the rates will be set based on cost service, plus a reasonable rate of return on investment. This is regulated by FERC. If the owners of the pipeline engage in rent-seeking behavior then their customers will pursue a remedy through legal and regulatory means.In theory. In practice, there is a well-known tendency of regulated utilities to "capture the regulators" so pardon me if I'm a bit cynical about that. The customers will pursue remedies against a system that is rigged against them, as always.
I'm not sure what you're getting at, but you wouldn't argue that people should ride around in horse-drawn buggies when technology exists for automobiles. Transportation of oil by pipeline is much cheaper and also safer than by rail or truck. What you're calling "temporary" in the case of the Keystone pipeline is in excess of 100 years, if you mean how long there will be beneficial effects from having the pipeline in operation.Well, pipelines are the horses and buggies and alternative energy is the automobile, to continue your analogy, but I am only referring to the construction and related employment as being fairly temporary, not the purported benefits of the pipeline. You and I won't live long enough to find out, but I say that, while I'm sure it's accurate that pipelines are safer than trucks, that type of thinking will prove to have been similar to trying to make safer horse-and-buggies circa say 1920 or so.
If you want a short term, interventionist, Keynesian suggestion, I'd favor an up-front tax credit or penalty on new car purchases. Figure the current mileage of the US fleet, add X% to it to make it a goal for improvement, and that mileage would have a neutral tax. Purchasing a new vehicle with better mileage than the target figure would result in a credit and purchasing one with worse mileage would lead to a tax or surcharge. Make it a big one, like three or four thousand dollars for purchasing a car with twice the target mileage. Something like that. And as we know, new car purchases have a ripple effect through the economy. Emissions would fall as mileage rose. Rich people love tax credits and would buy luxury hybrids.Or just increase the tax on gasoline, if it's matched by an equivalent decrease in the income tax. That or your suggestion would be better IMHO than government mandates for miles per gallon for vehicles, like what we've got now.
Of course wind energy looks good to me because of the part of the country I live in, but I do think it has potential, especially for some of the smaller co-ops that we have around here. You don't want to pump an industry up with credits too much because then you don't know if it would sink or swim on its own, but maybe a subsidy at the consumer level would encourage more wide-spread adoption and give the utilities more critical mass and economies of scale. Another measure I would favor would be basing the cost of a car's license plates on miles driven (which would not rule out a property-type tax based on value; that is a different discussion).
Wind is already getting a lot of subsidies, although I think Congress has been renewing that for new projects on a year-by-year basis. On days when there's low demand for electricity in certain parts of Texas, wind generators actually sometimes pay to put electricity into the grid, instead of receiving revenues from the power they're producing. They do this because, say, they're getting a 2 cent per kilowatt hour subsidy or tax credit they can sell, and only have to pay a penny a kilowatt hour to get the grid to accept the power. So it makes more sense to keep operating, instead of shutting down and saving the wear and tear on the equipment. This appears to me to be a waste of the taxpayers' money.
Wow Im an ---- obtuse pinhead.
The Canadian oil could be shipped by rail or truck to the refineries. Also theres refineries in other states like Ohio and Penn. Etc. That are a lot closer. Theres no reason to ship it to Louisiana or Texas.
We have enough oil and natural gas in the USA to last us 100 years. Theres no reason to mess up the environment in all those states by building this pipeline.
Guys try not to have a hissy fit over this.There are refineries in China and eastern Canada, and actually that's where the oil will go in the longer term without Keystone. What you say about natural gas is probably correct. We will always be net importers of oil though.
Are you the son of World Travel 69? Just wondering as he's from the bay area, and also believes the most important goal of the federal government should be to screw the Texans and the southerners.
Increasing the gasoline tax would be regressive and would be less likely to get gas guzzlers off the road in the short term. I don't have any stats to back it up, but I bet the very poor, say the poorest quintile of all drivers, drive cars with below average gas mileage, cuz they are stuck with them. Maybe, to help get them out of those cars that are harming those who do NOT drive them, my credit could also apply to used cars as long as the newer car represented an X% improvement in mileage and the old car was put in the crusher. That might drive up the price of used cars, though.
Credits work faster than changes in tax rates and so are the superior fiscal tool, in my opinion. I should add that reducing the age of the fleet on the road will have ancillary benefits in terms of safety, and the states' coffers may benefit because newer cars pay higher registration fees (and of course in most states there would be sales tax revenues on purchase as well).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/midterm-disaster-rips-apart-awkward-ties-between-obama-and-senate-democrats/2014/11/05/5bdd257a-650e-11e4-9fdc-d43b053ecb4d_story.html?tid=pm_pop
In politics, once in power, there really is very little difference between a GOP or a Democratic president. They are beholden to Big Business. All the big players donate to both parties & candidates. And so you better know how to play the game as good as Bill Clinton did. A man of loose morals, that is the type of president that America needs. Say what? Just in case you didn't know, the Clintons are the poster couple for Corporate America. And in Obama, the Financial Lobby had a true friend.
When the very, very, very, junior Senator Obama leapfrogged Hillary Clinton to win the Democratic nomination, he upended the Democratic hierarchy. Both Reid & Pelosi and a few others were powerful and they were not going to just bend over. They had their fiefdom and ambitions to protect. Publicly, they were embracing each, of course. Never mind, the one-term goal that the GOP had proclaimed. As the financial crisis hit, Obama found himself a juggling act of the highest order. What a legacy Bush bestow on Obama!!! No wonder he is doing so much painting, he needed to hide himself from the public eye.
And so we march forward, Boehner warns Obama "not to poison the well". Too late, the well has already been poisoned. How can you tell? Just count how many medications you have prescriptions for. What? You say you never felt so good? Then, great for you.
Maybe, to help get them out of those cars that are harming those who do NOT drive them, my credit could also apply to used cars as long as the newer car represented an X% improvement in mileage and the old car was put in the crusher.Isn't that what "Cash for Clunkers" was supposed to do?
BTW, has anyone seen or heard from Debbie "Screech" Wasserman-Schmutz?
ROTFLMAO!
Jax
Isn't that what "Cash for Clunkers" was supposed to do?
BTW, has anyone seen or heard from Debbie "Screech" Wasserman-Schmutz?
ROTFLMAO!
JaxI don't know who that is but the difference in C4C and what I envision is that C4C was short-term and limited. That meant that a lot of the people who participated were merely accelerating a purchase they would have made anyway. That was okay from a fiscal stimulus standpoint but suboptimal from an energy policy standpoint. What I propose would work best if it was permanent or at least fairly long-term. You know in your heart we could improve the mileage of the US fleet 20% or more in 5 years or less. Focus on some similar goal. The EPA mileage standards force manufacturers to produce higher mileage cars. I would prefer that consumers demand higher mileage cars. Targeting the end consumer with a subsidy is superior to threatening the producer with a penalty.
Jackson, you were exactly correct in stating Esten needed to get direction from the DNC before he could respond, nearly word for word response from the DNC.Actually I speak for myself. If my comments are similar to others, they are likely just looking at the same set of facts.
About the DNC though, Debbie Wasserman Schultz has to go. She has never been a great face of the party, and she failed at coordinating a clear unified message for Democrats this year. It will be a mistake to keep her on.
BTW Doppel, I still haven't seen you THANK Obama for his tax policies that are helping you BIG TIME, saving you almost $20,000 a year via the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.
the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012Otherwise known as the Dickhead Immediate Retirement Act! Do I thank Bush for the reverse Robin Hood tax cuts or Obama for extending them? Thanks to both of them! Retirement is awesome! Harvesting massive amounts of capital gains at 0% federal rates while obtaining hugely subsidized health care is awesome! Now I get free drugs too! And I have a free car!
