WOW!! What a successful plan! The projections are lowered by 30% for 2015; they expect reductions in the 2014 enrollment and still, let me quote, “the smaller numbers could give President Barack Obama a political victory if actual enrollment surpasses the goal.”
What a great country! Any (fill in the blank) can obtain victory!!
It wasn’t just the voter that was ignorant. Didn’t Pelosi herself say – “We need to pass it to see whats in it”… Tells me no one knew what we were getting into.
Pelosi may have said it, but that’s just par for course. She plays dumb well and has the ability to push her agenda with perceived ignorance. The leadership: Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader knew what they were delivering. They may not have known all the specific details, but they knew the primary direction and the clear disdain that the ignorant public would have if they knew.
PM, Pelosi plays dumb well and is dumb on top of that so it is natural for her. She, Reid and Obama all knew what was coming down the pike and the agenda ruled the day. Progressives have wanted Universal Healthcare for 100 years and look what they have produced. Their fix will be “single payer” after Obamacare is dismantled. Won’t that be great? Government, Government and more Government. Too bad they won’t be in charge to make it happen.
Freedom, your preach’in to the choir! I’m just glad to be in the majority, the ignorant, deprived majority, but the majority none the less….
Lord help us!
Well PM, we know the leftists lurk on this forum. I am sure they will weigh in soon when someone gives them smelling salts and brings them to consciousness. In our view, the smoking gun revelations are far worse than even we imagined. Do you consider this to be criminal intent or just telling a little white lie like Libby opines? Massive fraud is considered to be a crime. I think we have massive fraud on the American people perpetuating the myth of Obamacare. It is a good thing we changed out the Senate this time or it would be far worse the next 2 years.
November 11, 2014 at 4:05 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
We don’t lurk. We’re loud and proud.
November 14, 2014 at 10:31 am
uct says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
This is random, but has anyone else noticed the tide turning here? Just a few years ago, the Obama supporters had all the “liked” or “well-loved” posts. A few short years later, and with only a quick glance over any of the articles on IJ with comments, you see that there isn’t much support for him any longer. :)
Didn’t mean to interrupt any arguing. Just wanted to point out something I noticed. Carry on.
November 14, 2014 at 10:41 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
uct – don’t know where you’ve been, but the liberals have NEVER gotten the majority of thumbs-up on here. The insurance industry is notoriously infected with righties. Everyone knows that.
In addition, have you not noticed the bid-rigging being done by Agent? The votes mean nothing as long as Agent keeps rigging them. He’s as bad as the AIG he keeps complaining about.
November 14, 2014 at 11:46 am
Stan says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Yeah, not sure ive ever seen Obama positive comments ever get much love. What you will see from time to time are up-voted comments that call out Agent for his silliness. People really seem to enjoy that.
November 14, 2014 at 2:02 pm
KY jw says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Hey, Libby, sometimes I just lurk. I don’t have time to be loud & proud. ;)
November 14, 2014 at 2:06 pm
KY jw says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Freedom & PM, I agree the little pooper economist is a scum bag. His comments are very revealing.
However, don’t all politicians think the voters are stupid?
November 11, 2014 at 2:19 pm
Freedom says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Hi FFA. Did you make it in with the latest Arctic blast coming in from the melting North Pole according to the Global Warming crowd?
Actually, certain Progressive minions did know what we were getting into, but they chose to pull the wool over the eyes of the citizens and lie to them including our POTUS who famously said 39 times on tape that if we liked our plan, we could keep it and if we liked our doctor, we could keep him and we would save $2,500 per family on costs. We have now seen the smoking gun on the elitist Progressive plan and many of us on this blog have been insulted ad nauseum by the liberal bloggers whenever we criticized Obamacare. I look for a lot more than a 30% decline in enrollments this year after the information is widely known.
Freedom: Did you say global warning and arctic blast in same sentence? The Polar Vortex is a result of global warming. Suffice it the delicate balance of weather is greatly impacted with warmth and cold in unpredictable patterns. No, I don’t expect you to understand the relationship, being too busy denying it and all.
With cold temperatures so extreme and so early, it is difficult to talk about global warming. The logical conclusions is that the weather is growing colder, not hotter. You could be forgiven for thinking this. Yet, the polar vortex, dipping into the lower 48, is a result of global warming, not in spite of it
AA — you need to do better than to just include a link of someone else’s work. I dunno — maybe a thought or two to go along with it perhaps — that is, if it is not to much work for you.
November 13, 2014 at 3:04 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Good one Always. It kind of flies in the face of the Global Warming/Climate Change folks who think man is responsible for the different weather patterns the earth has gone through. Your info provided is much better than the disgraced scientists who trumped up their theories.
November 13, 2014 at 3:33 pm
Always Amazed says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Thanks, Agent. I’ve always said Al Gore should have been stripped of this Nobel Prize but then they gave one to Obama for a Peace Prize. So, obviously anyone can get one these days with out much credibility.
November 14, 2014 at 11:02 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Your article clearly states that the data used in the report is “not global averages.” We cannot have a discussion about climate change on a global scale if you keep looking at results from a specific area of the globe instead of the earth as a whole. Global warming, after all, relates to the entire earth and not just a sliver of one specific area.
Please feel free to post other links to different articles you believe supports your theories and I will be happy to review them…I’m guessing, like the 3+ links in different comment sections of IJ articles, they will actually refute your claims once again.
