Gee, I wonder why these people are challenging this wonderful 2,700 page bill with 12,000 pages of regulations. I wonder why 2/3rds of the states have not just fallen into line and created the exchanges as they were expected to. Perhaps it is because the law is a Progressive nightmare. Even Max Baucus now says it is a train wreck. The light at the end of the tunnel is an oncoming train.
Agent, interesting how a number of Democratic senators who voted for this monstrosity have chosen not to face the voters and run for re-election include Baucus. They’ve sold their souls to Obama and the Devil and will now ride off into the sunset where they will not have to explain to their constituants what they did to them. Interesting.
Right Dave. They had to pass it so they could see what was in it. Now that they have read it, it is a train wreck coming at them. Not to worry, they have their substantial pensions to live on and can be on company boards or be lobbyists in DC. The 2014 mid terms look more promising every day. The Senate may just change out and hopefully the house will increase the margin. Obama may be the lamest of ducks when the dust clears.
Agent & Dave: It is obvious that the politics, to some degree, have caught up with the reality of this legislation. In other words, the shucking and jiving is producing diminishing political returns. However, I do not believe there is nearly enough statesmanship and/or integrity to eliminate Obamacare or even reduce the damage it will do. This could hit some individual senators and congressman hard, but I think we all know it is safe nationally because Obama is untouchable. I thought Bill Clinton was slick and completed coated in teflon, but Obama has greatly surpassed Clinton in these not-so-admirable traits.
I also disagree vehemently with you on the 2014 mid-term election because the Republican Party is likely to lob up another horrendous air ball. I am looking for reasons to be optimistic, but the leadership of the party (both elected officials and party spokespersons) is pathetic.
Buckeye, why do you think many of the liberal Democratic Congressmen and Senators have an active effort going on to get their staffers out of Obamacare? Of course they are covered under their blue chip plans so they won’t be affected, but the staffers will be facing huge cost increases just like the common folks. We musn’t let that happen to the ruling elite, can we?
May 6, 2013 at 11:15 am
Sargent Major says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
The problem is that Obama wants and has created a nanny state/country. He drives as many people to government assistance of some sort with the intention of buying their vote for the Democratic party. Romney was correct but the press did not like the truth. There is about 47% (or maybe more now) people who get some sort of assistance and they will not make the right choice for America because they don’t want to lose whatever it is they get for “free”. What is worse? Making the problem worse with another 11 million ILLEGAL ALIENS who are sucking the life out of the American economy.
It is tough to beat a politician who is 1. a socialist 2.) a liar who will promise the moon to people at the expense of the working public and 3.) a fraud
Sargent Major: I could not agree more, which is the reason I view this as a “game over” situation. Based on the size, scope and unbridled power of the federal government, I see no way that it can be reined in. The challenge is compounded greatly when one throws in the sycophant press and a very uneducated electorate.
Buckeye, I assume you are from the great state of Ohio, the election challenged state which was basically stolen by illegal multiple voters and the unions. I agree with you on a lot including a very uneducated electorate. These kids with their nose permanently attached to their iphones and ipads have no clue about what is going on and they spend their time on facebook or twitter or downloading a new app. They won’t know what hit them in 2014 when all this comes crashing down.
Keep in mind, Mitt Romney’s 47% includes former E-9’s getting pensions, as well as heroes who have served our country bravely and lost limbs (or more) in the process. I wouldn’t exactly call that “free”.
If any one thinks anything is free in this world, they are not of sound mind. So, DONT – call anything free.
Seeming more and more obvious that we will be going into Syria. Is that going to be free too? If so, Obamas version of free or Websters definition of free?????
That had nothing to do with E9 pensions or other military benefits. Just like it has nothing to do with seniors on Social Security and Medicare. That is Obozo Kool Aid. It has everything to do with deadbeats in places across the country like Los Angeles, New York, Detroit, Cleveland and Miami, for example who bleed the country dry by collecting benefits that they don’t deserve or earned in the first place. I have said this many times. I am all for helping the needy but I am against funding the lazy, fraudsters and illegals.
Sarge – how quick you are to defend your GOVERNMENT pension and VA BENEFITS, but condemn others that may be on assistance, whether it be legitimate disability (yes, I said Legitamate) or social security or medicare/medicaid. These are too the folks included in Romney’s 47%, including you, pal. I don’t begrudge you your benefits and I don’t begrudge anyone else their legitimate benefits. Why don’t we work on getting rid of the ILLEGITIMATE takers of benefits and quit getting the two mixed up??
Don’t,
If you don’t believe we have a problem, CNN, MSNBC, NBC and Fox News ALL announced yesterday that the “Road to Amnesty” otherwise known as the “great sucking bill” will cost the United States $6.3 trillion, yes that is a “T” after any contribution the illegals make to the country. How does this help America at a time when we are going broke?
I agree that we have a serious problem. I also agree with you completely on the last sentence of your previous post. The only thing I was pointing out is that Romney’s 47% included a lot more than just the deadbeats and the lazy freeloaders. He probably didn’t intend to include those who have legitimate reasons for receiving benefits, but the fact that he didn’t even know the difference speaks volumes. He lives in the rich-boy bubble, completely insulated and out of touch. Although, I guess that statement is kind of beating a dead horse (or a tax-deductible one) at this point.
Believe me, I’m not an “Obama-tron”; I don’t care much for either political party. I think there are too many receiving free handouts who shouldn’t be. However, I don’t see how giving more handouts to the rich is going to help. They can’t create jobs without the people who buy their products. Demand creates the need to hire, not tax breaks; they just pocket the difference. They’re not going to hire employees they don’t need, just because they were able to write off the company yacht (which they can use themselves any time they want to; it’s just in the company’s name – scam).
Libby glad to see you are back and as uninformed as ever. Romney’s comment had NOTHING to do with military pension benefits or other earned benefits i.e. social security for seniors or Medicare. For people drawing pensions, military or social security his comment should have had no effect unless you believe the fear that Obama’s camp put into press after Romney was taped. In fact it was Romney who said, in one of the presidential debates that he would restore the $700 billion Obozo took out of Medicare to pay for Obozocare. When the cameras panned over to Barack he had a smirk on his face like he wet his pants.
Sarge – his comment had EVERYTHING to do with it. He stated there were 47% of Americans that did not pay federal income tax, which is true. This includes people on social security and government pensions. It also includes hard working people that barely make enough to put a roof over their head and food on the table. It DOES NOT mean 47% of Americans are lazy deadbeats with their hand out. We DO have a number of those, but it’s nowhere near 47%. If you want to revamp the tax code, that is one thing. But going around insulting almost half of the country is another. It only goes to show how YOU, sir, are uninformed.
If you believe 53% of America cannot put a roof over their head or are disabled and elderly you are not thinking clearly.
Romney made his point quite well, and no, he was not referring to the elderly or social security collectors. He was referring to a section of the population who worked, had income, and paid no income taxes. So his numbers may have been off, but he was not at all including the retired population. This is a liberal talking point that makes no sense, and Obama knows better. It shows more that Obama tried to milk that comment knowing better, than it does that Romney mispoke.
Side comment: The number isn’t far off regardless when taking into account people who have income and pay no income taxes. And those people should have to pay at least some taxes if they are going to be voting to take someone else’s dollar.
When someone gets a free credit limit as long as they vote, and can buy whatever they want, that’s not the way to handle the economy, and it is exactly why we have so many dead beats.
The sooner you realize that the better. You’d be better suited with your intellect on the right side of economics than the left.
Sargent, Isn’t it entertaining to see Libby and Bob go at it again after a few months in limbo? She makes her Progressive Liberal points and he counters with the actual facts. I give it about 3 or 4 more comments before it gets nasty and she calls him a bully and signs off. It is a fact that 47% of the population pays no Federal Income Tax including Jeffrey Immelt and 53% are supporting the country. She doesn’t understand that this scenario is not sustainable and the country is rapidly going broke. I think you made the point that Immigration Reform will cost the country another $6.3 Trillion with a T. Hello! Wake up people!
May 10, 2013 at 11:41 am
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby probably won’t insult me. I think we worked out our issues.
We both tend to be over the top. I think we get that now.
May 9, 2013 at 11:42 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob – I said the 47% included people that worked, but paid no income tax. To me, those people are not “deadbeats.” I never said or inferred 53% of Americans could not put a roof over their head and am not sure where you get that from my statement. Show me where Romney’s 47% does not include retired folks. I’d like to see that so I can correct my “liberal talking points,” if necessary.
That was a typo on my end. I was going to originally include the 53% in a separate part that would have made the comment too long.
I was referring to the 47% you thought couldn’t afford to put a roof over their head or were elderly. You said:
” It also includes hard working people that barely make enough to put a roof over their head and food on the table.”
“This includes people on social security and government pensions”
The democrats make the two above talking points, in many liberal left leaning sites. This however is not accurate. Romney was explicitly attempting to target those who had incomes, and paid no income tax. He did not speak well. Obama however knew, as all liberals did, that Romney was talking about a real problem. Much of the population who has income pays no income tax. Now interesting to note both Clinton and Bush agreed with Child tax credits, the later of the two who expanded them. So I’m not blaming anyone. All I’m stating is that it is clear that Romney was seeking to fix a republican/democrat error that had resulted in a large section of the population not being taxed, and then following that train in when it came to who they would vote for. He would never win their vote.
Now moving on:
By you stating that the number doesn’t include elderly or those who cannot afford food on the table you must think that a large portion of the 47% are in that n umber. I was simply stating that cannot possibly be true, by the numbers. My 53 number was wrong. The concept was not.
May 9, 2013 at 2:36 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob – let me clarify what I meant. The entire 47% to which Romney referred includes ALL of these classes of people:
– Deadbeats, homeless, and people on assistance
– Retirees that collect SS (or other retirement income) but not enough income to pay taxes (my Mom)
– Families with income that because of deductions, end up not paying federal income tax.
To infer, which I believe he did, that 47% of Americans were some kind of deadbeat because they didn’t pay taxes and those were the people voting for Obama is wrong, IMHO. If he had said, “we are not collecting federal tax from over 47% of Americans and the tax code needs to be restructured,” that would have been a different message altogether. But if you listen to his speech, that is not what he said nor is it the context in which he said it.
May 9, 2013 at 2:53 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby:
If you listent to his speech it is 100% in context.
He clearly was referring to people who collect without paying taxes.
Why would anyone, ever, state that without the presumption we were talking about working people?
Romney clearly was not out to abolish social security. Though I know you guys on the left took that speech to mean he was. You are inferring what it is that he meant, and you’re wrong.
Think common sense. It is very clear he was explicitly talking about people who did not pay taxes but were paid themselves, and he was not targeting people on social security. Extremely, and vividly, clear.
I have to emphasize this again: Unless his speech specifically said that it included it, when he states that a large portion of the population is living off of the government without paying taxes, it is autmotically assumed, barring someone being a complete and total fool, of which Romney is not, the person is referring to a section of population they disagree with. In order for him to have been referring to the elderly, he would have to believe that no social security benefits should be given out. Seeing as Romney does not believe this, and had no plan to do so, the only possibility is that he was talking about people living off of the government, excluding social security, and receiving benefits without paying taxes.
The fact that the democrats tried to twist it, is further indicative of the “sky is falling” mentality you said us republicans do. You see? You democrats are much better at it. If you actually believe what you believe, the sky must be falling.
May 9, 2013 at 2:55 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I should reword that:
Democrats talk about people living off the government all the time.
Are they talking about people on social security?
The only reason you are stating that Romney was referring to those poeple is that he was republican, and you believe he is out to get social security.
A normal person who heard a democrat make this speech would have known the democrat was talking about leeches on society, and government efficiency.