So I'd like to thank myself for working hard for 40 years, and I would like to thank the combination of the Bush tax cuts, the ATRA's extension of them, the Affordable Care Act, and the late Senator William V. Roth, Jr. of Delaware for making it so I didn't have to work 10 or 12 more years.
But today I found out you fucks cut my health insurance subsidy by $75 a month. That is really a shame because as my New Year's resolution I have promised to donate my entire 2015 health care subsidy to qualified and needy prostitutes throughout Latin America and southern Europe, so by cutting my subsidy you are just taking bread out of these poor women's mouths. I guess I will just have to make up for this lack of nourishment by giving them extra leche.
BTW Doppel, I still haven't seen you THANK Obama for his tax policies that are helping you BIG TIME, saving you almost $20,000 a year via the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.Obama saved me much, much more than that. My 2013 taxes were about 20% of what I paid for 2012. That is, they were about 80% less. This is because I decided if the mother fuckers in Washington are going to tax me at a rate of 43.4%, in addition to what I gladly (honestly) pay state and local governments, then I'm going to quit working. Or at least cut way back. Thank you President Obama!!!
Yeah, when I work I face 41.05% marginal taxation with the Obamacare effect. So fuck it. My target is to make $6500 a year by working and contribute it all to my IRA. Not a penny more. It's gonna take a few more years for people 50-65 years old to realize they can just flat out quit and get subsidized insurance, but as awareness sets in, you'll see more of them packing it in. Obamacare is also good for younger folks who want to quit their jobs and travel or fuck off or chase hookers for a year or so. They get kicked off their parents' insurance when they turn 26 and since they're still living in the parents' basement, this way they can still pay for their health insurance along with their subscriptions to Pandora and Hulu and their iPhones. Oh, wait a minute; their parents are paying for all that shit too.
Never mind.
Member #4112
11-07-14, 09:49
Actually I speak for myself. If my comments are similar to others, they are likely just looking at the same set of facts.
About the DNC though, Debbie Wasserman Schultz has to go. She has never been a great face of the party, and she failed at coordinating a clear unified message for Democrats this year. It will be a mistake to keep her on.
BTW Doppel, I still haven't seen you THANK Obama for his tax policies that are helping you BIG TIME, saving you almost $20,000 a year via the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.First of all I have saved nothing under Obama. Point of fact between taxes and ObamaCare running up my employee health costs over 60% in three years I am worse off now than when he took office.
Why should I thank you for anything Esten, you have done nothing but propagate the DNC's propaganda for years. If the mid-terms were not a repudiation of Obama and his policies I don't know what is.
When Carter starts criticizing Obama you know something is really wrong. Obama will go down as the biggest failure as a president in American History replacing the stupid peanut farmer! By the way Carter's grandson got his ass handed to him on Tuesday as well.
WorldTravel69
11-07-14, 13:05
Just educate them.
There are refineries in China and eastern Canada, and actually that's where the oil will go in the longer term without Keystone. What you say about natural gas is probably correct. We will always be net importers of oil though.
Are you the son of World Travel 69? Just wondering as he's from the bay area, and also believes the most important goal of the federal government should be to screw the Texans and the southerners.
ElAlamoPalermo
11-07-14, 14:02
Obama will go down as the biggest failure as a president in American History replacing the stupid peanut farmer! .Your assertion is so ridiculous and utterly inaccurate I wonder if even a right wing ultraconservative such as yourself actually believes it. Obviously what will happen between tomorrow and January 20, 2017 is not known, but barring a catastrophic geopolitical or economic event Obama will be judged kindly by the historians involved in ranking Presidential Administrations. No matter what its "final" iteration is, the Affordable Care Act aka "Obamacare" is here to stay and its initiation will be judged by historians as a landmark event in US history on the level of Social Security and Medicare. Obama will also be given credit for overseeing the massive recovery from the so-called Great Recession and for successfully ordering the military strike that killed Osama bin Ladin.
Member #4112
11-07-14, 15:34
Your assertion is so ridiculous and utterly inaccurate I wonder if even a right wing ultraconservative such as yourself actually believes it. Obviously what will happen between tomorrow and January 20, 2017 is not known, but barring a catastrophic geopolitical or economic event Obama will be judged kindly by the historians involved in ranking Presidential Administrations. No matter what its "final" iteration is, the Affordable Care Act aka "Obamacare" is here to stay and its initiation will be judged by historians as a landmark event in US history on the level of Social Security and Medicare. Obama will also be given credit for overseeing the massive recovery from the so-called Great Recession and for successfully ordering the military strike that killed Osama bin Ladin.EAP would you care to place a bet on ACA in it's final form as passed by the House and Senate and signed by Obama will remain intact?
I can tell you that simply will not happen and it will be judged as the colossal failure it is. The total ineptitude of the Obama administration from domestic policy to foreign policy to the use of the IRS to inflict injury on his political enemies will make Carter look sterling when compared to Obama.
Obama has diminished both the country and the presidency and will be judged accordingly.
Either Boehner or McConnell acknowledged yesterday that they don't have the votes to repeal Obamacare. I don't agree with EAP about how Obama will be judged but I do think the ACA will become like Medicare and fifty years from now it will be taken for granted. Of course, maybe they will have the votes in 2017. The US is starting to remind me of Chile or Uruguay, lurching back and forth from right to left every other election. It did seem like in general moderates won and extremists on both sides lost, so that could be a start.
If I were Obama I would call in five highly influential Republican senators and five highly influential Democratic ones and I would say, "Write your best idea for what we can accomplish in the next two years on this piece of paper in the next sixty seconds and then get the fuck out." Then I would pick the best two Republican ideas and the best two Democratic ones, call the same ten fucks, I mean folks, back in and say, "I don't want to hear one more word out of any of you fuckers until you come up with some bipartisan legislation on these four ideas." Then guarantee them that whatever they come up with, he won't veto.
Either Boehner or McConnell acknowledged yesterday that they don't have the votes to repeal Obamacare. I don't agree with EAP about how Obama will be judged but I do think the ACA will become like Medicare and fifty years from now it will be taken for granted. Of course, maybe they will have the votes in 2017. The US is starting to remind me of Chile or Uruguay, lurching back and forth from right to left every other election. It did seem like in general moderates won and extremists on both sides lost, so that could be a start.
If I were Obama I would call in five highly influential Republican senators and five highly influential Democratic ones and I would say, "Write your best idea for what we can accomplish in the next two years on this piece of paper in the next sixty seconds and then get the fuck out." Then I would pick the best two Republican ideas and the best two Democratic ones, call the same ten fucks, I mean folks, back in and say, "I don't want to hear one more word out of any of you fuckers until you come up with some bipartisan legislation on these four ideas." Then guarantee them that whatever they come up with, he won't veto.That's called "leadership", which is a skill that Obama doesn't possess.
I didn't say I was holding my breath waiting for it to happen. But you make a good point. I look back at the presidents in my lifetime and I just don't see an outstanding leader, as in none, as in zero. In fairness I do not remember Eisenhower. Kennedy had the qualities but didn't get much of a chance. The rest of 'em, not too impressive. I was just looking at the last few governors of my state, which is a swing state. I went back three Dems and three Republicans. Just nothing really outstanding about any of them.
I think Charles Barkley would make a good president. Plus he likes hookers.
ElAlamoPalermo
11-07-14, 17:09
EAP would you care to place a bet on ACA in it's final form as passed by the House and Senate and signed by Obama will remain intact?