November 13, 2014 at 2:59 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Spoken like a true believer Celtica. Your Al Gore was on his bandwagon for several years saying the earth is getting hotter every year and said in 2007 that the Polar Cap would be gone in 7 years. Sorry, it has increased instead of melted. The cap has increased 1.7 million square miles and the endangered Polar Bears are just loving it. Only a Progressive would say that the earth is getting cooler due to Global Warming. Keep on parsing words and theories and we will keep shooting them down.
Agent: you need to let Nasa know of your extraordinary findings regarding polar ice. If endangered polar bears are just loving it, they wouldn’t be endangered, now would they.
A new NASA study revealed that the oldest and thickest Arctic sea ice is disappearing at a faster rate than the younger and thinner ice at the edges of the Arctic Ocean’s floating ice cap
November 14, 2014 at 10:56 am
Always Amazed says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Your date is from 2012. Nice try. The last two winters, and now this one as well have produced more ice with the Polar Vortex which is caused by weather.
This article is from September 2014. It’s a bit long but proves the ice caps are increasing not melting away as Al Gore predicted.
November 14, 2014 at 11:20 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
@AA – I read the September 2014 article you posted and the writer’s arguments are not reliable. He claims “Global temperatures, meanwhile, have remained steady for some 18 years and counting.” Besides not putting a source to that so it could be verified, it’s pretty clear he’s wrong.
Global mean temperatures have increased consistently since 1960, and definitely over the past 18 years too. If that writer can’t even support his opening argument with evidence, and the evidence available proves his opening argument is false, it’s illogical to believe he’d be right about everything else he’s claiming.
Not sure what’s so tough to accept here – global mean temperatures have been continuing to rise for decades. That means global warming is going on.
November 14, 2014 at 11:46 am
Always Amazed says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
And while I find your graph fascinating, here is another article with more accurate graphs and logic. We are headed for a cooling trend.
@AA – I have to say, that article you posted which was written Easterbrook, was pretty informative – except for the fact that he admits numerous times that his graphs and charts and analysis are all based on his assumptions that we’re entering a cooling period. He does make a great case that we’re entering a cooling period, but again, as he admits, he’s just assuming that’s true.
November 14, 2014 at 12:27 pm
Always Amazed says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Rosemblatt, You can believe what ever you want to believe and that is your choice. I believe the earth is going through its cycles as it always has and always will even when we’re all dead and gone.
Have a nice weekend.
November 14, 2014 at 1:21 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
@AA – You too can believe what ever you want to believe and that is also your choice. I believe the earth is warming up as all the evidence I’ve been presented with indicates.
Regardless, I hope you have a nice weekend too!
November 13, 2014 at 2:31 pm
Always Amazed says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Dear Celtia, if you are too lazy to open a link then that’s not my problem.
There, is this better for you? The truth has got to sting a little bit. The graphs though really bring the point home, sorry those didn’t come across.
Ice Ages – What are they and what causes them?
by Sandy Eldredge and Bob Biek
What is an ice age? An ice age is a long interval of time (millions to tens of millions of years) when global temperatures are relatively cold and large areas of the Earth are covered by continental ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Within an ice age are multiple shorter-term periods of warmer temperatures when glaciers retreat (called interglacials or interglacial cycles) and colder temperatures when glaciers advance (called glacials or glacial cycles).
At least five major ice ages have occurred throughout Earth’s history: the earliest was over 2 billion years ago, and the most recent one began approximately 3 million years ago and continues today (yes, we live in an ice age!).
Currently, we are in a warm interglacial that began about 11,000 years ago. The last period of glaciation, which is often informally called the “Ice Age,” peaked about 20,000 years ago. At that time, the world was on average probably about 10°F (5°C) colder than today, and locally as much as 40°F (22°C) colder.
Simplified chart showing when the five major ice ages occurred in the past 2.4 billion years of Earth’s history. Modified from several sources including Dynamical Paleoclimatology: Generalized Theory of Global Climate Change, 2002, by Barry Saltzman.
What causes an ice age and glacial-interglacial cycles? Many factors contribute to climate variations, including changes in ocean and atmosphere circulation patterns, varying concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and even volcanic eruptions. The following discusses key factors in (1) initiating ice ages and (2) the timing of glacial-interglacial cycles.
One significant trigger in initiating ice ages is the changing positions of Earth’s ever-moving continents, which affect ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns. When plate-tectonic movement causes continents to be arranged such that warm water flow from the equator to the poles is blocked or reduced, ice sheets may arise and set another ice age in motion.
Today’s ice age most likely began when the land bridge between North and South America (Isthmus of Panama) formed and ended the exchange of tropical water between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, significantly altering ocean currents.
Glacials and interglacials occur in fairly regular repeated cycles. The timing is governed to a large degree by predictable cyclic changes in Earth’s orbit, which affect the amount of sunlight reaching different parts of Earth’s surface. The three orbital variations are: (1) changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun (eccentricity), (2) shifts in the tilt of Earth’s axis (obliquity), and (3) the wobbling motion of Earth’s axis (precession).
Four fairly regular glacial-interglacial cycles occurred during the past 450,000 years. The shorter interglacial cycles (10,000 to 30,000 years) were about as warm as present and alternated with much longer (70,000 to 90,000 years) glacial cycles substantially colder than present. Notice the longer time with jagged cooling events dropping into the colder glacials followed by the faster abrupt temperature swings to the warmer interglacials. This graph combines several ice-core records from Antarctica and is modified from several sources including Evidence for Warmer Interglacials in East Antarctic Ice Cores, 2009, L.C. Sime and others. Note the shorter time scale of 450,000 years compared to the previous figure, as well as the colder temperatures, which are latitude-specific (e.g., Antartica, Alaska, Greenland) temperature changes inferred from the Antarctic ice cores (and not global averages).