May 9, 2013 at 3:02 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
OK, Bob. So you are saying that 47% of Americans are leeches, living off the government, collecting as it were, and not paying taxes??
And in addition to those people, we have elderly, retired, and families that make income but do not make enough to pay federal taxes?
If you add them all together, we’d have 70+% of Americans not paying taxes (just a wild guesstimate, so don’t jump on me about the number.)
Is that what you (and I guess, Mr. Romney) are saying???
May 9, 2013 at 3:10 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
One other thing – I don’t know where you get the idea I said Romney was going to eliminate social security. I did not. That was not even in my thought process. What he did, in his fundraising dinner speaking to his peers, was insult 47% of Americans who because of a myriad of reasons, see my classes of people above, do not pay federal income tax. No way does that number ONLY include deadbeats and people collecting welfare. If you continue to say so, please provide me some data to review. I have reviewed data and the 47% includes honest, hard-working people that because of the tax code, do not have enough net income to have to pay federal income taxes.
Again, if that means the tax code should be restructured, that’s one thing and I don’t disagree. To infer that 47% are lazy bums and that’s the only reason they are voting for Obama is another.
May 9, 2013 at 4:11 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Just to keep it in context, here is the transcript of his speech on the 47%:
“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax… And so my job is not to worry about those people—I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”
Further:
“According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, 53.6% of Americans pay a portion of their income in federal income taxes, and 46.4% don’t. Of those who don’t, 61% (28.3% of the population) pay payroll taxes, such as Social Security and Medicare, but have enough deductions and tax credits that their federal income tax liability has shrunk to zero. In other words, 81.9% of the population is gainfully employed and sends some measure of their income to the federal government.
As for the rest, 10.3% of the population — 22% of non-income tax payers — are elderly and are likely unemployed, i.e., retired. A further 6.9% are non-elderly but have incomes below $20,000, which in most cases puts them below the poverty line.”
Just how is what Romney said not insulting to at least 38% of the population?? That’s assuming the 6.9% are collecting some type of assistance and not taking “personal responsiblity for their lives.”
Please TRY to defend him. It’s indefensible.
May 9, 2013 at 6:11 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby,
I’ll shorten it up for you:
You have to believe that he is elminating social security to believe that his statement was including those on social security as leeches. It is the only option because he never said in his speech that those on social security were leeches, and he never denounced social security he himself supports it. There is no reason to believe he was stating a number that included those on social security. None. Unless he was against social security.
Now moving on: He was stating that 47% of working americans with income do not pay income tax. You’re going to have to accept that.
So no. I am not stating that 47% of Americans are leeches. Though I would say that’s not entirely a bad number when you see how weak the average bear is. I know the numbers in Washington. At least half the people here are leeches and rely on the government in some form. But, if you look at my numbers, considering the work force is about 3 – 1 then the 3 working out of 1 meaning 47% of the 66% of the population are leeches. That would be what I technically said. That would techincally be closer to one third of the population.
May 10, 2013 at 8:54 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Wow, Bob. You ought to be a politician the way you try to twist words and recreate the truth. I will NOT accept that he said “47% of working americans with income do not pay income tax.”
He said, and I quote, “there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it…. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax.”
Nowhere in there does he say “people with income” or “dependant on government, except for social security.” He knew the elderly were not voting for him. They booed Ryan off the stage in Florida for crying out loud. Forget about social security, they were pissed about medicare!
Spin it anyway you like. He said it. He meant it. And YOU will have to accept it. It was an elitist, bozo statement and it contributed to him losing the election. Thank God!
May 10, 2013 at 11:48 am
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby:
The 47% number was not including the elderly and retired.
You can spin it any way you want. Even if you were accurate about the 47% of working americans (you aren’t)
Then you would be ASSUMING as nowhere in the speech does he say that in the 47% who will rely on the government included retirees and disabled persons.
At best, he was stating that people leech off the government. That would make both our arguments moot.
That’s a middle ground. I will accept that in some odd world, he meant 47% of the total. At that point, he was wrong about the total. You cannot assume, that he was talking about and calling retirees leeches without him using the words. End of story.
You ought to be in politics. Assuming that he was trying to call certain people leeches without him ever having said it, just WOW.
He’s republican, surely he must have hatred for retirees and those on social security right? You’re wrong. End of story. Romney has nothing against those on social security. He wants to change it. He doesn’t want to abolish it.
And his statement was true: A vast majority of the population votes for Obama for entitlements. End of story.
So stop arguing on these wild goose hunts trying to find the golden egg to revealing the republicans are secretly elderly hating, healthcare denying, people.
You said in here at one point you genuniely believe all people deserve health care.
So did Reagan, so do republicans. Reagan actually passed a law on it far before your party gave a darn. We have a history. A good one.
Civil rights in 1957, before your civil rights in 1964.
More of us voted percentage wise in the 1964 bill.
We got women the right to vote. Then you call us the sexist party. Go figure.
You always say that you’re just saying something. Libby is just saying that or just saying this.
No. You’re trying to label the republican party, in ways that are entirely inappropriate. And you should stop doing it.
May 10, 2013 at 1:29 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob:
Sometimes I have a really hard time following your posts. True or not true:
-47% of Americans pay no Federal Income Tax – True (and this is exactly what Romney said)
-Of those 47%, many are retirees who do not bring in enough income to pay FIT – True (he was silent on this)
-Included in the 47% are deadbeats and leeches – True (he was very vocal about this)
He was using the 47%, and not clarifying who was included, to perpetuate the perception that there is a plethora of Americans on government assistance.
When in reality 47% of Americans do not pay Federal Income tax, but the majority of that 47% work, pay payroll tax, medicare tax, and social security tax. His basic numbers were not wrong, but his misrepresentation was. And he did this for his own agenda.
Look, I’m not the lone ranger here. Check it out. There are numerous articles and statistics to verify what I just said. You can continue to talk in circles and tell me what he couldn’t have meant because of blah, blah, blah, but the truth is he said it. He’s stuck with it. It was an unfortunate mistake on his part. And the American people saw him for what he is. He did not get elected. End of story.
Believe it or not, Bob, not every statement I make or opinion I express is pro-Democrat and anti-Republican. I’m an independant thinker and, like you, am smarter than the average bear.
May 10, 2013 at 2:28 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby:
You just stated that the 47% (true fact) of the population (if not including working) would have to include some degree of retirees.
Now, jut because that is true, does not mean that Romney was attempting to call the retirees leeches. Hindsight is 20/20. You can’t say what Romney meant because of a fact to do with the 47% number that someone else drew up (not Romney) And if we research a bit about Romney, we know he was not against social security. His comment was to imply there was a problem with people living off the government. There is a problem with people living off the government. Trying to find this slight of hand with wording is not appropriate in politics. Monitor policies. Now speeches. That’s fluff.
It means that Romney used a number that was inaccurate at best, or misspoke at worst.
This is mind boggling that you don’t talk issues, you talk minor talking points with speeches and emotional spots to do with healthcare. When I take issue the the health care law you state you don’t want to argue about what the law will do. You want to ignore policy.
Are you about the way things are worded, or about the way things are?
The reason I go off track is to point out that you are not about the way things are, you are simply against republicans even for 47% comments rather than against what they actually do for you. It was relevant.
Let’s drop the whole thing for a moment. Let’s say you’re right, Romney in a heated discussion said he doesn’t like that 47% of people will vote for Obama including retirees.
That isn’t far off either, considering your party went on an attack campaign stating that Romney was doing away with social security and medicare. Romney was pointing out that those people at that point were under Obama’s spell, and if they were lost, he was not going to bother with it. If anything, that is Romney stating he is NOT going to play dirty and buy votes with a child tax credit like Bush did, or a temporary payroll tax like Obama did. That is sleazy. Both those presidents had their sleaze. You would prefer for Romeney to state he was totally going to win them over by luring them in with tax hikes for the rich and tax cuts for the poor? Someone did that, Obama that is.
If 47% is the worst you have on Romney, and you ignore that his tax plan and his regulation plan matched Reagan, who outperformed Obama, then what in the world are you thinking?
Tell me where you get your logics, with the statement that things would have been worse if Romney got into office, tying that in with the 47% comment. How does the 47% comment relate to whether or not Romney’s PLAN would have worked? Or whether or not Reagan outperformed Obama.
You have your chords being struck by democrats, on non issues. It’s time to focus on the issues.
Healthcare: We’ve been there, you’ll see the premiums don’t go down. At that point you will have to admit this bill had no benefits whatsoever in light of the $50 billion cost of those who are not insured would have gone up to $150 billion, and they lost their choice to be non insured.
Economy: Obama is not good in this area. His stimulus failed, his QE inflated the housing bubble again, this is not an opinion, and increased housing costs, and was the wrong move to do. He made housing costs go up and income did not follow. Housing costs would not have gone back up without QE. That was a far worse move than if Romney had lowered taxes.
National debt is national debt, which can be whatever it will be and the bill won’t come back to the middle class (not while a democrat is in office) Ensuring someone has a higher cost house harms the middle class in their living costs. Obama raised the living cost of the middle class by a minimum of double in terms of housing costs. That is the largest bill people have. It is absolutely unacceptable. That reason alone, that $400 to $800 dollar bill per month for the average home is reason enough to throw him out.
I go all across the board with you because you aren’t focusing on issues and seem hung up on some ridiculous 47% comment. It is to show you how ridiculous it is. There are real issues. Your perception of the 47%, is trivial and misguided as to why Romney could have said it.
May 10, 2013 at 3:55 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
First of all, I did not bring up the 47%. Someone else did. And now that I have successfully presented my argument about what was said, it is suddenly irrelevant. Oh, well. I guess that’s how this goes.
But, I did state I questioned Romney’s honesty because of his pandering to the right not matching up with his record in MA. I happen to believe that’s a valid reason for choosing not to vote for that person. Not to mention, I don’t agree with the social stances espoused by the far right. If that’s the way he was going, I definitely didn’t want to vote for him. The 47% comment was made long after I had made my decision, but it did help confirm I made the right one.
As far as his PLAN, there was no plan except 5 bullet points on his website. He failed to outline specifically what his proposed budget cuts were. It was alot of vague statements without any substance to back it up.
So you can say he was the next coming of Reagan, and that’s a good thing, but I did not get any of that from anything he put out there other than they are both Republicans (no slur meant – only that’s all I saw they had in common.)
So again, I was not “hung up” on the 47% comment until you started defending it and trying to tell me he didn’t say what I heard him say with my own ears. And yes, words are very powerful and I am all about the way things are worded. I expect my future president to be the same way.
And in closing, there is more to a president than what he does economically. I will admit, Obama may not have the best economic record, but he has done some other good things for this country. The ACA being one of them. Also, the stock market is rising, people are hiring, and things ARE getting better. You can say it’s not as fast as it coulda, shoulda, woulda been, but then again that’s what every Monday morning quarterback says.
May 10, 2013 at 5:53 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby:
I was going to start at the 47% but went back to the beginning as I say this to all democrats and it is the very, utmost, important reason to not be democrat, and is my primary reason, directing one of your comments from your last post:
The reason why you did not see Romney’s plan other than 5 point, is because, liberal media hid it. Paul Ryan has a complete detailed plan. While Romney’s does not match it, Romney’s plan was complete. I looked up “Romney’s 401k plan” I could not find his plan. It is not because one didn’t exist. It is because jackasses on the left (sorry to say it but people like you) kept hyper googling about Romney’s 401k and his wealth. This makes it come up first in google. The reason you can’t find info on his plan is because the media doesn’t want to put it out there, and you don’t want to see it. There are no other reasons. Besides which, the plan of action during a recession is not a large point plan. Don’t spend your way out of it, don’t inflate the dollar, let the housing market bottom out, reduce taxes for businesses and taxes for everyone (rather than over spending and create the same deficit) and bam. That is it. While you will deny this works, again, Reagan. As a percentage of GDP his debts were mostly lower than Obama’s. When adjusting for inflation, before Reagan got it under control, his debts were half that of Obama’s. Reagan caused deficits, lesser than Obama’s, by cutting taxes and caused more growth. If we want a deficit, decreasing taxes is the way to go.