I can tell you that simply will not happen and it will be judged as the colossal failure it is. The total ineptitude of the Obama administration from domestic policy to foreign policy to the use of the IRS to inflict injury on his political enemies will make Carter look sterling when compared to Obama.
Obama has diminished both the country and the presidency and will be judged accordingly.No democratic president will ever allow the ACA to be repealed, period. Every year that passes more and more US citizens will be enrolled in the ACA and it will become (if it is not already) politically unfeasible for any party to even consider eliminating it the same as eliminating Social Security or Medicare would be impossible. As I stated in my post it is anybody's guess what the "final iteration" of the ACA will consist of (meaning it will, and should be continually updated, modernized and made more efficient as need be) but it has achieved its objective of providing the possibility of affordable healthcare to the masses and it will be going nowhere.
EAP would you care to place a bet on ACA in it's final form as passed by the House and Senate and signed by Obama will remain intact?
I can tell you that simply will not happen and it will be judged as the colossal failure it is. The total ineptitude of the Obama administration from domestic policy to foreign policy to the use of the IRS to inflict injury on his political enemies will make Carter look sterling when compared to Obama.
Obama has diminished both the country and the presidency and will be judged accordingly.First, everybody already agree that ACA is not perfect, that there will be changes down the road as they tinker and fine tune it. Why do you keep forgetting that?
Quite some time back, 3 or 4 biographers of various presidents appear on a tv talk show. They all agree that Obama would go down in the top 5 presidents all-time. They might not be as gushing today, but I think your opinion is highly prejudiced. But you are entitled to it, of course. Myself, I do not think he is top 5 and I am not astute enough to want to venture a ranking. For sure, he will be rank above Bush, Jr.
It has been very sad to see American politics the way it has been the last 2 decades. But it is a reflection of the dysfunctional state of our lifestyle. We are only saved by the great natural resources that we possess and the vigor of the thousands of immigrants that still arrive each day. If not for them, most Americans would be smoking dope, screwing their best friend's wife, suffering from some kind of disorder, and contemplating suicide! An exaggeration, of course, so no bashing, please.
With great interest, I will enjoy the new soap opera season. I can't wait for Sarah Palin to open her mouth. And of course, the main man himself, Donald Trump.
The Republicans don't have the votes to override an Obama veto of a repeal of the Affordable Care Act. They need to get over it. Its here to stay. The act is bringing medical insurance to millions of people for the first time in their lives. Plus:
-- No caps on benefits.
-- Seniors don't have a donut hole to worry about on their prescription drugs (Pres. Bush's great idea).
-- No preexisting conditions can stop people from getting insurance.
-- Young people can ride their parents insurance until age 26.
And much more. Whats not to like.
the purpose of Obamacare was redistribution of wealth.If that is the case, then they sure fucked it up because without means testing it's mostly going to be a distribution of wealth to lazy assholes like me who were already well off to begin with and who know how to work the system. A lot of the others who might get a wealth transfer aren't going to be able to figure it out. If you subsidize people who have to consume the entire subsidy, they don't accrue any wealth. They just kind of survive. The real wealth transfer will be to the CPAs who have to plan around this. The ACA is a huge intergenerational financial and estate planning opportunity and that's just going to perpetuate existing wealth more so than transfer it.
Say your worthless son, Entitled Snotnose III, is getting kicked off your health insurance because he's turning 26. Not much chance of being covered under an employer plan since the little shit hasn't worked a day in his life. You can still support him and he can get Medicaid. Or say you are a CEO who has made $27 million in last five years so you retire at 60. Take all your money out that year and you too can go on Medicaid until you are 65. Makes no sense.
Member #4112
11-07-14, 20:00
First I don't "hate" Obama even though he has disgraced himself, the office of the president and the country.
Please pull your head out of the sand, did you totally miss what happened on Tuesday? It was a complete repudiation of Obama and his policies. Stop whining, your boy is an idiot, get over it.
Top 5 presidents, please. Perhaps the worst 5 if not the worst.
ACA is here to stay, I doubt that. Perhaps parts of it will be rolled into a new system but ACA / Obamacare is a joke. Double digit increases this year and guess what, the federal subsidies were found to be illegal by a federal court.
Deadlines pushed back without legal authority and why, because the midterms would have been even worse if they had gone into affect. Pure politics by your boy because he is scared of his own "signature" policy.
Here's a good one for you. The IRS says they are not prepared to collect the "tax" for going naked and their web site for their side of ACA according to the IRS will be at least as bad as ObamaCare was when it was rolled out.
This thing has been a closterfuck from the start.
Tell me how great ACA is, it has boosted my employee healthcare costs 60%+ over three years and here is the kicker, our current plan will be classed a "Cadillac Plan" under ACA which means I will have to trim the benefits to avoid the additional penalty. Believe me my employees are not amused.
As far as his threat to use executive orders to provide amnesty to illegals, I hope he does. It will galvanize the electorate and perhaps provide the impetus for democrats to further distance themselves from the Emperor, joining republicans for the 2/3's majorities of the House and Senate to over ride an Obama veto of coming legislation. Remember with 54 to 55 Republicans in the Senate it will only take a few to move over. The same for the House. It's going to an interesting 2 years.
Rc Collins
11-07-14, 20:10
Quite some time back, 3 or 4 biographers of various presidents appear on a tv talk show. They all agree that Obama would go down in the top 5 presidents all-time. They might not be as gushing today, but I think your opinion is highly prejudiced. I saw this recently too with another historian but they do judge presidents on their accomplishment rather than partisanship. If you look objectively look at Obama's accomplishments and put your hate on hold there's no way he could be the worst presidents. Some of his feats are:
-The stock market is at an all time high, now close to 18000 points up from the 6500 or so when he took office. (personally I regained all my losses from MY TSP and 401K which I lost prior to 2008. This is a major accomplishment by anyone's standard and a huge gain for the country).
-No terrorist attack on US soil during his term to date (unlike 9-11 where so many warnings were ignored by the President conservatives want to forget).
-Killed America's number one nemesis Bin Laden (something the Republican president was unable to do) This was therapeutic for many Americans.
-Saved the Auto Industry.
-Put the economy on the right track from the disastrous road it was travelling on (its not perfect but better than where it was when he took office).
-ACA (love it or hate it, this will go down a major accomplishment similar to SS).
-Ended the extremely unpopular Iraq war saving the country's stressed out military from exhaustion.
-Allowed all citizens to freely serve the country in the Armed Services ending that discriminatory practice. (Conservatives wailed and cried when Obama did this and warned it would be the end of the military as we know it. Today this is a non-issue in our Armed Forces).
-Continually lowered the unemployment rate which dropped again this month (but conservatives now want to change the measurement metric, the same one that was always used).
What did Bush jr do to make him a better president than Obama and remember over 3000 Americans died on 9-11 needlessly because of his administration ineptitude and poor leadership and don't forget Bush's economy. Conservatives rail against Obama regardless of the issue, similarly many Liberals love him despite the issues. Obama's accomplishment will support him as being one of the best, the most loved/admired and the most hated presidents in our history but no way is he the worst, he's at the top of the list in terms of his achievements.
the federal subsidies were found to be illegal by a federal court.On the same day another and equal federal court found the exact opposite, and only as they pertained to the federal website. The states' websites were not covered by the ruling although they receive their subsidies from the feds. But just go ahead and cherry pick whatever supports your point of view.
-- No caps on benefits.
-- Seniors don't have a donut hole to worry about on their prescription drugs (Pres. Bush's great idea).