How do we know about past ice ages? Scientists have reconstructed past ice ages by piecing together information derived from studying ice cores, deep sea sediments, fossils, and landforms.
Ice and sediment cores reveal an impressive detailed history of global climate. Cores are collected by driving long hollow tubes as much as 2 miles deep into glacial ice or ocean floor sediments. Ice cores provide annual and even seasonal climate records for up to hundreds of thousands of years, complementing the millions of years of climate records in ocean sediment cores.
Within just the past couple of decades, ice cores recovered from Earth’s two existing ice sheets, Greenland and Antarctica, have revealed the most detailed climate records yet.
Do ice ages come and go slowly or rapidly? Records show that ice ages typically develop slowly, whereas they end more abruptly. Glacials and interglacials within an ice age display this same trend.
On a shorter time scale, global temperatures fluctuate often and rapidly. Various records reveal numerous large, widespread, abrupt climate changes over the past 100,000 years. One of the more recent intriguing findings is the remarkable speed of these changes. Within the incredibly short time span (by geologic standards) of only a few decades or even a few years, global temperatures have fluctuated by as much as 15°F (8°C) or more.
For example, as Earth was emerging out of the last glacial cycle, the warming trend was interrupted 12,800 years ago when temperatures dropped dramatically in only several decades. A mere 1,300 years later, temperatures locally spiked as much as 20°F (11°C) within just several years. Sudden changes like this occurred at least 24 times during the past 100,000 years. In a relative sense, we are in a time of unusually stable temperatures today—how long will it last?
Glad You Asked article, Survey Notes, v. 42 no. 3, September 2010
1594 W. North Temple, PO 146100, Salt Lake City, UT 84114-6100, 801.537.3300, Fax 801.537.3400
Hours: Monday – Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Follow us on FacebookFollow us on TwitterFollow our Blog
Those are not your thoughts. Those are Sandy and Bob’s thoughts regurgitated by you.
November 13, 2014 at 4:09 pm
Celtica says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
AA – ah, the old age theory. Glad to see it is still in use. I didn’t see the polar vortex addressed though. Got a source for that?
November 13, 2014 at 5:54 pm
Always Amazed says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
You guys can deny it all you want. It doesn’t change the fact the we are still going through an ice age.
November 13, 2014 at 11:31 am
knowall says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
When i was a short order cook we used to throw a couple strands of cooked pasta or spaghetti against the wall to “see if it sticks;” then we knew the batch was cooked enough to douse it with cold water.
I guess that was partially how they cooked up this healthcare policy.
The Iraq Invasion. Lovely wording you chose there.
We didn’t invade Iraq. I’m not restarting this debate, it’s old.
Never have I seen such manipulation regarding a war as I have with Iraq.
Not by republicans. By you, democrats, and the people who cannot comprehend in the modern world how well Iraq was done.
Compare it to for example, North Korea.
Saddam is gone. He has been gone. We won the war. The problem is extremists there keep fighting. You call it failure to have continued conflict with Iraq. In our absence, the people there would go through worse, as seen with Isis.
One dictator or another, or one brutal force or another. Us there, 5,000 of us may have died, but we saved apparently 100’s of thousands from brutal murder from Saddam, and 100’s of thousands from Isis who would take the place in absence of Saddam. They need us. End of story.
It’s time to shut up about the Iraq war being immoral. NOT ACTING would have been immoral. As you are, Celtica. Selfish, and immoral. Iraq is a talking point for you. Not the war. Not the people. Not the lives. No not them. It’s politics.
I misspoke. The Iraq Invasion is better known as “the Invasion of Iraq” Invasion, invasion, invasion. It was actually was an invasion. Just ask Wikipedia to correct their entry and I will correct my understanding of the Invasion.
BTW, there were no morale grounds — it was pure and simple out and out debacle by Bush and Cheney.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq
The 2003 invasion of Iraq lasted from 19 March to 1 May 2003 and signaled the start of the conflict that later came to be known as the Iraq War, which was dubbed Operation Iraqi Freedom by the United States (prior to 19 March, the mission in Iraq was called Operation Enduring Freedom, a carryover from the conflict in Afghanistan[20]).
November 13, 2014 at 4:12 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
An invasion requires invading and taking over, a people.
We freed the people. We did not invade Iraq. I don’t care what wiki calls it.
And forget you, trash. Calling it an invasion and then talking like a little brat smearing it around.
You fake your bi partisan nature, which is why I went off on you here. You are claiming you support republicans, solely to hide this, this ugly face of yours, your true personality.
November 13, 2014 at 4:19 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“Saddam is gone. He has been gone. We won the war. The problem is extremists there keep fighting.”
Yeah, the extremists by the name of ISIS that were former military leaders under Saddam. He was the only thing keeping that POS country in check. What a great idea to kill him and let everyone just run amok.
Nice job, Bush.
November 13, 2014 at 4:21 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“You are claiming you support republicans, solely to hide this, this ugly face of yours, your true personality.”
Who’s got the ugly face here, Bob? You do. Calling people trash, immoral, a brat, and telling them to shut up. You need to check yourself boo.
November 13, 2014 at 4:38 pm
Celtica says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Dear Bob: I dare. All the time. Now about the Iraq invasion, oops, the invasion of Iraq — it seems that Bush was very intent on taking over Iraqis. Take a look at the deck of cards and see if you see any familiar faces.