I don’t think you’re right about the 47%. I only got off it because you won’t budge not because I couldn’t win the argument. That was basically my way of stating, listen, you’re wrong but I’m not arguing it anymore. I did actually direct it one last time stating that you were wrong before giving up. Your details still don’t add up.
The stock market rose in sync with the falling of the dollar. Yet another affect of price control. You change one area, you bubble up another. The dollar falling made oil cost more to buy. There were other factors.
Net on the economy, Obama has not been worse than average. He has made all the problems from a down economy hurt more. Cost of a house, he reinflated it. That is what caused the housing bubble to begin with, people couldn’t afford their homes. Income has not gone up and Obama insisted that Housing costs should not bottom out, and they needed to be kept high. You cannot deny he did this with QE. That alone is completely, and utterly, irresponsible, and is far worse than anything, any president, could have done. This is not debatable. Reinflating a scenario where people cannot afford homes, is absolutely unacceptable. We had one shot at those housing prices going down. That was the one grace of this recession. And he shot them back up and is now surprised that housing sales are still rather slow. How about we let people buy houses at the price they should be?
The stock market being up is not in itself a benefit. When corporations have record high profits, and net incomes are down, that means he just caused housing costs to go up, profits to go up, and incomes and unemployment, the things that matter, he has failed. He has worse than failed, he has done far worse than Bush. Bush was president during a bubble that many created. Obama single handidly reinflated housing costs. Just him. No one else.
Moving on:
The ACA as I’ve already pointed out is not a good thing. At all. Part of the ACA was doing away with money you put aside into an HSA being tax free. That does harm americans. It also changed the amount of expenses you need to have before you can deduct health (which will now include premiums) up from 7% to 10 or 10.5 I cannot remember. For me that makes a difference. A big one. The ACA is not reducing premiums. This is a fact. The ACA expanding pre existing conditions was something republicans had a CBO rated plan that took care of with a net 9% decrease whereas the democrats covered pre x with a net 9% increase. The wellness visits as you on the left say are irrelavent. They are low cost. They are not the driving force behind that 9% increase nor is additional coverage. It is basically tinkering with the system that causes it.
The ACA was not a good act. It should not have been done.
The stimulus didn’t work.
QE should not be going on still. Housing costs should not be reinflated. When the second bubble pops, which simply has to happen as incomes don’t follow housing costs, will you again blame a republican? When we try to stop the market from being lifted by government programs you guys on the left go crazy. Well here we are again, stimulusing, devaluing the dollar, bubbling the stock market, bubbling the housing market, and you think it won’t pop? Just wait for the market to catch up? You can’t prop it up forever.
May 10, 2013 at 11:22 am
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
New rule – No Job No Vote.
Another new rule – No Job, No Income Tax Refund. Cant take from what you did not contribute.
Everytime I read a comment that includes a derogatory version of Obama’s name, Obozo, etc…I cringe. It makes me think of Americans who burn the American Flag in protest of….something…
I know, I know, it’s your first amendment right to speak freely or burn the flag (I guess…), but man, it sure makes you look like an A-hole. (It also makes it hard to take your comment seriously.)
Nebraskan, And I suppose that Bush (either of them) were not referred to as anything other than their correct, god given names? Ever watch Bill Maher? or Rachel Maddow, Keith Olberman?
Besides that, if you act like a clown, make decisions like a clown and promote clown legislation like “The AFFORDABLE healthcare act” which is not affordable, then you should be free game.
Honestly, I don’t like any disrespect shown to any President. Never have. And I’m sure you are all going to tell me I am wrong, but you don’t know me. The one that really bothers me is when the President (this happened to Bush a lot and it has happened to Obama) is compared to Hitler. I didn’t agree with Bush 100%, I don’t agree with Obama 100%, but I’m not stupid enough to make that kind of unfortunate comparison.
I think the lack of respect we show each other in these online conversations is what is leading to the demise of our society. If you don’t like something, that’s fine. And by all means, explain why you don’t like something. I’m here, because I actually learn a little something from reading the article and subsequent comments (except from Bob). I am just saying, your point would have more meaning if you didn’t dumb it down.
“bob” (me) is one of the only people here who actually talks more with facts.
I beat on those who talk like “obummer”, or start going off about Rush, Hannity, Fox, or start inferring that Texas hates it’s population, or starts stating that Texas wants it’s people to die, etc.
Those are not arguments I tolerate. And those who do it, will see my wrath.
If you haven’t learned anything from me, you aren’t paying attention.
Nebraskan, I think most of us agree that we respect the Office of the President as our leader through thick and thin. However, when a President does things that are not in the nation’s best interest over and over, we quickly lose respect for the man in the office and seek to change to someone else. We have had a run of bad President’s starting with LBJ, Nixon, Carter and some average ones like Bush Sr., Jr. Clinton may have been smart and at least a pragmatist, but he demeaned the office for his indiscretions and lies and was impeached but not removed. Our present leader is a committed ideologue who drags this country down day by day and he is given a pass. Why is that? How could this country been so stupid? I scratch my head daily trying to figure that one out.
Why discuss Romney? He is out of the mix. Nothing he said, did or does is relevant any more.
Just informed another major employer (500) in my home town is pulling out in favor of FLA. Had three main st business pull out sinc Jan 1st and another pulling out at end of May.
Things just keep getting worse. More of my clients out of work. We just keep havng the same discussion. Nothing changes. Nothing gets resolved. Buschs Iraq is now becoming Obamas Syria. No Concerns about the home land. OBama cant / wont even help out his home state. Names change, game is still the same.
Mean while, tax the rich feed the illegals….. Screw Joe Main St Small Business man. We just dont matter.
And now, Obama care about to kick in full force. Just going to make things worse.
Hey FFA, good to see you back as well. On a recent post, Libby’s running mate Captain Planet said business in the Chicago area is doing great. I told him to check with you on what is going on in the business community there. I also see that Deadfishes program on gun control doesn’t seem to be working as well. People are still getting killed by the thugs at a record pace.
Still so down in the dumps, FFA? Brighten up! Nothing changes, yes. But at least you know what to expect! And let’s have a wait and see on Obamacare, OK? The economy IS picking up. Maybe not on the IL/WI line, but overall it is. Spring is here and summer is right around the corner. Go home and play with your grandkids. Things could be so much worse. Romney could have actually won….
The economy is picking up at the slowest rate ever after an economic downturn (Obamanomics). Deficits of $400-$500 billion by George Bush were referred to as unacceptable and unfair to future generations by Senator Obama and now he says we do not have a debt problem with $17 trillion in debt and $1.2 trillion annual deficits. You just keep on drinking the Obama Kool-Aid Libby, Obama certainly is full of it. Meanwhile the Benghazi hearings are ripping him and his administration a new one. Will probably need more Kool-Aid. Yeah, it would have been so much worse had we elected Romney. Just keep drinking that Kool-Aid.
Dave, If we are lucky, the Benghazi hearings will reveal all the lies and incompetance of Obama and his minions including Hilary who has been the teflon queen up until now. Watergate under Nixon was child’s play compared to Benghazi where 4 brave soldiers actually died and the government did nothing to help them when help was only as far away as Tripoli. Being told to stand down and not go help is treasonous in my opinion.
Still looking at this with rose colored glasses, huh Libby? Some of your liberal Democratic Senators like Max Baucus now says it is a train wreck and is seeking to get his staff exempted from it. Of course, he is not running for re-election so he can go home, collect his pension, have his sponsored blue chip healthcare and won’t have to answer to his constituents for this disaster. I can just see you now sitting there with those glasses on and sipping Kool Aid and hoping this will all come out.
A rocking chair as in sitting on my porch, sipping kool-aid with my rose colored glasses on enjoying life with a big grin on my face.
May 8, 2013 at 7:23 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
If Romney had won we would have gone with a plan similar to Reagan’s in 1982. By 1988 inflation was under control, employment was at it’s full rate, and he added jobs at a rate which crushed Obama’s.
We’ve done the tax decreases and deregulation after a recession before. It worked.
We’ve done the tax increases and regulation after two recessions. One turned into a decade long depression, and the other is now going on 5 years. I think we know which route worked better.
Things just keep getting worse for me. My brother bilks 1.325M from my parents and states attorney does nothing about it.
Loading my dad for his appointment at Loyola on Wednesday. My mom strokes. We split. Take my dad to his appointment and mom into the other hospital. LONG DAY! VERY LONG DAY. 08:00am rolls aroung next day Loyola calls – Get him here now. Way things are playing out, someone needs to be there 24/7 if they survive. Cant afford 24/7 because of what my brother did. I am informed if we leave them alone, I could be brought up on neglect charges.
Dad still of sound mind. 95% paralized, but still capable of making “sound” decisions. Refuses to go to a nursing home.
How is that fair???? Any suggestions????
In the mean time, another major employer in my home town has announced they are getting out of IL. At least two of my PL clients have worked there for 20+ years. Now what for them???
Unemployment rate in IL 2% higher then the national average. Touching 10%.
My daugher finally finds a job after several years unemployed. Now that place is on danger of closing. And she gets a tax refund all them years.
Libby, will you still have that grin on your face when your employer tells you that because of healthcare cost increases, he will have to take another big chunk out of your check every two weeks. Actuaries have predicted a 32% increase in 2014 to help pay for all the new sick people that will be signing up. By the way, Blue Cross sent out the revised exchange app to me. Instead of 15 pages as first reported, this is only 11 pages. Wow, I wonder how many Obama voters will be able to complete it. The information requested is very intrusive and exhausting. No privacy whatsoever.
Hasn’t happened, Agent. My insurance costs actually went down $40 a month. My employer has increased their 401k contribution and all other benefits (life, STD, LTD) are 100% paid by them. I know you think the sky is falling, but I’m not buying into it. Call it drinking kool-aid or whatever you want to. I just don’t go in for hysterics like the right wing does. You guys are the biggest drama queens I’ve ever seen!
When someone is forced to buy insurance, a cost they didn’t have before, and then are told they won’t get help what do you call that?
It’s the middle class who will hurt. People who are paying nothing pay nothing. People earning $40,000 a year let’s just say owning a house may not be able to afford insurance. That one person family didn’t have insurance costs before. Now they will. The subsidy will not pay for all.
The solution was not the right one. If they wanted to provide assistance to those in the lower income bracket, fine. Forcing people to buy it, was not acceptable. It is estimated $80 billion dollars for all the people who get medical aid without insurance is the total per year. Why not just have the government pay that directly as an example? The cost of the current healtchare bill exceeds that number.
Rights were violated. End of story. And that wasn’t right. Pun intneded.
Moving on: We will see on the healthcare. You over reacted on Iraq. That was all about the Sky Falling. Democrats just sent out an email stating that questioning the extent of global warming was akin to believing in unicorns. Believing. In. Unicorns. Another email I have from them states that they are going to stick it to us republicans, and it will be “fun” to “get ’em”. Another says that we want people to die, the elderly and children. Is that not about the sky falling? Let’s not talk scare tactics. Democrats do for a fact take the cake here. It’s how they passed medicare, social security, and other things. I’m not saying those things are bad. But for a fact Libby, they went on the “people will die! Republicans are killing people! BAD BIG BUSINESS!” route.