-- No preexisting conditions can stop people from getting insurance.
-- Young people can ride their parents insurance until age 26.You could have had all that without Obamacare, and quite probably with lots of GOP support.
But let us not forget that the purpose of Obamacare was redistribution of wealth. Everything else was just the camouflage necessary to hide that reality.
Thanks,
Jax.
Whats not to like.The Individual Mandate, multiple additional taxes, private sector job losses, a huge new bureaucracy, government intervention into citizen's private lives, a drogue chute on the economy, unaddressed Health Justice reforms, escalating medical costs in general, and higher premiums for everyone who actually pays for their own insurance, to name just a few.
Thanks,
Jax.
You could have had all that without Obamacare, and quite probably with lots of GOP support.
I haven't heard of any Republicans supporting all these tenants of the ACA. Maybe Ted Cruz, NOT.
Thanks,
Bboy.
I'll tell you one part of the ACA I don't agree with is that bullshit about letting "children" stay on the parents' policy until age 26. Come on. No wonder these past couple of generations have so much boomerang. I thought an adult was 18. Or 21. But not fucking 26.
I tell you what, I hope this Republican congress cuts higher education funding. I really do. There are so many bullshit colleges out there with bullshit programs it's ridiculous. And no, 80% of the population does not need a college degree. I have four and look how worthless I am. You could close half the colleges and kick out half the students and nothing would suffer. K-12 funding, we keep increasing it but students keep getting dumber. I don't know what's up with that. I guess it's just the long-term effect of the inverse relationship between intelligence and fecundity and I don't see much chance of reversing that. Put these dumb ass kids to work at 15 or 16 if they can't read or do math. Don't send them to college to take a bunch of non-credit 098 level "academic preparation and remediation." I taught at five colleges and I can tell you that "academic preparation" for college is supposed to be fucking high school for Christ's sake. So if you don't know what six times seven is by the time you are sixteen, here is a fucking shovel, now bend over.
Member #4112
11-07-14, 22:28
On the same day another and equal federal court found the exact opposite, and only as they pertained to the federal website. The states' websites were not covered by the ruling although they receive their subsidies from the feds. But just go ahead and cherry pick whatever supports your point of view.The case has been accepted by the Supreme Court so how is it cherry picking?
The case has been accepted by the Supreme Court so how is it cherry picking?There were two Circuit Court cases. One went one way and one went the other way. You talked about the one and not the other. So that is cherry picking. I'm still sorting through SCOTUS's decision to grant certiorari but I guess they are reviewing not the one they were expected to maybe review but the other one? The one that went against your position? Anyway it sounds like there is some interesting maneuvering going on. One article I read said the conservatives granted cert to force Roberts to vote in favor of the ACA again. And SCOTUS proactively decided to review without either of the Circuit Court cases' parties requesting it? I don't think they "accepted" it; I think they went out and grabbed it. I might not have all that straight as I am still digesting it. Should be a fun decision. Sounds like one of those "definition of what 'is' is" kind of cases (in this case, what "state" is) and it seems the main issue will be legislative intent versus a literal reading.
But my state has an exchange anyway so nyaah.
You could have had all that without Obamacare, and quite probably with lots of GOP support.Do you believe in unicorns too ?
The protections and benefits of the ACA would not have been possible without providing the revenue to support them. Romney learned that in MA and the ACA is based on Romney's template. It's ridiculous to think the party that said "Our goal is to make Obama a one-term president" and that made Waterloo analogies would have cooperated with Obama on any healthcare reform. GOP support, LOL !
Republicans had it in for Obama before Day 1
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/republicans-had-it-in-for-obama-before-day-1/2012/08/10/0c96c7c8-e31f-11e1-ae7f-d2a13e249eb2_blog.html
But let us not forget that the purpose of Obamacare was redistribution of wealth. Everything else was just the camouflage necessary to hide that reality.Wrong again. The purpose of the Affordable Care Act was reform of the healthcare system to achieve multiple objectives:
(i) Ban denials of insurance for pre-existing conditions.
(ii) Ban coverage cancellations when people get sick.
(iii) Ban lifetime limits on medical care.
(iv) Expand access to affordable healthcare insurance.
(v) Extend the life of Medicare.
(vi) Reduce the prescription drug coverage gap (donut hole) in Medicare Part D.
(vii) Require insurance companies to spend the majority of health insurance premiums on medical care, not on profits and overhead.
... and others.
Redistribution was a means to help accomplish some of these objectives. As it should have been.
I'll tell you one part of the ACA I don't agree with is that bullshit about letting "children" stay on the parents' policy until age 26. Come on. No wonder these past couple of generations have so much boomerang. I thought an adult was 18. Or 21. But not fucking 26.But look at the math. Without this provision, millions of young adults would have to get insurance policies on their own (or be subject to the tax penalty). And their typically low incomes would make them eligible for subsidies. That would be a big increase in required subsidies, making the entire system more expensive. Letting them stay on their parent's policies avoids this and keeps costs down. It also eases the financial burden for those seeking higher education or starting their careers. College students have enough to worry about with student debt. Making the path to higher education a little easier is a good thing, because for most people a college degree is the ticket to a high paying job.
I'm all for cutting wasteful spending which you cited examples of. But this provision of the ACA is good policy for a number of reasons.
It's ridiculous to think the party that said "Our goal is to make Obama a one-term president" and...Your statement is completely disenginious given that you know that it is the goal of EVERY party out of power to make the sitting president "a one-term president". That's why they run opponents against them at every election, to make them "a one-term president". Get it?
...that made Waterloo analogies would have cooperated with Obama on any healthcare reform. GOP support, LOL !I guess we'll never know because the Dems never gave the Republicans an opportunity to coouperate, instead choosing to ram Obamacare up the country's ass all by themselves.
Without this provision, millions of young adults would have to get insurance policies on their ownRight, that's my point. They need to be kicked out of the nest much sooner than has been happening in the last generation or so. It's a waste. Anybody who is still in school at age 26 is either screwing the pooch or already has an advanced degree they can make money with and so they can afford to pay for their own insurance. It ain't even that expensive at that age.
Also, they are being subsidized either way. One way the parents' employers and the other people in the parents' pool subsidize them and the other way the government does. And at least the second way they have to grow up and figure out how to navigate the system, and pay their share of the bill, and so forth. The way it is now, they just think it's the Health Insurance Fairy or something like that.
So saying that millions of young adults will have to get policies on their own is like saying that millions of young adults will have to renew their own driver's licenses and mow their own lawns and shit.
Big Boss Man
11-10-14, 14:12
Right, that's my point. They need to be kicked out of the nest much sooner than has been happening in the last generation or so. It's a waste. Anybody who is still in school at age 26 is either screwing the pooch or already has an advanced degree they can make money with and so they can afford to pay for their own insurance. It ain't even that expensive at that age.
I disagree with the blanket age 26 rule of thumb totally.
I went back to school at 26 and have made my living off the degrees I earned.
My girlfriend's son is a veteran and is at UCI currently working his ass off. Although his benefit package is jaw dropping. California gives him scholarship money along with the GI Bill money.
One size does not fit all.
College students have enough to worry about with student debt.Here, let me fix that for you: No more student loans for liberal arts degrees.
In one motion we can reduce the federal budget deficit, reinvigorate academia by introducing them to the concept of competition, AND save millions of potential "Educated Idiots" from the angst of paying off student loans acquired in the pursuit of worthless degrees.
Thanks,
Jax.