I’ll see your pair of 2 with a royal flush, Bobberrooo.
the 2003 invasion of Iraq by a United States-led coalition, the U.S. military developed a set of playing cards to help troops identify the most-wanted members of President Saddam Hussein’s government, mostly high-ranking members of the Iraqi Regional Branch of the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party or members of the Revolutionary Command Council. The cards were officially named the “personality identification playing cards”.
November 13, 2014 at 4:44 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Invasion:
“An invasion is a military offensive in which large parts of combatants of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering, liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory, forcing the partition of a country, altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government, or a combination thereof. An invasion can be the cause of a war, be a part of a larger strategy to end a war, or it can constitute an entire war in itself. Due to the large scale of the operations associated with invasions, they are usually strategic in planning and execution.”
Not the use of the word “usually” in the last sentence. This did not apply during the Invasion of Iraq aka Operation Freedom aka the Iraq War.
November 13, 2014 at 5:48 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Don’t care Libby.
It was not an invasion as you and Celtica see it. You say invasion not for the definition you posted.
You say it for the sake of making it unmerited.
That’s what it means to you.
And by that measure, it is not.
November 13, 2014 at 6:30 pm
Celtica says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob, Iraq was so well done that ISIS is running rampant with beheadings.
Bush went in without an exit plan and unleashed holy hell there.
Iraq was NOT done well.
November 14, 2014 at 8:46 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Now Bob is redefining the English language to fit his absurd assumptions. He’s also the new Carnack that sees into other people’s minds and knows their intent.
Newsflash, Bob. Whatever you want to call it (by the way what do YOU call it?), it WAS without merit.
And it was done willy-nilly with little to no planning and no, I repeat no, viable exit strategy. Another knee-jerk Bush move. Way to go Dubya.
November 14, 2014 at 10:26 am
Always Amazed says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Dear Celtica,
When you give the enemy information as to the month and year you’re going too pull your troops out, hell yeah it wasn’t finished. Iraq wasn’t ready to stand on their own and when ISIS attacked they left our weaponry, which sadly is now in ISIS hands, they ran! This is what you get when you have a president that has NO military experience. Period. And calls ISIS a junior varsity threat then throws Clapper under the buss for his ignorance. Period!
November 14, 2014 at 10:47 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Go on, AA. Stand up for your miserable excuse for a POTUS. He basically had no military experience either. At least none he showed up for.
Hussein, for all his cruelty, had Iraq under control. We decided to go in, kill him, and leave the country to fend for itself. What in the hell did you think was going to happen?
BTW, ISIS leaders are all former military leaders under Saddam. He had them in check. Now they’re free to wreak havoc on the world. They’re smart, well-trained, and have access to unlimited amounts of cash. Place blame where blame is due. Squarely on Dubya’s shoulders.
November 14, 2014 at 12:46 pm
Always Amazed says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Hussein sure did have control. Especially of the Kurds whom he gassed to death.
November 14, 2014 at 1:38 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
And you started caring about the Kurds when?
November 11, 2014 at 4:16 pm
Sargeant Major says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I have said many times- Obamacare has fallen off the table. If this was such a home run, the Democrats would have been waving the banner and that is all we would have heard. hat has not happened, in fact most of the Democrats have run from it or denounced it. So, given they have gone silent, I would bet it has not been successful and my bet- a bust.
So let’s say they hit 10 million sign ups (Makes for easy math). What does that mean?
The questions are:
What is the net number of insured and how does that compare to pre obamacare? In other words are there more uninsured who are now insured today than pre obamacare? And what is the formula to determine the net number?
For example: 10 million sign ups, minus the number who do not pay equals X. X – Minus the number of people who lost their insurance and had to go back and sign up for Obamacare (Approx 6,000,000)equals Y. Now add back the number of actual new people who have signed up and pay and then you have Z the real net number of Obamacare benefactors.
Now divide that number into the total cost to all Americans including the billion dollar website that does not work, the cost of the “Navigators” including support, cost to those Americans who now have double/triple the premiums they use to have and 3x the deductibles, cost to hire the thousands of IRS numbnuts who are going to have to “pursue” those who don’t buy, pay the fines, The cost of the subsidies now given that were not given or needed before, the added burden to Medicaid, the added burden on Social Security (the 750MM taken out to pay for Obamacare) etc. etc. etc.
Using my formula above we have 10,000,000 – .30 (number who sign up but do not pay)= 7,000,000. 7,000,000- The people who were canceled (6,000,000) equals 1,000,000. Now add the costs and the end result is really bad.
Brilliant Sargeant! By the way, Libby doesn’t think a crime has been committed on this new revelation. Per the dictionary:
Fraudulent Misrepresentation – Instance of false statement where (1) the party making the statement is aware that it is false or disregards the possibility of it being false, (2) the party making the statement does so to induce another party to enter into a contract, and (3) the other party enters into the contract as a result of the statement and consequently suffers a loss.
This is Bernie Madoff territory and we know where he is because of his misrepresentations to investors. Gruber and Emanuel need to go to his current abode.
Agent, the Democrats would have to claim fraudulent misrepresentation since they voted for the ACA. I don’t see them clamoring to do that. Since Republicans didn’t vote for it, they were not induced by fraudulent misrepresentation. Nice try, but still no cigar.
In addition, you would have to prove damages. The ACA is doing exactly what it was designed to do – provide all Americans access to affordable health insurance. Where are the damages? That it cost more than anticipated? That’s not gonna work, either.