Moving forward: Even $3,000 a year out of the average middle class pocket will either reduce spending (aka drag the economy) or make a shift somewhere else that will affect the lives of those who are forced to buy it in a negative way.
True, Bob. However, insurance can not work effectively if only the sick and subsidized are buying it. It only works when there is a large number of sick and healthy people, all paying into the system (law of large numbers.) We make people buy car insurance and businesses buy WC insurance – because it is in the best interests of society. I view this as the same thing. Yes, it will hurt some, but will help others. Rarely will you find a “solution” that doesn’t do both these things.
The section of those that you claim are getting helped with coverage and are benefiting currently are the sick and unhealthy. So which is it?
The amount of effect on the economy, and thus the ability to pay bills and thus the effect on the ability to pay insurance, will stack. This will outweight the benefits. Sluggish growth = sluggish wages. As the right says “nothing is free” put in place a system that screws with the economy output, or screws with rights, then you better have a tangible benefit. To date, you have given me no evience of a tangible benefit as to who is now getting treatment, in numbers, and who is by choice now getting access to insurance (a benefit) but I can give you a rough number on those who don’t want insurance: at least half of the 30,000,000. The other half who want it don’t want insurance. They want free insurance.
Moving on: We don’t presently have an imbalance of those who are sick versus those who are not on the roles of insurance.
30 million on average before the recession were not insured. $5,000 annual premium would be $150 billion additional insurance money. The gap we have for those who aren’t insured is $80 billion direct from hospitals.
Premiums are not projected to go down despite this. This shows a 2/1 inefficiecy of the government taking over in terms of costs. Again, this is about treatment, not costs. Those people used to get treatment for $80 billion. Now it is $150 billion at minimum. The cost isn’t going down from the risk pool premiums aren’t expected to go down, therefore $150 billion is a accurate number. You might state this is evidence a direct single payor option should be in place. Maybe in some areas. But it’s definite evidence that a government manipulated insurance health market doesn’t work. Whatever the government has done thus far has made sure that $80 billion worth of treatment now costs $150 billion. Let’s hope that doesn’t go across the board for the rest of us when it goes through in total.
This plan should not have been passed. Public option for those who cannot afford it, and then private option should have been left the same. We don’t need them trying to price control the insurance market.
Are you old enough to remember what happened during the price controls around Carter? Inflation blew up. Reagan took out price controls as part of his first actions in office. Inflation fell. We do not need the government involved in the costs of health insurance. Health care provision, go ahead. Health care costs, no.
Also I might add:
Car insurance is not the same. At all. You choose to have a car.
May 9, 2013 at 3:34 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob – I understand your $30B/$150B numbers are projections from some think tank and I’m not necessarily disputing them. What I will say is no-one really knows at this time what the true costs will be.
You know, I choose not to wear a seat belt because they are very uncomfortable to me. However, if I do not, I am subject to a fine. Why? Because the government has decided it is in society’s best interest to have people wear seat belts. We used to be able to smoke on airplanes, but if we do it now, we are subject to arrest and fines. Why? Because the government decided it was in society’s best interest. I could go on and on with things the government has done for the good of society that I don’t necessarily agree with. But that’s the way it is. Healthcare is no different.
I truly believe healthcare should be a right for every American, especially children. I have heard right-wingers say that anyone and everyone that needs healthcare can find it for free. I’m sorry, but that simply is not true.
If we find that the costs of this program are $150B and the expenses are $80B, I am sure there will be adjustments. But no-one can say now with any level of certainty what that cost/benefit will actually shake out to be.
In addition, the 80B doesn’t include wellness care, preventative medicine, or those people that need care but do not get it because they are uninsured. Health insurance carriers are not in the business of losing money, so if the average premium to cover a person is $5,000 – that should be enough to pay for losses, admninstration, and a small profit. What’s wrong with that? People are able to get and stay healthy, healthcare workers will be employed, and healthcare insurers will make money. Sounds like a win-win to me on a macro basis – just maybe not on a micro basis.
May 9, 2013 at 6:15 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby:
When I stated I never quote someone else’s numbers I meant that I never quote someone else’s equation. I only quote their numbers. So I really worded that poorly.
May 15, 2013 at 12:59 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
The good news Bob is that the complicit media who have given our fearless leader a complete pass for 4 1/2 years have awakened. AP doesn’t like it much that Eric Holder has been tapping their reporters phones. Our friends at the IRS are in trouble for putting Conservative Groups under their microscope for extreme scrutiny and of course we have the festering Benghazi incident where all the lies have been revealed and it goes straight to the top. There are so many scandals I can’t keep up with all of them. I saw the press conference with Holder yesterday and the reporters were giving him major grief and he refused to answer almost half the questions. By the way, the Fast & Furious documents are still at the White House to keep them from coming to light. I wonder if they were burned in the fireplace (accidentally). Reminds me a lot of the Clinton White House when all that trouble came down. We should just move on, right. No story here.
I said $80 billion. It is actually $50 billion that uninsured leave in terms of costs per year. These are the sickly you are trying to have covered. I have to add something because you said that the treatment didn’t cover wellness visits blah blah blah. Those cost next to nothing Libby. Next to nothing. The care that the uninsured get from hospitals is the upper cost. Your argument that the cost would be higher with the preventative services is inaccurate. Further to the point: Those who go to emergency rooms are not those we can help with preventative services. Heart attack. The majority of those are dietary choices.
Regarding government regulation: smoke in airplanes: Harm those who did not make the choice to smoke.
Regarding seat belts, this is not federal law. Further, just because some jack ass made one law a law doesn’t make that law a good law. You just quoted a bad law. Congratulations. Rather than finding reasons to follow stupid laws, and quote stupid laws to support a stupid law, why don’t we keep this strictly to the benefits?
Further to the point: Yes. Care is given to those who need it in this country. You will try to say it is not. You are wrong. There is a law. Reagan passed it. No hopsital can deny care to someone in need. When my father had his heart attack they did not ask for his insurance information until after they were already 2 days into trying to keep him alive. My aunt, she was going blind, no questions, treatment was given. My wife, when she was pregnant, they said come on in. Insurance information was never asked for. Our insurance company handled the bill when we received it. My uncle, mild chest pains way back when he was 45. He walked in, and they screamed out “45 year old man with chest pains!!” and they rushed him onto nitrates, blood thinners, and saved his life they didn’t once ask for his information. There is a law regarding care. That law is followed. We are talking the highest cost of care here libby. All of those circumstances are not low cost.
And despite that, the total cost per year for those services is $50 billion. So if the government wants to add on 30 million people thus adding $150 billion of premiums, and their own projections say it will increase premiums 9%, we know for certain that they reduced efficiency as now it takes $150 billion dollars of premium to cover lost cost (preventative care) what once took $50 billion for high cost care (catastrophic incident).
The numbers are the numbers. That’s actually 3 to 1.
The post office. It does not compete with UPS and Fedex. That’s not an opinion. That’s a fact.
The government should not be mingling in this. They just passed a law that did not reduce costs, and forced people to buy a plan they obviously cannot afford or choose not to buy. It was wrong.
Through and through.
Getting them insured, at $5,000 per year is an additional $150 billion in premiums. $5,000 as around a national average. The numbers work out. We essentially are not bringing down insurance costs over all, we are not benefitting those who choose not to have insurance by forcing them to buy insurance. We did however take what used to cost $50 billion to take care of and make it cost $150 billion.
That is not efficient. Considering that $50 billion number is a number that basically is the amount of people who are not insured who get treated, that number would not change. It is not subjective. It is fact. Considering that 30 million number is the number of uninsured, that number will not change. That is a fact. Considering the premium average is what it is, and the government does not expect for it to go down, rather CBO rates it to go up 9% at the minimum, we know that the cost is going up. These areas are not debatable.
My conclusion comes from being smarter than your average bear and putting together a horde of other people’s facts.
It is not my intention to defend Obamacare. I am defending the right of every American to have access to quality healthcare, which doesn’t mean the ER. Obamacare may not be the best way to do, but right now it is the only way we have. I am sure it will evolve into something much different as it is implemented.
All I will say is, we shall see. I don’t want to argue about what woulda, coulda, shoulda since neither one of us has a crystal ball.
BTW, my ex-husband went to the ER with chest pains and they wouldn’t do anything until I provided insurance information.
Personal opinion on that one is to sue them. They even have signs on the walls regarding the law. I’m fairly sure it’s some sort of a regulatory equiavelnt to how you are supposed to have worker’s rights readily available at jobs.
To do with could have should have, we will see. If premiums don’t go down, which they will not, then we covered what used to be $50 billion of cost at $150 billion by getting people insured who did not want to be insured.
Doing something, when it wrecks the system is worse than staying the course. Price controls before Reagan. I have to reiterate that again. We tinkered with the system, and inflation went into the double digits.
You’re smarter than this Libby. Let go of the hate you have for the republican party. It’s blinding you.
When Obama came into presidency I wasn’t terribly upset with the stimulus. Who doesn’t like a couple grand in their pocket? I figured the guy would do his thing and hoped it would work. It didn’t. Then I wanted us to try what Reagan did. That would have been Romney.
When Something does not work, try something else.
I did not vote for McCain. He is the same type of crappy rebublican as Obama is a crappy democrat. They are just different sides. McCain was only against certain things as the public wanted to hear.
I don’t like Boehner. I recently was asked by Agent what I thought of him. I said his performance was crap.
I however, do switch my votes. I wasn’t going to vote for McCain. No matter the scenario. And I certainly wasn’t going to support huckabee. That guy actually is the type of religious zealot you have mentioned. Same with Jon Hunt and that other idiot Santorum. There’s a reason those guys didn’t get to the primary. They were the bad side of republican. Romney, was not.
May 10, 2013 at 1:38 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob:
I have no hate for the Republican party. I was actually considering McCain until he nominated Palin as his running mate. That was a disastrous move on his part.
I also considered Romney, but just didn’t like the fact that he was trying to play to the far right wing and that didn’t line up with his record in MA. Rightly or wrongly, that made me question his honesty.
Obama was the only one left. I was a huge Hilary supporter, but she lost out to him. (I was gobsmacked by that.)
I agree that doing something that wrecks the economy is bad. I just am not convinced, as you and many others are, that this healthcare bill will end up doing that. That’s why I say wait and see.
I wish Boehner and his ilk would come up with something constructive instead of wasting their time with meaningless votes and protests. That infuriates me.
On a lighter note, I just got a Nexus tablet a while ago and have been downloading some games. Do you create any for androids?
May 10, 2013 at 5:31 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby:
I will definitely agree I would have preferred Hillary Clinton to Obama. I am sure she would have gone the public option over the affordable care act. She also probably would have followed her husband’s belief that the corporate tax code should be redone and lowered to 25%, and she would have done that her first term rather than waiting until the second term while dilly dallying.
I really don’t like the game.
Coulter way back said she would have chosen Clinton over McCain. That’s just a semi funny comment.
May 8, 2013 at 10:21 pm
Sargeant Major says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby said- I’m the kool-aid kid!
Yes, you are. Here is a clip from Obama on the debt when George Bush was President. Now under Obama’s tenure the debt is ready to exceed 17 trillion dollars. Yes, with a “T”. Then we have the “affordable healthcare act” and we have yet to see all of the tax increases, hidden fees, skyrocketing insurance rates and if you have decent insurance now, you can get up to a 40% tax on that plan. Now that is what I call affordable.
Yes, you are on the kool aid. Watch this clip. Even in this clip he does not tell the total truth.