I disagree with the blanket age 26 rule of thumb totally. I went back to school at 26 and have made my living off the degrees I earned.Right, and before you were 26 and went to school, you were working and either covered by your employer's plan or paying for it yourself or just plain were not covered. I went back to school at age 31 but before that I wasn't sucking on mommy and daddy's tit until I was 26. That's what I'm referring to.
Here, let me fix that for you: No more student loans for liberal arts degrees.
In one motion we can reduce the federal budget deficit, reinvigorate academia by introducing them to the concept of competition, AND save millions of potential "Educated Idiots" from the angst of paying off student loans acquired in the pursuit of worthless degrees.
Thanks,
Jax.Please note that your hero Reagan majored in sociology.
ElAlamoPalermo
11-10-14, 17:00
It's hard to believe but Jackson is actually 100% on point with this one.
Here, let me fix that for you: No more student loans for liberal arts degrees.
In one motion we can reduce the federal budget deficit, reinvigorate academia by introducing them to the concept of competition, AND save millions of potential "Educated Idiots" from the angst of paying off student loans acquired in the pursuit of worthless degrees.
Thanks,
Jax.
I was a liberal arts or more precisely social science major but I also took a lot of business classes. The result was that I did not need loans but took them anyway and invested them in the stock market. After graduation I refinanced them all at 2.9% (and the interest was tax deductible "above the line"). That all worked out really well. Eventually I paid them all off just because I got tired of looking at them, but I probably should have stretched them out longer.
So part of the deal on that is that there is means testing for student loans. But, they don't count the equity in your house or the balances in your retirement accounts as "means." That means 1) the student loan system is tilted in favor of homeowners and 2) assholes like me who had quite a bit in retirement accounts could still get subsidized loans. #2 is somewhat less of a factor now because the subsidies and deferral periods have been tightened, but #1 is still way true and is not right. Money is money. Just because little Johnny's dad has his money in a taxable brokerage account and little Suzy's dad has his money in an IRA, does not mean little Suzy should get more financial aid. But it does. Similarly if Johnny's dad rents and Suzy's dad owns, Suzy will get more aid even if both live in identical houses.
Not only did I get federal subsidies for these unneeded loans that I used to gamble in the stock market, but all but the first semester of my worthless liberal arts education, which I stretched out for seven years, was 100% paid for by my state's taxpayers. Fortunately in the process of getting the worthless liberal arts degree, the tax classes taught me exactly how to fuck the system.
So I would say I got more for my money out of the business classes than I did out of the liberal arts classes, but that wouldn't be true because none of it was my money!
The means testing for federal programs is all over the place and it should be coordinated. You see silly things like strict income limits to take the savings bond interest exclusion (for tuition), which is chump change, and then they turn around and give away the farm in the federal financial aid system.
I would like to see a minimum SAT or ACT score for financial aid eligibility. We should help poor people go to college, not stupid ones.
Here, let me fix that for you: No more student loans for liberal arts degrees.
In one motion we can reduce the federal budget deficit, reinvigorate academia by introducing them to the concept of competition, AND save millions of potential "Educated Idiots" from the angst of paying off student loans acquired in the pursuit of worthless degrees.Your attack on liberal arts degrees didn't fix anything.
If you can demonstrate these degrees (both undergraduate and graduate combined) are a net loss in the student loan program, I'll agree your idea would reduce the federal deficit. You have to look at both though because the undergraduate is needed to get to the graduate degree. On balance though, the federal government makes a healthy profit on student loans. In 2013 there was a projected record $50-billion profit.
Guess what, on average (folks like Dickhead aside) those "Educated Idiots" still make more $ than someone without a college degree. Average starting salaries are around $40K. Amazingly, getting even more liberal arts education (a graduate degree) earns them even more ! They'll decide the value of their degree for themselves, thank you. And also, for some people money is not the sole reason they pursue higher education.
Right, that's my point. They need to be kicked out of the nest much sooner than has been happening in the last generation or so. It's a waste. Anybody who is still in school at age 26 is either screwing the pooch or already has an advanced degree they can make money with and so they can afford to pay for their own insurance. It ain't even that expensive at that age.
Also, they are being subsidized either way. One way the parents' employers and the other people in the parents' pool subsidize them and the other way the government does. And at least the second way they have to grow up and figure out how to navigate the system, and pay their share of the bill, and so forth. The way it is now, they just think it's the Health Insurance Fairy or something like that.I'm talking about the financial modeling of the healthcare law. You seem focused on a moral issue of when young adults should become self-sufficient. That's a different debate.
The 18-26 age group is a low-income group. As you noted it's a choice between the parent (and their employer) paying premiums, or the government providing subsidies. I am sure the architects of the ACA did the math and determined the provision would provide a net lower public burden. The point is to keep the public cost down. I am searching for the CBO scoring on this provision.
II am sure the architects of the ACA did the math and determined the provision would provide a net lower public burden.Well, Pollyanna, I have actually extensively studied the law and the entire legislative process behind it, and in particular have studied the math and the assumptions behind it. Imagine that. No such math was done, and to be quite honest with you, I wouldn't put much stock in their math if they had. How great was the math that produced the approximately 5000% marginal tax rate on the 45,961st (for a single person in 2014 and depending on age) dollar of income? The same idiots who did that math would have done this other math that you imagine took place, right? Aren't those the same idiots that set up the system I am so blatantly manipulating because the math behind it is so flawed?
I am a liberal too but you are just so completely gullible it's ludicrous. And it's not a moral issue as to when young people should become self-sufficient. It's an economic issue. It should be obvious by now that I have no morals.
save millions of potential "Educated Idiots" from the angst of paying off student loans acquired in the pursuit of worthless degrees.A truly well-educated idiot would not have any angst about paying off these loans because they would know about the "Income Contingent Repayment Plan" and the "Public Service Loan Forgiveness" program. A judicious manipulation of these two fine provisions will largely eliminate the need to pay off these annoying loans (although of course the other taxpayers will have to pay them off).
Jackson, as pissed off as you are about these student loan programs, I guarantee you that you would shit enough bricks to build an outhouse if you saw the theoretical example I put together of how to get a completely unnecessary graduate degree and never pay back a cent of the loan, completely legally, and walk away with about $50k after you "paid" for school. I think I showed that puppy to Daddy Rulz. And now that there are all these on-line programs, you could do it from the French Riviera if you wanted to.
Your attack on liberal arts degrees didn't fix anything.
Jackson, as pissed off as you are about these student loan programs...Gentlemen,
I didn't attack liberal arts degrees, and I'm not pissed off about student loan programs in general.
I just believe...
1. That Academia has become fat and happy selling an over-priced product of questionable value to a group of consumers who are being sold on the payment, not the price, and...
2. Most liberal arts degrees represent a notoriously bad return on investment., and...
3. That the American taxpayer should stop enabling these economically bad decisions by providing 100% financing.
Nevertheless, if a consumer of education services wants to pay for their own economically worthless liberal degree, then I say let them do it.
Thanks,
Jax.
PS: Yes, there should be an exception for individuals who aspire to become public school teachers.
Guess what, on average (folks like Dickhead aside) those "Educated Idiots" still make more $ than someone without a college degree.Or maybe the degree didn't have anything to do with it, and instead it's just that the kind of person who can manage to overcome the awesome intellectual challenges of a liberal arts degree is also the kind of person who can perform a $40k per year job.
Get it?
And also, for some people money is not the sole reason they pursue higher education.Then let them pay for their own fucking higher entertainment education.