You need to give up this current line of thinking just like impeachment and repeal. Those dogs won’t hunt.
Libby, even with my estimated subsidy and adding three dependents to the mix (not covering them), my premium is still going up. It wasn’t affordable (old School definition) last year, and now I am going to get premium assistance and my premium increases?
I wonder how many more years till I am paying IChip rates…
FFA, I saw another example of how bad things are with this country. There was this “green solar panel” company who secured a billion + loan to build their plant in California. It is owned by Google and another large company. They have now asked for a $539 million “grant” so they can pay off their government loan. Google must not have any money now if they need a grant to pay off a loan. Why did we think Google had all the money in the world? I don’t think grants have to be paid back. Way to go Google for ripping of the American people. You are as bad as the government is now.
November 12, 2014 at 8:46 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
FFA – you had told me your premium went down. What changed?
November 13, 2014 at 1:52 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby, I don’t recall saying my premiums went down. I got my hands on 2015 rates and ran it. I am going up in 2015.
November 13, 2014 at 1:56 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
You said they went down in 2014.
November 13, 2014 at 1:57 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I just read an article in the Wall Street Journal that says there are alot of lower premium players entering the market in 2015 and it will pay to shop your plan. Just sayin.
November 14, 2014 at 10:47 am
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Yes Libby. In 2014 they went down. But will all OOP expenses, I have paid more. NOw, 2015 – 2015, my premiums are going up for same plan I had in 2014.
November 11, 2014 at 4:59 pm
Freedom says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby, Democrats don’t clamor after they voted for this travesty. Not one of them even read it before voting. They just went along to get along and hoped it worked out except in the case of the Blue Dogs who had to be coerced and bribed to vote for it since they had reservations. We know what happened to them in the 2010 mid terms. Now, we have dismissed a bunch of the rest of them and turned the Senate over to rational Republicans to straighten out the monumental mess. Hopefully, there will be an alternative presented soon although nothing can really be done until 16 when we see Obama packing up. This is nothing more than massive fraudulent misrepresentation on the part of Progressives so they could ram their agenda down our throat. Good try on the spin. Keep working at it.
Affordable is the key word here, Libby. We will not know how affordable or not affordable this is until November 15th. This is a HUGE redistribution of wealth where the healthy people are now paying a lot more for their insurance so their premiums can pay for the others who are on the subsidies. Is that fair? I don’t think so. Not all Americans are being offered affordable healthcare. Obama and his cronies have been lying to us since he got in office and as the days go by more “truths” are coming out. You libs would be screaming bloody murder if the POTUS was a republican and was exposed telling all these lies. Where are the damages? The damages are going to hit us all right in the wallet in just 4 days when we see what our premiums are going to be now that we have a bunch of “benefits” that we don’t need so some liberal progressive who smokes pot all day can have insurance. Nice going.
It’s my understanding from the not-so-estimable Jonathan Gruber’s comments that came to light yesterday that the fraudulent misrepresentation was not to get the Republicans to vote for the ACA, it was to get the American people to support the ACA. He came right out and said there was no transparency and that they were counting on people’s stupidity. Did you see the video? It was very enlightening as to how these people think and operate.
I did not see the whole video only bits and pieces but I’m sure they’ll be playing it on the news for a while. It’s actually very evil the way these people think and operate. Counting on the stupidity of the liberal masses was brilliant yet diabolical. They couldn’t have played it better.
November 11, 2014 at 6:02 pm
Freedom says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Yes, Connie & Always, the video is on everything from Foxnews.com to several other websites including Michelle Malkin, Political Outcast among others. It is the most asinine video I have ever seen on the net. I wanted to take that smug elitist Progressive dude and wring his neck. Arrest him and put him in the drunk tank for a while and then prosecute him. If not that, put him in front of a select committee and then prosecute him for lying to Congress.
November 12, 2014 at 8:52 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“They couldn’t have played it better.” So now maybe you will give them credit for not being as stupid as you think they are. Didn’t read it? Of course they read it! They wrote it! They knew all along what they were doing. And the Republicans played right into their hands. Shades of Karl Rove…
November 12, 2014 at 1:02 pm
Connie says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
The Republicans played right into their hands? How? By taking a firm stand against something that turned out to be a scam? Sounds more to me like the Democrats just hung themselves with their own rope, being caught on tape admitting that they had to lie, count on the stupidity of the American voters, and have no transparency, in order to get the bill passed into law. The Republicans wind up looking like shining stars because they can say, “See, we told you this was a big con game; there was nothing on the up and up about this and we tried all along to tell you.” Mike Gallagher said on his radio show this morning that the stupid people Gruber was referring to was not the members of the public that were dead set against this law; the stupid people he and the administration were counting on were the ones who they could con into supporting the law. Just like a used-car salesman; he knows pretty quickly which people who walk onto the car lot are the smart ones who know good cars from bad cars, and which ones are the gullible ones who he can sweet-talk into buying a pile of junk. The fact that this guy Gruber was caught admitting on tape that they had to rely on lack of transparency and the stupidity of the American voter or else the bill would never become law is proof positive of just how bad this law really is.
November 12, 2014 at 1:48 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Newsflash, Connie. The American people did not vote for this law. Congress did. And yes, the Republicans played right into their hands by not being involved in the process. It’s their fault this thing went through as written. They dug their feet in and refused to participate and this is what we got. Thanks alot Republicans.