Gee, I wonder why these people are challenging this wonderful 2,700 page bill with 12,000 pages of regulations. I wonder why 2/3rds of the states have not just fallen into line and created the exchanges as they were expected to. Perhaps it is because the law is a Progressive nightmare. Even Max Baucus now says it is a train wreck. The light at the end of the tunnel is an oncoming train.
Agent, interesting how a number of Democratic senators who voted for this monstrosity have chosen not to face the voters and run for re-election include Baucus. They’ve sold their souls to Obama and the Devil and will now ride off into the sunset where they will not have to explain to their constituants what they did to them. Interesting.
Right Dave. They had to pass it so they could see what was in it. Now that they have read it, it is a train wreck coming at them. Not to worry, they have their substantial pensions to live on and can be on company boards or be lobbyists in DC. The 2014 mid terms look more promising every day. The Senate may just change out and hopefully the house will increase the margin. Obama may be the lamest of ducks when the dust clears.
Agent & Dave: It is obvious that the politics, to some degree, have caught up with the reality of this legislation. In other words, the shucking and jiving is producing diminishing political returns. However, I do not believe there is nearly enough statesmanship and/or integrity to eliminate Obamacare or even reduce the damage it will do. This could hit some individual senators and congressman hard, but I think we all know it is safe nationally because Obama is untouchable. I thought Bill Clinton was slick and completed coated in teflon, but Obama has greatly surpassed Clinton in these not-so-admirable traits.
I also disagree vehemently with you on the 2014 mid-term election because the Republican Party is likely to lob up another horrendous air ball. I am looking for reasons to be optimistic, but the leadership of the party (both elected officials and party spokespersons) is pathetic.
Well said.
Buckeye, why do you think many of the liberal Democratic Congressmen and Senators have an active effort going on to get their staffers out of Obamacare? Of course they are covered under their blue chip plans so they won’t be affected, but the staffers will be facing huge cost increases just like the common folks. We musn’t let that happen to the ruling elite, can we?
The problem is that Obama wants and has created a nanny state/country. He drives as many people to government assistance of some sort with the intention of buying their vote for the Democratic party. Romney was correct but the press did not like the truth. There is about 47% (or maybe more now) people who get some sort of assistance and they will not make the right choice for America because they don’t want to lose whatever it is they get for “free”. What is worse? Making the problem worse with another 11 million ILLEGAL ALIENS who are sucking the life out of the American economy.
It is tough to beat a politician who is 1. a socialist 2.) a liar who will promise the moon to people at the expense of the working public and 3.) a fraud
Sargent Major: I could not agree more, which is the reason I view this as a “game over” situation. Based on the size, scope and unbridled power of the federal government, I see no way that it can be reined in. The challenge is compounded greatly when one throws in the sycophant press and a very uneducated electorate.
Buckeye, I assume you are from the great state of Ohio, the election challenged state which was basically stolen by illegal multiple voters and the unions. I agree with you on a lot including a very uneducated electorate. These kids with their nose permanently attached to their iphones and ipads have no clue about what is going on and they spend their time on facebook or twitter or downloading a new app. They won’t know what hit them in 2014 when all this comes crashing down.
Keep in mind, Mitt Romney’s 47% includes former E-9’s getting pensions, as well as heroes who have served our country bravely and lost limbs (or more) in the process. I wouldn’t exactly call that “free”.
If any one thinks anything is free in this world, they are not of sound mind. So, DONT – call anything free.
Seeming more and more obvious that we will be going into Syria. Is that going to be free too? If so, Obamas version of free or Websters definition of free?????
Don’t,
That had nothing to do with E9 pensions or other military benefits. Just like it has nothing to do with seniors on Social Security and Medicare. That is Obozo Kool Aid. It has everything to do with deadbeats in places across the country like Los Angeles, New York, Detroit, Cleveland and Miami, for example who bleed the country dry by collecting benefits that they don’t deserve or earned in the first place. I have said this many times. I am all for helping the needy but I am against funding the lazy, fraudsters and illegals.
Sarge – how quick you are to defend your GOVERNMENT pension and VA BENEFITS, but condemn others that may be on assistance, whether it be legitimate disability (yes, I said Legitamate) or social security or medicare/medicaid. These are too the folks included in Romney’s 47%, including you, pal. I don’t begrudge you your benefits and I don’t begrudge anyone else their legitimate benefits. Why don’t we work on getting rid of the ILLEGITIMATE takers of benefits and quit getting the two mixed up??
Don’t,
If you don’t believe we have a problem, CNN, MSNBC, NBC and Fox News ALL announced yesterday that the “Road to Amnesty” otherwise known as the “great sucking bill” will cost the United States $6.3 trillion, yes that is a “T” after any contribution the illegals make to the country. How does this help America at a time when we are going broke?
I agree that we have a serious problem. I also agree with you completely on the last sentence of your previous post. The only thing I was pointing out is that Romney’s 47% included a lot more than just the deadbeats and the lazy freeloaders. He probably didn’t intend to include those who have legitimate reasons for receiving benefits, but the fact that he didn’t even know the difference speaks volumes. He lives in the rich-boy bubble, completely insulated and out of touch. Although, I guess that statement is kind of beating a dead horse (or a tax-deductible one) at this point.
Believe me, I’m not an “Obama-tron”; I don’t care much for either political party. I think there are too many receiving free handouts who shouldn’t be. However, I don’t see how giving more handouts to the rich is going to help. They can’t create jobs without the people who buy their products. Demand creates the need to hire, not tax breaks; they just pocket the difference. They’re not going to hire employees they don’t need, just because they were able to write off the company yacht (which they can use themselves any time they want to; it’s just in the company’s name – scam).
Libby glad to see you are back and as uninformed as ever. Romney’s comment had NOTHING to do with military pension benefits or other earned benefits i.e. social security for seniors or Medicare. For people drawing pensions, military or social security his comment should have had no effect unless you believe the fear that Obama’s camp put into press after Romney was taped. In fact it was Romney who said, in one of the presidential debates that he would restore the $700 billion Obozo took out of Medicare to pay for Obozocare. When the cameras panned over to Barack he had a smirk on his face like he wet his pants.
Sarge – his comment had EVERYTHING to do with it. He stated there were 47% of Americans that did not pay federal income tax, which is true. This includes people on social security and government pensions. It also includes hard working people that barely make enough to put a roof over their head and food on the table. It DOES NOT mean 47% of Americans are lazy deadbeats with their hand out. We DO have a number of those, but it’s nowhere near 47%. If you want to revamp the tax code, that is one thing. But going around insulting almost half of the country is another. It only goes to show how YOU, sir, are uninformed.
Libby,
If you believe 53% of America cannot put a roof over their head or are disabled and elderly you are not thinking clearly.
Romney made his point quite well, and no, he was not referring to the elderly or social security collectors. He was referring to a section of the population who worked, had income, and paid no income taxes. So his numbers may have been off, but he was not at all including the retired population. This is a liberal talking point that makes no sense, and Obama knows better. It shows more that Obama tried to milk that comment knowing better, than it does that Romney mispoke.
Side comment: The number isn’t far off regardless when taking into account people who have income and pay no income taxes. And those people should have to pay at least some taxes if they are going to be voting to take someone else’s dollar.
When someone gets a free credit limit as long as they vote, and can buy whatever they want, that’s not the way to handle the economy, and it is exactly why we have so many dead beats.
The sooner you realize that the better. You’d be better suited with your intellect on the right side of economics than the left.
Well said!
Sargent, Isn’t it entertaining to see Libby and Bob go at it again after a few months in limbo? She makes her Progressive Liberal points and he counters with the actual facts. I give it about 3 or 4 more comments before it gets nasty and she calls him a bully and signs off. It is a fact that 47% of the population pays no Federal Income Tax including Jeffrey Immelt and 53% are supporting the country. She doesn’t understand that this scenario is not sustainable and the country is rapidly going broke. I think you made the point that Immigration Reform will cost the country another $6.3 Trillion with a T. Hello! Wake up people!
Libby probably won’t insult me. I think we worked out our issues.
We both tend to be over the top. I think we get that now.
Bob – I said the 47% included people that worked, but paid no income tax. To me, those people are not “deadbeats.” I never said or inferred 53% of Americans could not put a roof over their head and am not sure where you get that from my statement. Show me where Romney’s 47% does not include retired folks. I’d like to see that so I can correct my “liberal talking points,” if necessary.
Libby,
That was a typo on my end. I was going to originally include the 53% in a separate part that would have made the comment too long.
I was referring to the 47% you thought couldn’t afford to put a roof over their head or were elderly. You said:
” It also includes hard working people that barely make enough to put a roof over their head and food on the table.”
“This includes people on social security and government pensions”
The democrats make the two above talking points, in many liberal left leaning sites. This however is not accurate. Romney was explicitly attempting to target those who had incomes, and paid no income tax. He did not speak well. Obama however knew, as all liberals did, that Romney was talking about a real problem. Much of the population who has income pays no income tax. Now interesting to note both Clinton and Bush agreed with Child tax credits, the later of the two who expanded them. So I’m not blaming anyone. All I’m stating is that it is clear that Romney was seeking to fix a republican/democrat error that had resulted in a large section of the population not being taxed, and then following that train in when it came to who they would vote for. He would never win their vote.
Now moving on:
By you stating that the number doesn’t include elderly or those who cannot afford food on the table you must think that a large portion of the 47% are in that n umber. I was simply stating that cannot possibly be true, by the numbers. My 53 number was wrong. The concept was not.
Bob – let me clarify what I meant. The entire 47% to which Romney referred includes ALL of these classes of people:
– Deadbeats, homeless, and people on assistance
– Retirees that collect SS (or other retirement income) but not enough income to pay taxes (my Mom)
– Families with income that because of deductions, end up not paying federal income tax.
To infer, which I believe he did, that 47% of Americans were some kind of deadbeat because they didn’t pay taxes and those were the people voting for Obama is wrong, IMHO. If he had said, “we are not collecting federal tax from over 47% of Americans and the tax code needs to be restructured,” that would have been a different message altogether. But if you listen to his speech, that is not what he said nor is it the context in which he said it.
Libby:
If you listent to his speech it is 100% in context.
He clearly was referring to people who collect without paying taxes.
Why would anyone, ever, state that without the presumption we were talking about working people?
Romney clearly was not out to abolish social security. Though I know you guys on the left took that speech to mean he was. You are inferring what it is that he meant, and you’re wrong.
Think common sense. It is very clear he was explicitly talking about people who did not pay taxes but were paid themselves, and he was not targeting people on social security. Extremely, and vividly, clear.
I have to emphasize this again: Unless his speech specifically said that it included it, when he states that a large portion of the population is living off of the government without paying taxes, it is autmotically assumed, barring someone being a complete and total fool, of which Romney is not, the person is referring to a section of population they disagree with. In order for him to have been referring to the elderly, he would have to believe that no social security benefits should be given out. Seeing as Romney does not believe this, and had no plan to do so, the only possibility is that he was talking about people living off of the government, excluding social security, and receiving benefits without paying taxes.
The fact that the democrats tried to twist it, is further indicative of the “sky is falling” mentality you said us republicans do. You see? You democrats are much better at it. If you actually believe what you believe, the sky must be falling.
I should reword that:
Democrats talk about people living off the government all the time.
Are they talking about people on social security?
The only reason you are stating that Romney was referring to those poeple is that he was republican, and you believe he is out to get social security.
A normal person who heard a democrat make this speech would have known the democrat was talking about leeches on society, and government efficiency.
OK, Bob. So you are saying that 47% of Americans are leeches, living off the government, collecting as it were, and not paying taxes??