Since I have both liberal arts degrees and non liberal arts degrees, and since I've done some research in that regard, I'll say a few things. We took a look at return on investment on various degrees when I was in a course called Social Stratification (I minored in Sociology because I admired Reagan so much). One of the things we found was that there were significant socioeconomic differences among the student pools across these majors. That is a fancy way of saying that the students who tended to major in the most lucrative subjects tended to also be from higher socioeconomic backgrounds. So what that does is make it hard to conclude that the major, rather than class distinctions, was the reason for the lower eventual wages earned by some of the liberal arts, social science, education, etc. majors as compared to business or STEM fields. My guess is it's some of both.
All the joking aside about the taxpayers paying for my degrees (the first three anyway), I never really tried to make money with the liberal arts degree but the business grad schools loved the fact I had it, so I got into a better school and got a better financial aid package and assistantship than I would have if I'd had a business undergrad. If I'd moved forward with just the liberal arts bachelor's, I doubt I would have been better off than I was before, job-wise, but then again, I already had an overpaid government job when I started the educational process.
I will also say that when I taught grad school, my students who had liberal arts or humanities undergraduates were more successful than the ones who had both undergrad and grad business degrees. That was measured objectively by our surveys that followed our MBA graduates at 5 and 10 year intervals. We also measured the GPA performance of our students by undergrad majors and while I don't remember the whole distribution, I do remember that the philosophy majors were the highest.
And boy are there a lot of worthless MBA programs out there! Loans are harder to get for grad school now, but if it's a state school it's being subsidized anyway, so it's still a waste. One place I taught at had an entire MBA program where it was just sitting side by side with the undergrads and writing an extra paper or some such. It wasn't accredited by the AACSB so no one took it seriously, but it was regionally accredited so the students could get financial aid through the state.
Here is another deep-seated political inequity in the US financial aid system: Students are expected to contribute 50% of their available income towards higher education expenses, but only 20% of their available assets. That right there tilts the playing field very sharply towards the ruling class, since asset inequality is much more pronounced (and pernicious) than income inequality. That's on top of what I said earlier about houses and retirement assets allegedly not being "available." There are way fewer loopholes regarding income. Almost none, in fact.
Well, Pollyanna, I have actually extensively studied the law and the entire legislative process behind it, and in particular have studied the math and the assumptions behind it. Imagine that. No such math was done, and to be quite honest with you, I wouldn't put much stock in their math if they had. How great was the math that produced the approximately 5000% marginal tax rate on the 45,961st (for a single person in 2014 and depending on age) dollar of income? The same idiots who did that math would have done this other math that you imagine took place, right? Aren't those the same idiots that set up the system I am so blatantly manipulating because the math behind it is so flawed?Hey Dickhead, posting in bold letters that you have extensive knowledge, and that other people are idiots, does not constitute an intelligent argument.
The ACA provision allowing dependents up to age 26 to stay on their parents plan is good economic policy for a couple reasons. The first I've mentioned, is that it shifts the cost of insuring this low-income demographic away from the government subsidies. Second, it adds a large group of generally healthy young adults to insurance pools, making those pools better able to support the sick people in the pools and/or keep premiums lower. In fact this was one of several Republican ideas in the Affordable Care Act. It was in the Republican health reform bill in 2009, and again in the Hatch/Coburn/Burr proposal in January 2014. Pretty much every healthcare reform proposal out there contained this provision.
So again, please explain to us why this provision is bad economic policy. Let's see if you can provide a substantive economic argument.
Third, the composition of an insurance pool is one of the key determinants of its cost. If a pool has a lot of healthy members, its costs will be lower. The Republican plan requires insurers to keep dependents up to age 26 on their parents' insurance. Young people who have recently graduated are the largest single population of uninsured, and they are generally healthy. Keeping them in the insurance pools does likely drive the cost down, so this is the one element of the Republican plan that actually works. http://weiwentg.blogspot.com/2009/11/cbo-score-of-republican-reform-bill.html
Under the plan, insurances companies would not be able to impose lifetime limits on patients and would be required to allow dependent coverage up to the age of 26, as ObamaCare currently does. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/27/senate-republicans-pitch-obamacare-alternative-on-eve-presidential-address/
Well, Pollyanna, I have actually extensively studied the law and the entire legislative process behind it, and in particular have studied the math and the assumptions behind it. Imagine that. No such math was done, and to be quite honest with you, I wouldn't put much stock in their math if they had. How great was the math that produced the approximately 5000% marginal tax rate on the 45,961st (for a single person in 2014 and depending on age) dollar of income? The same idiots who did that math would have done this other math that you imagine took place, right? Aren't those the same idiots that set up the system I am so blatantly manipulating because the math behind it is so flawed?
Hey Dickhead, posting in bold letters that you have extensive knowledge, and that other people are idiots, does not constitute an intelligent argument.Read his posts Esten, he does have extensive knowledge of the math and assumptions behind it. He is a living, breathing example of how the Obama administration screwed up big time when it crammed the ACA down Congress' throat. The feds should pay Dickhead about $3 million a year to find loopholes in proposed legislation that people and companies will take advantage of. That would save taxpayers orders of magnitude more than his salary. And avoid more Nancy Pelosi "we have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it" bull shit.
Here is Mike Enzi s speech to the Heritage foundation a couple of months before the gang of six stopped negotiating on health care. Tell me if you guys see anything that looks familiar. Fitting it was at heritage.
http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/conservative-principles-of-health-care-reform-the-road-ahead
One, it shows that most republican complaints about the law are bullshit. The thing is largely structured around ideas from heritage, CATO, and MIT. On the other hand, if the democrats couldn't get a deal done because of tort reform and dropping the employer tax exception, then that is equally as full of shit. The employer tax exemption is regressive anyway, why the fuck they wouldn't go along with getting rid of that baffles me. But still... I think there are 6 bullet points in that speech, and the law reflect 5 of them.
But the republicans... With all there new found power, what are they going to do. They are going to repeal the medical device tax (with plenty of eager democratic help), one of the only measures to control cost in the bill. And really it should be higher, we have a huge degree of over investment in medical technology, because the system is driven by profit. Thats great for the system in many ways, but taxes are the only way to correct that mal-investment without going to a public system.
The numbers don't lie, we were paying more and getting less out than other industrialized nation. Sure MD Anderson is awesome if my balls are falling off from Cancer, but generally, we were (and mostly still are) shitting the bed.
Obamacare has a bunch of flaws, how about selling insurance across state lines? Seems to work for cars. But the idea that it is what created this dumpster fire of a system is just wrong. And healthcare inflation has come down... Still way above CPI.... But its better.
Your points are well taken though Dickhead, especially some of the ways the subsidies are structured. But what do you think about taking that level analysis and applying it to hospitals (and to a lesser extent doctors). They are sucking up money like a vacuum. Im not saying your other points are incorrect (at least not a lot of them) but Id be interested to hear what you think.
To me it alot of it comes back to the food, the fucking shit we eat kills us. And until we get that under control (stop subsidizing corn to start with) its not going to make a damn bit of difference how many young healthy people buy insurance.
To me it all comes back to the food, the fucking shit we eat kills us. And until we get that under control (stop subsidizing corn to start with) its not going to make a damn bit of difference how many young healthy people buy insurance.
Corn. Now I understand. It's the mother fucking corn that's killing us. And it's everywhere. Fucking pinko commie liberals refine the shit and put it in their gas tanks. The fucking Mexicans even put it in their tortillas. We've got to get rid of the corn.
Its a little tongue and cheek.... But read the omnivores dilemna.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Omnivores-Dilemma-Natural-History/dp/0143038583
25% of medicare costs go to heart disease, and it is the largest killer in the country. So its a real thing. Im not going to hijack the discussion going into it.