November 12, 2014 at 2:00 pm
Connie says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
News flash, Libby – the Republicans were shut out of the process. The Democrats did not ALLOW them to participate. And nobody said the American people VOTED for the law. The administration wanted them to SUPPORT the law so that the chances of Congress passing it would be better. Congress went ahead and passed it anyway, in spite of the fact that many many American citizens were letting them know they didn’t want this stupid law. The Republicans really weren’t able to stop the law because the Democrats were so determined to get it passed and ram it down our throats. Should the Republicans have done more about health care when they were in power? Yes. That is their fault for not doing so. But when it came to THIS bill becoming law, the Republicans were not allowed to participate by the Dems, and the ire of the American people was ignored.
November 12, 2014 at 2:53 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Well, I’m glad to see you take some responsibility on behalf of the Republicans. They have done nothing to further healthcare reform in this country. And you’re right, it is a BIG reason why people voted for Obama. The majority wanted it.
As far as I’m concerned, the law is a big turkey. I wanted single payer with a private option. But this is better than nothing, which is what we’ve always gotten from the Republicans.
Everyone reaps what they sow.
November 12, 2014 at 3:34 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Connie, if your memory is like mine, Obama kept blaming Republicans for blocking his signature bill from getting passed when the Democrats had both houses. Another huge lie since Republican’s couldn’t block anything. The problem was with the moderate Democrat’s that didn’t like what they saw and resisted for a long time until Pelosi threatened them, bribed them so she could pole vault over the fence. This whole thing for 4 long years has been one lie after another and the lies have caught up with them. Thanks for weighing in. We need you, Always, Perplexed to offset the heavy load of Libby & Celtica.
November 12, 2014 at 4:31 pm
Connie says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Agent, thank you for your kind comments. I’m glad to chime in – I just don’t see how the Republicans can be blamed for “not participating in the process” when they were outnumbered in the Senate, and Harry Reid and the other Dems had no intention of listening to anything the Republicans had to say about the ACA bill. What kind of input could they have had, what kind of suggestions or advice could they have possibly offered, that would have been given attention?
November 12, 2014 at 4:49 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
They had plenty of time to participate before 2008, Connie. Instead they sat on their hands and blocked every move the Democrats made about health care reform. Why would we have expected anything different now?
November 14, 2014 at 10:32 am
Always Amazed says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
So now even Polosi is lying and saying she doesn’t know Gruber but low-and-behold – there’s a tape of her back in 2010 saying his name and associating it with Obamacare. She must have short-term-memory or is just a pathological liar. Which do you suppose it is?
November 11, 2014 at 4:25 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
You can’t judge the “results” of Obamacare this early in it’s existence. It was never promised to “pay off” right off the bat. Only to give more Americans access to health insurance. Of course that’s going to cost money.
Let’s cut some of the fat from other programs instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water. There is plenty of room for trimming. I wish the Republicans would get started.
Connie, do you remember the famous Blair House meeting when all this first started? Obama, Pelosi, Reid facing down McConnell and the Republican contingent? They presented their ideas on Tort Reform, selling across state lines to create competition between companies and Obama said thank you, but I think we will do it our way. Gee, I wonder why Republicans were so opposed to this plan. Now, the opposition is vindicated with the revelations that just came out on the wonderful MIT professor.
Hey Agent, so much for this “reaching across the aisle,” huh? What do you do when you try to reach across the aisle and your hand gets slapped away? And then you’re accused of being the ones who aren’t cooperating…good grief.
With the new GOP majority in both houses, let them have a good go at creating the health care plan they always said they had — but that the Democrats wouldn’t listen to.
You are right Celtica. The GOP did benefit from the Progressive Left’s terrible governance and ramming their version of Healthcare Reform through. The video shows graphically how bad this process was. By the way, the GOP just picked up Alaska to add to the total. Only one state left, Louisiana in the runoff. I don’t think the voters will be stupid enough to send Mary Landrieu back to the Senate. After all, she accepted the Louisiana Purchase money from Harry Reid. The net results in this rejection of Progressives will be 9 seats picked up. It might have been more had the video surfaced a few days prior to the election.
Freedom: Looking forward to seeing the GOP details of the new, improved healthcare plan. And if the GOP plan is to derail the healthcare plan entirely, this bodes well to sweep in Hillary for 2016 — and a Democratic congress to restore basic health care benefits.
I am glad the GOP took my advice to get better candidates this time around. And Palin was notably absent this cycle. That helped break the association with idiocy.
“Took your advice” right you make me laugh. So, you think that because we had the first mixed-race president – that didn’t have a record nor a resume to run on – and got in because of the color of his skin – obviously because his credentials were so lacking – that now we’d be ready for a woman president. Hillary legacy is quite peppered with quite a few things too. Another huge liar. And she’s distancing herself pretty nicely from Obama these days too. Does Benghazi ring any bells with you? “What difference does it make?” People do not forget so easily, Celtica. Derail healthcare? Our healthcare was derailed and you guys are to blame. 70K Humana customers are loosing their healthcare at the end of the year for more expensive useless plans for crap we don’t heed but have to pay for. That a derailment in our eyes.
Dear Always Amazed — you sound pretty bitter. Why don’t you just move it up a notch to sore winner.
Benghazi is in no way any comparison to what happened on 9-11. No way. Invasion of Iraq? Just brilliant. Exit plan? What exit plan.
As for the rest of your remarks, they are your remarks, not mine.