And in addition to those people, we have elderly, retired, and families that make income but do not make enough to pay federal taxes?
If you add them all together, we’d have 70+% of Americans not paying taxes (just a wild guesstimate, so don’t jump on me about the number.)
Is that what you (and I guess, Mr. Romney) are saying???
One other thing – I don’t know where you get the idea I said Romney was going to eliminate social security. I did not. That was not even in my thought process. What he did, in his fundraising dinner speaking to his peers, was insult 47% of Americans who because of a myriad of reasons, see my classes of people above, do not pay federal income tax. No way does that number ONLY include deadbeats and people collecting welfare. If you continue to say so, please provide me some data to review. I have reviewed data and the 47% includes honest, hard-working people that because of the tax code, do not have enough net income to have to pay federal income taxes.
Again, if that means the tax code should be restructured, that’s one thing and I don’t disagree. To infer that 47% are lazy bums and that’s the only reason they are voting for Obama is another.
Just to keep it in context, here is the transcript of his speech on the 47%:
“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax… And so my job is not to worry about those people—I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”
Further:
“According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, 53.6% of Americans pay a portion of their income in federal income taxes, and 46.4% don’t. Of those who don’t, 61% (28.3% of the population) pay payroll taxes, such as Social Security and Medicare, but have enough deductions and tax credits that their federal income tax liability has shrunk to zero. In other words, 81.9% of the population is gainfully employed and sends some measure of their income to the federal government.
As for the rest, 10.3% of the population — 22% of non-income tax payers — are elderly and are likely unemployed, i.e., retired. A further 6.9% are non-elderly but have incomes below $20,000, which in most cases puts them below the poverty line.”
Just how is what Romney said not insulting to at least 38% of the population?? That’s assuming the 6.9% are collecting some type of assistance and not taking “personal responsiblity for their lives.”
Please TRY to defend him. It’s indefensible.
Libby,
I’ll shorten it up for you:
You have to believe that he is elminating social security to believe that his statement was including those on social security as leeches. It is the only option because he never said in his speech that those on social security were leeches, and he never denounced social security he himself supports it. There is no reason to believe he was stating a number that included those on social security. None. Unless he was against social security.
Now moving on: He was stating that 47% of working americans with income do not pay income tax. You’re going to have to accept that.
So no. I am not stating that 47% of Americans are leeches. Though I would say that’s not entirely a bad number when you see how weak the average bear is. I know the numbers in Washington. At least half the people here are leeches and rely on the government in some form. But, if you look at my numbers, considering the work force is about 3 – 1 then the 3 working out of 1 meaning 47% of the 66% of the population are leeches. That would be what I technically said. That would techincally be closer to one third of the population.
Wow, Bob. You ought to be a politician the way you try to twist words and recreate the truth. I will NOT accept that he said “47% of working americans with income do not pay income tax.”
He said, and I quote, “there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it…. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax.”
Nowhere in there does he say “people with income” or “dependant on government, except for social security.” He knew the elderly were not voting for him. They booed Ryan off the stage in Florida for crying out loud. Forget about social security, they were pissed about medicare!
Spin it anyway you like. He said it. He meant it. And YOU will have to accept it. It was an elitist, bozo statement and it contributed to him losing the election. Thank God!
Libby:
The 47% number was not including the elderly and retired.
You can spin it any way you want. Even if you were accurate about the 47% of working americans (you aren’t)
Then you would be ASSUMING as nowhere in the speech does he say that in the 47% who will rely on the government included retirees and disabled persons.
At best, he was stating that people leech off the government. That would make both our arguments moot.
That’s a middle ground. I will accept that in some odd world, he meant 47% of the total. At that point, he was wrong about the total. You cannot assume, that he was talking about and calling retirees leeches without him using the words. End of story.
You ought to be in politics. Assuming that he was trying to call certain people leeches without him ever having said it, just WOW.
He’s republican, surely he must have hatred for retirees and those on social security right? You’re wrong. End of story. Romney has nothing against those on social security. He wants to change it. He doesn’t want to abolish it.
And his statement was true: A vast majority of the population votes for Obama for entitlements. End of story.
So stop arguing on these wild goose hunts trying to find the golden egg to revealing the republicans are secretly elderly hating, healthcare denying, people.
You said in here at one point you genuniely believe all people deserve health care.
So did Reagan, so do republicans. Reagan actually passed a law on it far before your party gave a darn. We have a history. A good one.
Civil rights in 1957, before your civil rights in 1964.
More of us voted percentage wise in the 1964 bill.
We got women the right to vote. Then you call us the sexist party. Go figure.
You always say that you’re just saying something. Libby is just saying that or just saying this.
No. You’re trying to label the republican party, in ways that are entirely inappropriate. And you should stop doing it.
Bob:
Sometimes I have a really hard time following your posts. True or not true:
-47% of Americans pay no Federal Income Tax – True (and this is exactly what Romney said)
-Of those 47%, many are retirees who do not bring in enough income to pay FIT – True (he was silent on this)
-Included in the 47% are deadbeats and leeches – True (he was very vocal about this)
He was using the 47%, and not clarifying who was included, to perpetuate the perception that there is a plethora of Americans on government assistance.
When in reality 47% of Americans do not pay Federal Income tax, but the majority of that 47% work, pay payroll tax, medicare tax, and social security tax. His basic numbers were not wrong, but his misrepresentation was. And he did this for his own agenda.
Look, I’m not the lone ranger here. Check it out. There are numerous articles and statistics to verify what I just said. You can continue to talk in circles and tell me what he couldn’t have meant because of blah, blah, blah, but the truth is he said it. He’s stuck with it. It was an unfortunate mistake on his part. And the American people saw him for what he is. He did not get elected. End of story.
Believe it or not, Bob, not every statement I make or opinion I express is pro-Democrat and anti-Republican. I’m an independant thinker and, like you, am smarter than the average bear.
Libby:
You just stated that the 47% (true fact) of the population (if not including working) would have to include some degree of retirees.
Now, jut because that is true, does not mean that Romney was attempting to call the retirees leeches. Hindsight is 20/20. You can’t say what Romney meant because of a fact to do with the 47% number that someone else drew up (not Romney) And if we research a bit about Romney, we know he was not against social security. His comment was to imply there was a problem with people living off the government. There is a problem with people living off the government. Trying to find this slight of hand with wording is not appropriate in politics. Monitor policies. Now speeches. That’s fluff.
It means that Romney used a number that was inaccurate at best, or misspoke at worst.
This is mind boggling that you don’t talk issues, you talk minor talking points with speeches and emotional spots to do with healthcare. When I take issue the the health care law you state you don’t want to argue about what the law will do. You want to ignore policy.
Are you about the way things are worded, or about the way things are?
The reason I go off track is to point out that you are not about the way things are, you are simply against republicans even for 47% comments rather than against what they actually do for you. It was relevant.
Let’s drop the whole thing for a moment. Let’s say you’re right, Romney in a heated discussion said he doesn’t like that 47% of people will vote for Obama including retirees.
That isn’t far off either, considering your party went on an attack campaign stating that Romney was doing away with social security and medicare. Romney was pointing out that those people at that point were under Obama’s spell, and if they were lost, he was not going to bother with it. If anything, that is Romney stating he is NOT going to play dirty and buy votes with a child tax credit like Bush did, or a temporary payroll tax like Obama did. That is sleazy. Both those presidents had their sleaze. You would prefer for Romeney to state he was totally going to win them over by luring them in with tax hikes for the rich and tax cuts for the poor? Someone did that, Obama that is.
If 47% is the worst you have on Romney, and you ignore that his tax plan and his regulation plan matched Reagan, who outperformed Obama, then what in the world are you thinking?
Tell me where you get your logics, with the statement that things would have been worse if Romney got into office, tying that in with the 47% comment. How does the 47% comment relate to whether or not Romney’s PLAN would have worked? Or whether or not Reagan outperformed Obama.
You have your chords being struck by democrats, on non issues. It’s time to focus on the issues.
Healthcare: We’ve been there, you’ll see the premiums don’t go down. At that point you will have to admit this bill had no benefits whatsoever in light of the $50 billion cost of those who are not insured would have gone up to $150 billion, and they lost their choice to be non insured.
Economy: Obama is not good in this area. His stimulus failed, his QE inflated the housing bubble again, this is not an opinion, and increased housing costs, and was the wrong move to do. He made housing costs go up and income did not follow. Housing costs would not have gone back up without QE. That was a far worse move than if Romney had lowered taxes.
National debt is national debt, which can be whatever it will be and the bill won’t come back to the middle class (not while a democrat is in office) Ensuring someone has a higher cost house harms the middle class in their living costs. Obama raised the living cost of the middle class by a minimum of double in terms of housing costs. That is the largest bill people have. It is absolutely unacceptable. That reason alone, that $400 to $800 dollar bill per month for the average home is reason enough to throw him out.
I go all across the board with you because you aren’t focusing on issues and seem hung up on some ridiculous 47% comment. It is to show you how ridiculous it is. There are real issues. Your perception of the 47%, is trivial and misguided as to why Romney could have said it.
First of all, I did not bring up the 47%. Someone else did. And now that I have successfully presented my argument about what was said, it is suddenly irrelevant. Oh, well. I guess that’s how this goes.
But, I did state I questioned Romney’s honesty because of his pandering to the right not matching up with his record in MA. I happen to believe that’s a valid reason for choosing not to vote for that person. Not to mention, I don’t agree with the social stances espoused by the far right. If that’s the way he was going, I definitely didn’t want to vote for him. The 47% comment was made long after I had made my decision, but it did help confirm I made the right one.
As far as his PLAN, there was no plan except 5 bullet points on his website. He failed to outline specifically what his proposed budget cuts were. It was alot of vague statements without any substance to back it up.
So you can say he was the next coming of Reagan, and that’s a good thing, but I did not get any of that from anything he put out there other than they are both Republicans (no slur meant – only that’s all I saw they had in common.)
So again, I was not “hung up” on the 47% comment until you started defending it and trying to tell me he didn’t say what I heard him say with my own ears. And yes, words are very powerful and I am all about the way things are worded. I expect my future president to be the same way.
And in closing, there is more to a president than what he does economically. I will admit, Obama may not have the best economic record, but he has done some other good things for this country. The ACA being one of them. Also, the stock market is rising, people are hiring, and things ARE getting better. You can say it’s not as fast as it coulda, shoulda, woulda been, but then again that’s what every Monday morning quarterback says.
Libby:
I was going to start at the 47% but went back to the beginning as I say this to all democrats and it is the very, utmost, important reason to not be democrat, and is my primary reason, directing one of your comments from your last post:
The reason why you did not see Romney’s plan other than 5 point, is because, liberal media hid it. Paul Ryan has a complete detailed plan. While Romney’s does not match it, Romney’s plan was complete. I looked up “Romney’s 401k plan” I could not find his plan. It is not because one didn’t exist. It is because jackasses on the left (sorry to say it but people like you) kept hyper googling about Romney’s 401k and his wealth. This makes it come up first in google. The reason you can’t find info on his plan is because the media doesn’t want to put it out there, and you don’t want to see it. There are no other reasons. Besides which, the plan of action during a recession is not a large point plan. Don’t spend your way out of it, don’t inflate the dollar, let the housing market bottom out, reduce taxes for businesses and taxes for everyone (rather than over spending and create the same deficit) and bam. That is it. While you will deny this works, again, Reagan. As a percentage of GDP his debts were mostly lower than Obama’s. When adjusting for inflation, before Reagan got it under control, his debts were half that of Obama’s. Reagan caused deficits, lesser than Obama’s, by cutting taxes and caused more growth. If we want a deficit, decreasing taxes is the way to go.