But seriously... You put bad gas in your car your going to fuck up the engine.
And the repair bill is just going to keep going up.
Here is Mike Enzi s speech to the Heritage foundation a couple of months before the gang of six stopped negotiating on health care. Tell me if you guys see anything that looks familiar. Fitting it was at heritage.
http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/conservative-principles-of-health-care-reform-the-road-ahead
One, it shows that most republican complaints about the law are bullshit. The thing is largely structured around ideas from heritage, CATO, and MIT. On the other hand, if the democrats couldn't get a deal done because of tort reform and dropping the employer tax exception, then that is equally as full of shit. The employer tax exemption is regressive anyway, why the fuck they wouldn't go along with getting rid of that baffles me. But still... I think there are 6 bullet points in that speech, and the law reflect 5 of them.
But the republicans... With all there new found power, what are they going to do. They are going to repeal the medical device tax (with plenty of eager democratic help), one of the only measures to control cost in the bill. And really it should be higher, we have a huge degree of over investment in medical technology, because the system is driven by profit. Thats great for the system in many ways, but taxes are the only way to correct that mal-investment without going to a public system.
The numbers don't lie, we were paying more and getting less out than other industrialized nation. Sure MD Anderson is awesome if my balls are falling off from Cancer, but generally, we were (and mostly still are) shitting the bed.
Obamacare has a bunch of flaws, how about selling insurance across state lines? Seems to work for cars. But the idea that it is what created this dumpster fire of a system is just wrong. And healthcare inflation has come down... Still way above CPI.... But its better.
Your points are well taken though Dickhead, especially some of the ways the subsidies are structured. But what do you think about taking that level analysis and applying it to hospitals (and to a lesser extent doctors). They are sucking up money like a vacuum. Im not saying your other points are incorrect (at least not a lot of them) but Id be interested to hear what you think.
To me it alot of it comes back to the food, the fucking shit we eat kills us. And until we get that under control (stop subsidizing corn to start with) its not going to make a damn bit of difference how many young healthy people buy insurance.You are what you eat!
Highest standard of living in the world means that on the AP forum, we cannot criticize our American lifestyle. It is traitorous, it is blasphemy. Carbohydrates equals sugar, processed food equals preservatives and chemicals. Gigantic portions equals gluttony. America equals sumo wrestlers.
Eating everything in sight in actually good, variety is good. But Moderation is the key. And eat more vegetables & fruits than meat & bread, pasta, potatoes, etc. But for many, that is Un -American. And drink lots of water, of course. Also Un-American.
You are what you eat!I must be a real pussy then.
Allowing children to stay on their parents' policies up to age 26 is discriminatory against those who don't have parents with health insurance. One large class that could be used as an example is kids aging out of the foster care system. Adding more healthy people to the Obamacare pool makes way more sense than adding them to employer health plans. That is just more people to be covered under those plans so they will be subsidized by the employees who don't have children. That is less fair than an overall government subsidy. The difference is that the current measure increases a previously finite pool by adding a new class to it, whereas covering these "semi-adults" under Obamacare would decrease the morbidity of non-finite (though not infinite) pool. This is a consideration in designing a tax, and the route of covering that class under employers' plans is less effective of a tax (subsidies are just taxes).
Esten seems to think this decision was analyzed. Go back and look at the committee history, Esten. They never did any economic analysis on this. Ever. At all. This idea was put in at the very beginning to draw bi-partisan support. Of course, you are just talking out your ass and I've actually read all that stuff. I'm surprised you can't see that this provision of the ACA is just a "rich daddy" provision. I don't see why Sturdevant von Noseinair IV should have more health insurance options just cuz his daddy's got a job and LeRon Moseley's daddy's doing a nickel upstate. Get the picture?
You are what you eat!
Highest standard of living in the world means that on the AP forum, we cannot criticize our American lifestyle. It is traitorous, it is blasphemy. Carbohydrates equals sugar, processed food equals preservatives and chemicals. Gigantic portions equals gluttony. America equals sumo wrestlers.
Eating everything in sight in actually good, variety is good. But Moderation is the key. And eat more vegetables & fruits than meat & bread, pasta, potatoes, etc. But for many, that is Un -American. And drink lots of water, of course. Also Un-American.Highest standard of living in the world is Singapore, Kuwait, UEA, Netherlands, Sweden.
Interestingly, by measures of happiness, South America is the happiest place in the world. Who would have thought?
I must be a real pussy then.Just look in the mirror, dude.
Member #4112
11-12-14, 22:06
Who is the party obsessed with race, gender, sexual persuasion? Why the Democrats of course.
Mia Love, a black woman, was elected to the House of Representatives from Utah. In an interview with CNN after congratulating Ms. Love on her election victory the hosts launched into a diatribe on how she was elected due to her being Black and Female, which did not hold much water since the black population of Utah according to the 2010 census was 2.3%. Ms. Love shoved it up their ass in a very forcefully, way to go Mia. What was Ms. Loves sin? She was a Republican. See the attached clip.
http://youtu.be/VaxOkGAWbmY
Here are the demographics for Utah.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Utah
And how about the NAACP totally ignoring both Tim Scott and Mia Love? You would think they would be lauding these two's accomplishments but no not a word. Why because they are Republicans and their accomplishments don't count.
Member #4112
11-12-14, 22:11
I am sure our liberal friends who have been defending ObamaCare / ACA have heard the audio/video clips on the lack of transparency in the bill is what insured it would be enacted as well as calling the American voters "stupid". While he might have something on the stupid side I don't think these comments will endear him to Obama or the Democrats and will hand the Republicans a great club to strike down this horrible piece of legislation.
It is sort of hard to refute the video but I am sure Esten will try.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/09/obamacare-architect-lack-of-transparency-was-key-because-stupidity-of-the-american-voter-would-have-killed-obamacare/
Member #4112
11-12-14, 22:17
Got this from a friend and decided to post for all to enjoy.
COL. ROBERT F. CUNNINGHAM and PATRICK RISHOR.
The Gilmer Mirror a Northeast Texas Newspaper.
Quit trashing Obama's accomplishments. He has done more than any other President before him.
Here is a list of his impressive accomplishments:
1. First President to be photographed smoking a joint.
2. First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner.
3. First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.
4. First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States .
5. First President to violate the War Powers Act.
6. First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
7. First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.
8. First President to spend a trillion dollars on "shovel-ready" jobs when there was no such thing as "shovel-ready" jobs.
9. First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.
10. First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.
11. First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S.including those with criminal convictions.
12. First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.
13. First President to tell a CEO of a major corporation (Chrysler) to resign.
14. First President to terminate America ’s ability to put a man in space.
15. First President to cancel the National Day of Prayer and to say that America is no longer a Christian nation.
16. First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.
17. First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.
18. First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke out on the reasons for their rate increases.
19. First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory.
20. First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN).
21. First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.
22. First President to actively try to bankrupt an American industry (coal).
23. First President to fire an inspector general of AmeriCorps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.
24. First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office.
25. First President to surround himself with radical left wing anarchists.
26. First President to golf more than 150 separate times in his five years in office.
27. First President to hide his birth, medical, educational and travel records.
28. First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.
29. First President to go on multiple "global apology tours" and concurrent "insult our friends" tours.
30. First President to go on over 17 lavish vacations, in addition to date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for > his friends paid for by the taxpayers.