November 12, 2014 at 3:54 pm
Always Amazed says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
No,9-11 is not way in comparison to what happened in Benghazi and when did I make such a comparison? All other embassies in that area pulled out and left. Why, pray tell, didn’t we? Our guys were sitting ducks. And then our government told lie after lie to cover it up. I’m not bitter and I’m certainly not a sore winner either. I was pleased as punch that the GOP kicked Obama in his butt at the midterms. He deserved it. People are not buying into the race baiting nor the so-called war on women any longer. You guys have played those two issues into the ground. It’s time to start getting things done. Ried had 350 bills sitting on his desk that he did nothing with and Obama let him get away with it. In case you haven’t been following the news ISIS is pretty big in Iraq. And in case you didn’t hear after ISIS cut of an America’s head, our dear president made a 15 minuet speech and then went back to his golf game. Gee, sorry we bothered you, Obama. I think he lost a lot of votes from the Veterans too, and rightly so. He let go 5 top terrorists out of Gitmo for one deserter and let a marine spend how many months is a Mexican jail? Thank goodness Mexico finally let the poor guy out. Now if he would have been trying to join the Taliban and learning to speak Arabic maybe Obama would have helped him.
November 12, 2014 at 4:07 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Always – what happened in Benghazi was a terrible thing. People made mistakes and four people died. What else can be said?
As far as kicking Obama’s butt in the mid-terms, you do realize he is no longer running for office, right? I, for one, do not fall for race-baiting or any so-called war on women. With that being said, there is no doubt we still have racism in the country and women do not have equal rights with men. Are things getting better? Yes. Are they where they should be? No.
As far as the deserter goes, hopefully he will be able to provide us with invaluable intelligence and insight into Al Queda. That would be the only reason I can see for making that trade.
November 12, 2014 at 4:25 pm
Always Amazed says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Yes, Libby, I do realize Obama can’t run again and after the mess he’s made with this country I’m sure there isn’t a living soul that voted last Tuesday who isn’t as happy as I am.
“As far as the deserter goes, hopefully he will be able to provide us with invaluable intelligence and insight into Al Queda. That would be the only reason I can see for making that trade.” I think not. This guy wanted to join the Taliban, learned Arabic, as did his father who also grew a very long beard as did his son. Now if that doesn’t cause a bit of suspicion for you it sure does me.
November 12, 2014 at 4:35 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I’m not an expert on this deserter, but I heard he just wanted to desert and come home as he was disillusioned with the war. Regardless, it still doesn’t mean he can’t provide good intelligence.
His father learned Arabic after his son was captured. He’s not a Muslim.
November 12, 2014 at 3:32 pm
txmouthbreatherboogereatertx says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Palin is too busy sorting out the details of her family trailer park fight. Golly Gee the Palin Klan has good conservative Christian values. Anybody up for some 5 on 1 basketball against the University of Michigan? Sarah would, but only if she can be skins.
This is grossly inaccurate. The democrats were one vote shy of being able to pass obamacare. If you recall, Snow (R) was a crucial win for getting the debate through the floor.
A slight majority does not give them the super majority needed to pass bills without road blocks from democrats, or a veto from the president.
The republicans had 9 alternative plans they presented during the healthcare debate. 9.
They never said repeal and put in place nothing. Not once.
Bob, Grossly inaccurate is if I said that the ACA vote was unanimous. As for the 9 alternative GOP plans, it should be a cakewalk to bring them to the floor starting with the new Congress. You can surely overcome a presidential veto if the plans are so vastly superior. Have a good go at it.
No. You can’t overcome a veto if a plan is vastly superior. There were of the 9 already vastly superior plans to Obamacare.
Grossly inaccurate is claiming they had no plans to replace obamacare with. You clearly emphasized you wanted to see what they could do, IF they had a plan to replace obamacare with.
They do. They presented 9. One of which was rated to lower premiums by 9%, of which Obamacare was rated by CBO to raise them by 9%. 18% swing. The democrats said the number of uninsured would be less in the republican plan.
Yes. By choice, because some people don’t want to buy insurance. Forcing them to buy it and raising costs for everyone is not a benefit. Hitting a magical number of insured is not as important as the costs. Explain to me the benefit of having higher costs with more people insured. The point of insuring more people was to bring down costs.
The republican plan of 2009 lowered costs, eliminated pre existing condition exclusions, and offered subsidies.
There were other plans offered to be passed at the same time, including many reforms.
The republicans had a better plan. Obama already said they sit in the back. If he didn’t negotiate then, he won’t now.
Greater than 50% of the public wanted tax cuts and spending cuts.
Obama refused spending cuts without tax increases. We call this austerity in Europe. The combo of tax increases (harms the economy) with spending cuts (temporarily harms the economy at long term gains) causes short term pain.
The public didn’t want this. Obama didn’t care. Republicans have had better ideas. Obama won’t suddenly pass them.
Having a better plan wont’ make Obama change. He shut down the government fighting against what the public wanted, in favor of his political platform to keep the debate of taxes and spending alive and seared into your brain.
He isn’t going to suddenly debate with politicians against his platform if he won’t change it even if the people want it.
If the majority of the people speak out and say they want one of these better plans, he’ll have a hard time using his veto power.
November 12, 2014 at 3:57 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
The majority spoke out against obamacare, and spoke out against his budget plans.
All that needed to happen was he labels the other guys as for the rich so you don’t trust them, and says they don’t have credible plans, and you the public as long as you hear it long enough believe it.
Ergo, you don’t know about the republican alternatives.
He will have an easy time vetoing it. People will forget, and he doesn’t have a reelection to worry about.
November 12, 2014 at 3:58 pm
Celtica says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob, you can overcome a presidential veto with 2/3 majority vote of both houses.
Is it easy? No.