I don’t think you’re right about the 47%. I only got off it because you won’t budge not because I couldn’t win the argument. That was basically my way of stating, listen, you’re wrong but I’m not arguing it anymore. I did actually direct it one last time stating that you were wrong before giving up. Your details still don’t add up.
The stock market rose in sync with the falling of the dollar. Yet another affect of price control. You change one area, you bubble up another. The dollar falling made oil cost more to buy. There were other factors.
Net on the economy, Obama has not been worse than average. He has made all the problems from a down economy hurt more. Cost of a house, he reinflated it. That is what caused the housing bubble to begin with, people couldn’t afford their homes. Income has not gone up and Obama insisted that Housing costs should not bottom out, and they needed to be kept high. You cannot deny he did this with QE. That alone is completely, and utterly, irresponsible, and is far worse than anything, any president, could have done. This is not debatable. Reinflating a scenario where people cannot afford homes, is absolutely unacceptable. We had one shot at those housing prices going down. That was the one grace of this recession. And he shot them back up and is now surprised that housing sales are still rather slow. How about we let people buy houses at the price they should be?
The stock market being up is not in itself a benefit. When corporations have record high profits, and net incomes are down, that means he just caused housing costs to go up, profits to go up, and incomes and unemployment, the things that matter, he has failed. He has worse than failed, he has done far worse than Bush. Bush was president during a bubble that many created. Obama single handidly reinflated housing costs. Just him. No one else.
Moving on:
The ACA as I’ve already pointed out is not a good thing. At all. Part of the ACA was doing away with money you put aside into an HSA being tax free. That does harm americans. It also changed the amount of expenses you need to have before you can deduct health (which will now include premiums) up from 7% to 10 or 10.5 I cannot remember. For me that makes a difference. A big one. The ACA is not reducing premiums. This is a fact. The ACA expanding pre existing conditions was something republicans had a CBO rated plan that took care of with a net 9% decrease whereas the democrats covered pre x with a net 9% increase. The wellness visits as you on the left say are irrelavent. They are low cost. They are not the driving force behind that 9% increase nor is additional coverage. It is basically tinkering with the system that causes it.
The ACA was not a good act. It should not have been done.
The stimulus didn’t work.
QE should not be going on still. Housing costs should not be reinflated. When the second bubble pops, which simply has to happen as incomes don’t follow housing costs, will you again blame a republican? When we try to stop the market from being lifted by government programs you guys on the left go crazy. Well here we are again, stimulusing, devaluing the dollar, bubbling the stock market, bubbling the housing market, and you think it won’t pop? Just wait for the market to catch up? You can’t prop it up forever.
New rule – No Job No Vote.
Another new rule – No Job, No Income Tax Refund. Cant take from what you did not contribute.
Everytime I read a comment that includes a derogatory version of Obama’s name, Obozo, etc…I cringe. It makes me think of Americans who burn the American Flag in protest of….something…
I know, I know, it’s your first amendment right to speak freely or burn the flag (I guess…), but man, it sure makes you look like an A-hole. (It also makes it hard to take your comment seriously.)
The truth hurts Nebraskan. Obama has not earned respect.
Tell me you had one problem with Dubya and I’ll call you a liar.
Let’s keep on point and not do the higher than thou speeches.
Nebraskan, And I suppose that Bush (either of them) were not referred to as anything other than their correct, god given names? Ever watch Bill Maher? or Rachel Maddow, Keith Olberman?
Besides that, if you act like a clown, make decisions like a clown and promote clown legislation like “The AFFORDABLE healthcare act” which is not affordable, then you should be free game.
Honestly, I don’t like any disrespect shown to any President. Never have. And I’m sure you are all going to tell me I am wrong, but you don’t know me. The one that really bothers me is when the President (this happened to Bush a lot and it has happened to Obama) is compared to Hitler. I didn’t agree with Bush 100%, I don’t agree with Obama 100%, but I’m not stupid enough to make that kind of unfortunate comparison.
I think the lack of respect we show each other in these online conversations is what is leading to the demise of our society. If you don’t like something, that’s fine. And by all means, explain why you don’t like something. I’m here, because I actually learn a little something from reading the article and subsequent comments (except from Bob). I am just saying, your point would have more meaning if you didn’t dumb it down.
You also don’t know how I vote.
Have a good day.
Very funny Nebraskan.
“bob” (me) is one of the only people here who actually talks more with facts.
I beat on those who talk like “obummer”, or start going off about Rush, Hannity, Fox, or start inferring that Texas hates it’s population, or starts stating that Texas wants it’s people to die, etc.
Those are not arguments I tolerate. And those who do it, will see my wrath.
If you haven’t learned anything from me, you aren’t paying attention.
Nebraskan, I think most of us agree that we respect the Office of the President as our leader through thick and thin. However, when a President does things that are not in the nation’s best interest over and over, we quickly lose respect for the man in the office and seek to change to someone else. We have had a run of bad President’s starting with LBJ, Nixon, Carter and some average ones like Bush Sr., Jr. Clinton may have been smart and at least a pragmatist, but he demeaned the office for his indiscretions and lies and was impeached but not removed. Our present leader is a committed ideologue who drags this country down day by day and he is given a pass. Why is that? How could this country been so stupid? I scratch my head daily trying to figure that one out.
Welcome back to the mix Libby.
Why discuss Romney? He is out of the mix. Nothing he said, did or does is relevant any more.
Just informed another major employer (500) in my home town is pulling out in favor of FLA. Had three main st business pull out sinc Jan 1st and another pulling out at end of May.
Things just keep getting worse. More of my clients out of work. We just keep havng the same discussion. Nothing changes. Nothing gets resolved. Buschs Iraq is now becoming Obamas Syria. No Concerns about the home land. OBama cant / wont even help out his home state. Names change, game is still the same.
Mean while, tax the rich feed the illegals….. Screw Joe Main St Small Business man. We just dont matter.
And now, Obama care about to kick in full force. Just going to make things worse.
Hey FFA, good to see you back as well. On a recent post, Libby’s running mate Captain Planet said business in the Chicago area is doing great. I told him to check with you on what is going on in the business community there. I also see that Deadfishes program on gun control doesn’t seem to be working as well. People are still getting killed by the thugs at a record pace.
Still so down in the dumps, FFA? Brighten up! Nothing changes, yes. But at least you know what to expect! And let’s have a wait and see on Obamacare, OK? The economy IS picking up. Maybe not on the IL/WI line, but overall it is. Spring is here and summer is right around the corner. Go home and play with your grandkids. Things could be so much worse. Romney could have actually won….
The economy is picking up at the slowest rate ever after an economic downturn (Obamanomics). Deficits of $400-$500 billion by George Bush were referred to as unacceptable and unfair to future generations by Senator Obama and now he says we do not have a debt problem with $17 trillion in debt and $1.2 trillion annual deficits. You just keep on drinking the Obama Kool-Aid Libby, Obama certainly is full of it. Meanwhile the Benghazi hearings are ripping him and his administration a new one. Will probably need more Kool-Aid. Yeah, it would have been so much worse had we elected Romney. Just keep drinking that Kool-Aid.
I’m the kool-aid kid!
Dave, If we are lucky, the Benghazi hearings will reveal all the lies and incompetance of Obama and his minions including Hilary who has been the teflon queen up until now. Watergate under Nixon was child’s play compared to Benghazi where 4 brave soldiers actually died and the government did nothing to help them when help was only as far away as Tripoli. Being told to stand down and not go help is treasonous in my opinion.
Still looking at this with rose colored glasses, huh Libby? Some of your liberal Democratic Senators like Max Baucus now says it is a train wreck and is seeking to get his staff exempted from it. Of course, he is not running for re-election so he can go home, collect his pension, have his sponsored blue chip healthcare and won’t have to answer to his constituents for this disaster. I can just see you now sitting there with those glasses on and sipping Kool Aid and hoping this will all come out.
I am, Agent. In my rocking chair with a big grin on my face! You know me pretty well after all this time.
Are we talking a rocking chair as a new mother or a rocking chair as a senile adult?
The joke changes dramatically depending on the answer.
A rocking chair as in sitting on my porch, sipping kool-aid with my rose colored glasses on enjoying life with a big grin on my face.
If Romney had won we would have gone with a plan similar to Reagan’s in 1982. By 1988 inflation was under control, employment was at it’s full rate, and he added jobs at a rate which crushed Obama’s.
We’ve done the tax decreases and deregulation after a recession before. It worked.
We’ve done the tax increases and regulation after two recessions. One turned into a decade long depression, and the other is now going on 5 years. I think we know which route worked better.
The sooner you realize the better.
Things just keep getting worse for me. My brother bilks 1.325M from my parents and states attorney does nothing about it.
Loading my dad for his appointment at Loyola on Wednesday. My mom strokes. We split. Take my dad to his appointment and mom into the other hospital. LONG DAY! VERY LONG DAY. 08:00am rolls aroung next day Loyola calls – Get him here now. Way things are playing out, someone needs to be there 24/7 if they survive. Cant afford 24/7 because of what my brother did. I am informed if we leave them alone, I could be brought up on neglect charges.
Dad still of sound mind. 95% paralized, but still capable of making “sound” decisions. Refuses to go to a nursing home.
How is that fair???? Any suggestions????
In the mean time, another major employer in my home town has announced they are getting out of IL. At least two of my PL clients have worked there for 20+ years. Now what for them???
Unemployment rate in IL 2% higher then the national average. Touching 10%.
My daugher finally finds a job after several years unemployed. Now that place is on danger of closing. And she gets a tax refund all them years.
Dont even pretend things are getting better.
Carribean keeps sounding better and better.
Libby, will you still have that grin on your face when your employer tells you that because of healthcare cost increases, he will have to take another big chunk out of your check every two weeks. Actuaries have predicted a 32% increase in 2014 to help pay for all the new sick people that will be signing up. By the way, Blue Cross sent out the revised exchange app to me. Instead of 15 pages as first reported, this is only 11 pages. Wow, I wonder how many Obama voters will be able to complete it. The information requested is very intrusive and exhausting. No privacy whatsoever.
Hasn’t happened, Agent. My insurance costs actually went down $40 a month. My employer has increased their 401k contribution and all other benefits (life, STD, LTD) are 100% paid by them. I know you think the sky is falling, but I’m not buying into it. Call it drinking kool-aid or whatever you want to. I just don’t go in for hysterics like the right wing does. You guys are the biggest drama queens I’ve ever seen!
Libby:
When someone is forced to buy insurance, a cost they didn’t have before, and then are told they won’t get help what do you call that?
It’s the middle class who will hurt. People who are paying nothing pay nothing. People earning $40,000 a year let’s just say owning a house may not be able to afford insurance. That one person family didn’t have insurance costs before. Now they will. The subsidy will not pay for all.
The solution was not the right one. If they wanted to provide assistance to those in the lower income bracket, fine. Forcing people to buy it, was not acceptable. It is estimated $80 billion dollars for all the people who get medical aid without insurance is the total per year. Why not just have the government pay that directly as an example? The cost of the current healtchare bill exceeds that number.
Rights were violated. End of story. And that wasn’t right. Pun intneded.
Moving on: We will see on the healthcare. You over reacted on Iraq. That was all about the Sky Falling. Democrats just sent out an email stating that questioning the extent of global warming was akin to believing in unicorns. Believing. In. Unicorns. Another email I have from them states that they are going to stick it to us republicans, and it will be “fun” to “get ’em”. Another says that we want people to die, the elderly and children. Is that not about the sky falling? Let’s not talk scare tactics. Democrats do for a fact take the cake here. It’s how they passed medicare, social security, and other things. I’m not saying those things are bad. But for a fact Libby, they went on the “people will die! Republicans are killing people! BAD BIG BUSINESS!” route.