31. First President to have personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.
32. First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.
33. First President to fly in a personal trainer from Chicago at least once a week at taxpayer expense.
34. First President to repeat the Quran and tell us the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.
35. First President to side with a foreign nation over one of the American 50 states ( Mexico vs Arizona ).
36. First President to tell the military men and women that they should pay for their own private insurance because they "volunteered to go to war and knew the consequences”.
37. Then he was the First President to tell the members of the military that THEY were UNPATRIOTIC for balking at the last suggestion.
It's hard to comprehend all this guy has gotten away with. Any other president would have been impeached!
What in God's name is wrong with our government that they allow this guy carte blanch.
It absolutely boggles the mind!
I feel much better now. I had been under the impression he hadn't been doing ANYTHING!!
Who is the party obsessed with race, gender, sexual persuasion? Why the Democrats of course.
Mia Love, a black woman, was elected to the House of Representatives from Utah. In an interview with CNN after congratulating Ms. Love on her election victory the hosts launched into a diatribe on how she was elected due to her being Black and Female, which did not hold much water since the black population of Utah according to the 2010 census was 2.3%. Ms. Love shoved it up their ass in a very forcefully, way to go Mia. What was Ms. Loves sin? She was a Republican. See the attached clip.
http://youtu.be/VaxOkGAWbmY
Here are the demographics for Utah.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Utah
And how about the NAACP totally ignoring both Tim Scott and Mia Love? You would think they would be lauding these two's accomplishments but no not a word. Why because they are Republicans and their accomplishments don't count.Ive seen this movie before.... Video below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRNCpD3xhsY
Member #4112
11-12-14, 23:57
Ive seen this movie before.... Video below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRNCpD3xhsYTypical liberal response, post a cartoon and let's all live in make believe land. Liberals stories always begin with "Once upon a time..." and end with "lived happily ever after"
Can't you do better than that.
Typical liberal response, post a cartoon and let's all live in make believe land. Liberals stories always begin with "Once upon a time..." and end with "lived happily ever after"
Can't you do better than that.No Doppelganger. All Republicans are white racists who believe they're superior to other people. Or maybe all white people are racists. Anyway, get with the program.
I haven't figured out whether Jhskiier is incredibly good with irony, or whether he fits your stereotype:
Who is the party obsessed with race, gender, sexual persuasion? Why the Democrats of course.
Good to see Doppelganger getting it out of his system.... There, there, Doppel. I never realized he was so concerned about who the NAACP recognizes ! Oh wait, he's just regurgitating tripe from Fox News. But glad he feels better.
Ive seen this movie before.... Video below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRNCpD3xhsYLOL !!! Where the HECK did you pull up that from ? Oh man, too funny.
Dickhead, I was looking forward to your answer on the age 26 dependent provision and I'm disappointed. Your arguments are mostly around discrimination and fairness, but I thought you said it was an economic issue. You argue it would have been better to put young adults in the "Obamacare" pool; in itself that certainly would make that pool financially stronger, but you have to account for the government subsidies for those policies. In the end, the current system pulls in more revenue from parents and employers, reducing the need to raise that revenue elsewhere (e.g., taxes) to fund more subsidies in the "Obamacare" pool. I certainly haven't done nor am capable of doing an analysis to compare. You may well have done the analysis to support your position, but you haven't convinced me.
What I'm certainly not convinced of is that the provision is bad economic policy, there are studies coming out demonstrating favorable cost effects. Last but not least, I absolutely do not believe for a second that you have been privy to every document and analysis that went into the ACA. Just because you didn't see an analysis of the provision does not mean it was never done. Unless you were in the inner circles at the DHHS or the CBO, which I doubt.
The Affordable Care Act Reduces Emergency Department Use By Young Adults: Evidence From Three States
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/33/9/1648.abstract
Member #4112
11-13-14, 09:29
Good to see Doppelganger getting it out of his system.... There, there, Doppel. I never realized he was so concerned about who the NAACP recognizes ! Oh wait, he's just regurgitating tripe from Fox News. But glad he feels better.
LOL !!! Where the HECK did you pull up that from ? Oh man, too funny.Knew I could count on you to come back with some totally irrelevant comment. As always you admit nothing, deny everything and make counter accusations rather than address the issue even when you have the video evidence before your eyes.
So let me make it crystal clear to you my friend, I was pointing out the NAACP's and the left's hypocrisy. Accomplishment and diversity only counts when the left is involved.
Hey Esten, no response to the ObamaCare / ACA architect's comments?
Dickhead, I was looking forward to your answer on the age 26 dependent provision and I'm disappointed. Your arguments are mostly around discrimination and fairness, but I thought you said it was an economic issue.Inappropriate and poorly designed subsidies are an economic issue. The government, and thus the taxpayers, subsidize those under Obamacare. In an employee pool, the healthy employees (as well as the employer in most cases) subsidize the less healthy ones. The Obamacare subsidy makes more sense from an economic standpoint because a fairer tax is more economically sound (they tend to be more collectible, for one thing).
Business A provides health care for its employees. Employee X has three children aged 5, 15, and 25. If the employer now has to cover the 25 year old where they did not before, then that is one extra person being subsidized by the employer and the other employees in the pool (same holds true if it's a multi-employer pool, and there will be many such "semi-adults"). I say it makes more sense (if it makes sense at all) for all the taxpayers in general to subsidize Precious Snowflake while she gets a second useless liberal arts degree, rather than only the random taxpayers who are in the same insurance pool (and daddy's employer).
I would get into the question of who's actually paying for what at the end of the day (the excess burden of a tax) but I've given up on that one.
It's all there for anyone to read:
The comments made by Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber in 2013 bragging how congressional passage of the Affordable Care Act was achieved:
Speaking on an academic panel about the legislative process, Gruber said: "Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the 'stupidity of the American voter' or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass."
He said the bill was written in a "tortured way" to make sure that "the Congressional Budget Office did not score the mandate as a tax".
He added that "Had the law made it clear healthy people would pay and sick people would benefit, the bill would not have passed."
So there you have it. One of the principal architects of Obamacare, in a public speech, calling the American voters stupid, admitting that they knew that the Mandate was actually a tax, admitting that the ACA's primary purpose was redistribution of wealth ("healthy people would pay and sick people would benefit"), bragging about how the Obama administration duped the American people by deliberately lying about the nature of Obamacare, and acknowledging that if they had not been deceitful the ACA would never have been passed.
What's even more amazing is the left's defense of these acknowledgements, basically offering one form or another of "The end justifies the means".
Thanks,
Jax
ElAlamoPalermo
11-13-14, 20:17
admitting that the ACA's primary purpose was redistribution of wealth ("healthy people would pay and sick people would benefit"),
Thanks,
JaxJackson is obviously consumed again by a flare up of an unfortunate chronic illness he has been afflicted with since 2008, ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome). I happen to know that generally Jackson is a logical, rational person when not having a particularly acute flare up of ODS, as is the case here. If his logical thought process was not being overwhelmed by the symptoms of ODS Jackson would have realized that ALL INSURANCE IS PAID FOR BY THE "HEALTHY" SO THE "SICK" CAN USE IT. This is true of health, auto, fire, flood, home owners, liability insurances etc etc.
Lest the rest of Jackson's ultra right wing fan-boys forget, lets talk about today's reality under Obama: the stock market is at an all time high, the USD is gaining in strength worldwide, the federal budget deficit is at multi-year low, more people have health insurance than ever before, inflation is low, the US has become the largest producer of oil in the world and oil prices are plummeting.
Jackson and his fascist fan-boy lackey's are so blinded by ODS and their rejection of any policies not seen by them as benefiting their WASP ultra right wing greedy ilk they are unable to see just how good they have it under Obama's watch.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.4 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.