Moving forward: Even $3,000 a year out of the average middle class pocket will either reduce spending (aka drag the economy) or make a shift somewhere else that will affect the lives of those who are forced to buy it in a negative way.
True, Bob. However, insurance can not work effectively if only the sick and subsidized are buying it. It only works when there is a large number of sick and healthy people, all paying into the system (law of large numbers.) We make people buy car insurance and businesses buy WC insurance – because it is in the best interests of society. I view this as the same thing. Yes, it will hurt some, but will help others. Rarely will you find a “solution” that doesn’t do both these things.
Libby:
The section of those that you claim are getting helped with coverage and are benefiting currently are the sick and unhealthy. So which is it?
The amount of effect on the economy, and thus the ability to pay bills and thus the effect on the ability to pay insurance, will stack. This will outweight the benefits. Sluggish growth = sluggish wages. As the right says “nothing is free” put in place a system that screws with the economy output, or screws with rights, then you better have a tangible benefit. To date, you have given me no evience of a tangible benefit as to who is now getting treatment, in numbers, and who is by choice now getting access to insurance (a benefit) but I can give you a rough number on those who don’t want insurance: at least half of the 30,000,000. The other half who want it don’t want insurance. They want free insurance.
Moving on: We don’t presently have an imbalance of those who are sick versus those who are not on the roles of insurance.
30 million on average before the recession were not insured. $5,000 annual premium would be $150 billion additional insurance money. The gap we have for those who aren’t insured is $80 billion direct from hospitals.
Premiums are not projected to go down despite this. This shows a 2/1 inefficiecy of the government taking over in terms of costs. Again, this is about treatment, not costs. Those people used to get treatment for $80 billion. Now it is $150 billion at minimum. The cost isn’t going down from the risk pool premiums aren’t expected to go down, therefore $150 billion is a accurate number. You might state this is evidence a direct single payor option should be in place. Maybe in some areas. But it’s definite evidence that a government manipulated insurance health market doesn’t work. Whatever the government has done thus far has made sure that $80 billion worth of treatment now costs $150 billion. Let’s hope that doesn’t go across the board for the rest of us when it goes through in total.
This plan should not have been passed. Public option for those who cannot afford it, and then private option should have been left the same. We don’t need them trying to price control the insurance market.
Are you old enough to remember what happened during the price controls around Carter? Inflation blew up. Reagan took out price controls as part of his first actions in office. Inflation fell. We do not need the government involved in the costs of health insurance. Health care provision, go ahead. Health care costs, no.
Also I might add:
Car insurance is not the same. At all. You choose to have a car.
Bob – I understand your $30B/$150B numbers are projections from some think tank and I’m not necessarily disputing them. What I will say is no-one really knows at this time what the true costs will be.
You know, I choose not to wear a seat belt because they are very uncomfortable to me. However, if I do not, I am subject to a fine. Why? Because the government has decided it is in society’s best interest to have people wear seat belts. We used to be able to smoke on airplanes, but if we do it now, we are subject to arrest and fines. Why? Because the government decided it was in society’s best interest. I could go on and on with things the government has done for the good of society that I don’t necessarily agree with. But that’s the way it is. Healthcare is no different.
I truly believe healthcare should be a right for every American, especially children. I have heard right-wingers say that anyone and everyone that needs healthcare can find it for free. I’m sorry, but that simply is not true.
If we find that the costs of this program are $150B and the expenses are $80B, I am sure there will be adjustments. But no-one can say now with any level of certainty what that cost/benefit will actually shake out to be.
In addition, the 80B doesn’t include wellness care, preventative medicine, or those people that need care but do not get it because they are uninsured. Health insurance carriers are not in the business of losing money, so if the average premium to cover a person is $5,000 – that should be enough to pay for losses, admninstration, and a small profit. What’s wrong with that? People are able to get and stay healthy, healthcare workers will be employed, and healthcare insurers will make money. Sounds like a win-win to me on a macro basis – just maybe not on a micro basis.
Libby:
When I stated I never quote someone else’s numbers I meant that I never quote someone else’s equation. I only quote their numbers. So I really worded that poorly.
The good news Bob is that the complicit media who have given our fearless leader a complete pass for 4 1/2 years have awakened. AP doesn’t like it much that Eric Holder has been tapping their reporters phones. Our friends at the IRS are in trouble for putting Conservative Groups under their microscope for extreme scrutiny and of course we have the festering Benghazi incident where all the lies have been revealed and it goes straight to the top. There are so many scandals I can’t keep up with all of them. I saw the press conference with Holder yesterday and the reporters were giving him major grief and he refused to answer almost half the questions. By the way, the Fast & Furious documents are still at the White House to keep them from coming to light. I wonder if they were burned in the fireplace (accidentally). Reminds me a lot of the Clinton White House when all that trouble came down. We should just move on, right. No story here.
Libby:
It is not from a think tank. I never quote some one else’s numbers.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-05-09-uninsured-unpaid-hospital-bills_n.htm
I said $80 billion. It is actually $50 billion that uninsured leave in terms of costs per year. These are the sickly you are trying to have covered. I have to add something because you said that the treatment didn’t cover wellness visits blah blah blah. Those cost next to nothing Libby. Next to nothing. The care that the uninsured get from hospitals is the upper cost. Your argument that the cost would be higher with the preventative services is inaccurate. Further to the point: Those who go to emergency rooms are not those we can help with preventative services. Heart attack. The majority of those are dietary choices.
Regarding government regulation: smoke in airplanes: Harm those who did not make the choice to smoke.
Regarding seat belts, this is not federal law. Further, just because some jack ass made one law a law doesn’t make that law a good law. You just quoted a bad law. Congratulations. Rather than finding reasons to follow stupid laws, and quote stupid laws to support a stupid law, why don’t we keep this strictly to the benefits?
Further to the point: Yes. Care is given to those who need it in this country. You will try to say it is not. You are wrong. There is a law. Reagan passed it. No hopsital can deny care to someone in need. When my father had his heart attack they did not ask for his insurance information until after they were already 2 days into trying to keep him alive. My aunt, she was going blind, no questions, treatment was given. My wife, when she was pregnant, they said come on in. Insurance information was never asked for. Our insurance company handled the bill when we received it. My uncle, mild chest pains way back when he was 45. He walked in, and they screamed out “45 year old man with chest pains!!” and they rushed him onto nitrates, blood thinners, and saved his life they didn’t once ask for his information. There is a law regarding care. That law is followed. We are talking the highest cost of care here libby. All of those circumstances are not low cost.
And despite that, the total cost per year for those services is $50 billion. So if the government wants to add on 30 million people thus adding $150 billion of premiums, and their own projections say it will increase premiums 9%, we know for certain that they reduced efficiency as now it takes $150 billion dollars of premium to cover lost cost (preventative care) what once took $50 billion for high cost care (catastrophic incident).
The numbers are the numbers. That’s actually 3 to 1.
The post office. It does not compete with UPS and Fedex. That’s not an opinion. That’s a fact.
The government should not be mingling in this. They just passed a law that did not reduce costs, and forced people to buy a plan they obviously cannot afford or choose not to buy. It was wrong.
Through and through.
Getting them insured, at $5,000 per year is an additional $150 billion in premiums. $5,000 as around a national average. The numbers work out. We essentially are not bringing down insurance costs over all, we are not benefitting those who choose not to have insurance by forcing them to buy insurance. We did however take what used to cost $50 billion to take care of and make it cost $150 billion.
That is not efficient. Considering that $50 billion number is a number that basically is the amount of people who are not insured who get treated, that number would not change. It is not subjective. It is fact. Considering that 30 million number is the number of uninsured, that number will not change. That is a fact. Considering the premium average is what it is, and the government does not expect for it to go down, rather CBO rates it to go up 9% at the minimum, we know that the cost is going up. These areas are not debatable.
My conclusion comes from being smarter than your average bear and putting together a horde of other people’s facts.
The facts do not bode well on this one.
It is not my intention to defend Obamacare. I am defending the right of every American to have access to quality healthcare, which doesn’t mean the ER. Obamacare may not be the best way to do, but right now it is the only way we have. I am sure it will evolve into something much different as it is implemented.
All I will say is, we shall see. I don’t want to argue about what woulda, coulda, shoulda since neither one of us has a crystal ball.
BTW, my ex-husband went to the ER with chest pains and they wouldn’t do anything until I provided insurance information.
I’m sorry to hear that.
Personal opinion on that one is to sue them. They even have signs on the walls regarding the law. I’m fairly sure it’s some sort of a regulatory equiavelnt to how you are supposed to have worker’s rights readily available at jobs.
To do with could have should have, we will see. If premiums don’t go down, which they will not, then we covered what used to be $50 billion of cost at $150 billion by getting people insured who did not want to be insured.
Doing something, when it wrecks the system is worse than staying the course. Price controls before Reagan. I have to reiterate that again. We tinkered with the system, and inflation went into the double digits.
You’re smarter than this Libby. Let go of the hate you have for the republican party. It’s blinding you.
When Obama came into presidency I wasn’t terribly upset with the stimulus. Who doesn’t like a couple grand in their pocket? I figured the guy would do his thing and hoped it would work. It didn’t. Then I wanted us to try what Reagan did. That would have been Romney.
When Something does not work, try something else.
I did not vote for McCain. He is the same type of crappy rebublican as Obama is a crappy democrat. They are just different sides. McCain was only against certain things as the public wanted to hear.
I don’t like Boehner. I recently was asked by Agent what I thought of him. I said his performance was crap.
I however, do switch my votes. I wasn’t going to vote for McCain. No matter the scenario. And I certainly wasn’t going to support huckabee. That guy actually is the type of religious zealot you have mentioned. Same with Jon Hunt and that other idiot Santorum. There’s a reason those guys didn’t get to the primary. They were the bad side of republican. Romney, was not.
Bob:
I have no hate for the Republican party. I was actually considering McCain until he nominated Palin as his running mate. That was a disastrous move on his part.
I also considered Romney, but just didn’t like the fact that he was trying to play to the far right wing and that didn’t line up with his record in MA. Rightly or wrongly, that made me question his honesty.
Obama was the only one left. I was a huge Hilary supporter, but she lost out to him. (I was gobsmacked by that.)
I agree that doing something that wrecks the economy is bad. I just am not convinced, as you and many others are, that this healthcare bill will end up doing that. That’s why I say wait and see.
I wish Boehner and his ilk would come up with something constructive instead of wasting their time with meaningless votes and protests. That infuriates me.
On a lighter note, I just got a Nexus tablet a while ago and have been downloading some games. Do you create any for androids?
Libby:
I will definitely agree I would have preferred Hillary Clinton to Obama. I am sure she would have gone the public option over the affordable care act. She also probably would have followed her husband’s belief that the corporate tax code should be redone and lowered to 25%, and she would have done that her first term rather than waiting until the second term while dilly dallying.
I really don’t like the game.
Coulter way back said she would have chosen Clinton over McCain. That’s just a semi funny comment.
Libby said- I’m the kool-aid kid!
Yes, you are. Here is a clip from Obama on the debt when George Bush was President. Now under Obama’s tenure the debt is ready to exceed 17 trillion dollars. Yes, with a “T”. Then we have the “affordable healthcare act” and we have yet to see all of the tax increases, hidden fees, skyrocketing insurance rates and if you have decent insurance now, you can get up to a 40% tax on that plan. Now that is what I call affordable.
Yes, you are on the kool aid. Watch this clip. Even in this clip he does not tell the total truth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kuTG19Cu_Q