Can it be done? Yes.
Now please get those 9 vastly superior plans dusted off and astonish me with how quickly the GOP can get this onto the floor.
Thank you.
November 12, 2014 at 4:09 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
In fact, in 2010 elections the majority of people voted in republicans to stop Obama.
Then Obama spoke so well, when the republicans did what the voters wanted, the public got mad at the republicans.
For not compromising, which Obama made the new focus.
But compromising was giving up what the people wanted and voted them in for.
Democrats are good at this game. Republicans aren’t. You need to see this as it happens.
I see the climate flip against republicans no matter what. Even if they do what you want.
Whereas democrats have specifically gone against voter opinion for all their major bills. Stimulus, QE, buying bonds from rich companies to lower interest rates and also to allow them to sell properties at an inflated cost (that is what happened when Obama stopped property values from dropping) Obamacare, which like it or not was passed against public opinion, his spending policies and budgets, every thing he has passed has been against public opinion. And every time republicans try to go with public opinion, he whines about republicans not compromising, and says they don’t know how to compromise. Then you guys get mad (Ron specifically goes against what he wants in favor of this fake bi partisan nature) and say they need to play politics the republicans that is.
Then it repeats.
November 12, 2014 at 4:11 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob – the majority of Americans WANTED healthcare reform. What we got was the ACA. Americans don’t like the plan we got but the majority are still in favor of healthcare reform. I think we all want to see a universal plan with a private option. Personally, I think that’s what people expected would happen when they voted for Obama. Instead we got this turkey.
If you guys can come up with something better, the American people will listen and Obama will have to listen too. He may not have a re-election coming up, but he’s still got his legacy to worry about.
November 12, 2014 at 4:15 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob – you are wrong when you say the majority of Americans didn’t want the ACA. That’s the reason why Obama was elected in the first place. The majority STILL want some type of health care reform.
In addition, Democrats historically don’t vote in the mid-terms so it’s not a suprise you guys won in 2010 and 2014. Actually, I hope some things can finally get done.
And please stop acting like Republicans are all about reaching across the aisle, because they’re not. Especially the ones that drink tea.
November 12, 2014 at 4:21 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby,
The point remains that republicans won’t be able to get anything passed, so long as a democrat is president.
End of story. It never has worked out, it never will work out. It won’t change, and it has nothing to do with republicans.
Bush W would have stopped democrat issues in 2008. You know you believe that. Even though as a side comment he passed tarp with their support as well as other bills. You know you believe Bush W could have stopped the same amount of democrats in congress. And you are changing that belief preemptively to call republicans failures when they can’t get past Obama.
You are in dire need of learning how to be fair in politics to both sides.
November 12, 2014 at 4:24 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
You know I’ll bite Celcita.
With equal democrats in office to republicans, when is the last time a congress and senate of democrats went past a veto?
You want republicans to pull of some miracle in order to earn your trust, and democrats simply have to show up and do whatever the hell they want.
This is what angers me about you. This double standard, where republicans should feel blessed to have the opportunity to get past a hostile democrat block, and veto. A Hail Mary is your requirement for them to be considered good, a miracle in the house and senate.
This is completely unrealistic, and frankly, so rude it should not even be thought or said.
It’s out of line.
November 12, 2014 at 4:40 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I’m not calling Republicans failures for not being able to get past a veto. You misunderstood what I said.
I said, if the American people are so against the ACA and Congress brings a bill that gets passed with bi-partisan support and the people’s unmitigated support, I think Obama will have a hard time using his veto power. He would be basically giving a big “f” you to the American people. I’m not sure he’s that dumb. He might find another way to sidestep, but given the scenario I outlined above, I don’t think he would veto.
November 13, 2014 at 10:30 am
Alwasy Amazed says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Reform is ONE thing. Tearing it down and rebuilding it and taxing the crap out of the insurance companies who in turn are passing all those hidden taxes to the consumers with our new higher deductibles and higher premiums is not want the Americans in this country wanted. This is a HUGE taxation and the Obama administration knew it but we the people were to stupid to realize it – hence the video of Gruber who came clean over a year ago with it but this wasn’t revealed to us until now.
November 13, 2014 at 10:42 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I, for one, want every American citizen to have access to healthcare; paid for by our taxes. Just like the U.K., Canada, Australia and almost every other civilized first-world country. Our current healthcare system (which hasn’t changed ONE BIT) is broken. There should not be profit attached to healthcare. Period. That’s what causes fraud, over-treating, unnecessary tests and unneeded surgeries. All of which contribute to the increased costs. It DID need to be torn down, gutted, and rebuilt. Instead, it was jerry-rigged into this monstrosity called the ACA to appease Republican politicians. Not do what is right for Americans.
November 14, 2014 at 2:29 pm
KY jw says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
bob, you’re preparing excuses. Why can’t the republicans in office convince enough democrats & independents to over ride a veto?
From what I’ve read, many democrats (senate and house) distanced themselves from Obama and the ACA. Doesn’t it stand to reason that they can be convinced to support a superior solution?
November 14, 2014 at 6:04 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
KY JW:
No. They are preparing to blame the gop.
If all the gop stands up, it will not be enough to over ride a veto.
I blame the 90% of the democrats who will not budge, over the gop when a plan can’t get through a veto, that and the democrat president standing with that.
Why can’t that happen the other way KY JW, and I will ask again:
How many vetos have ever been overridden?
It doesn’t happen, it won’t happen, it will not change based on the good factor of the plans. We already had plans to change social security. Pay attention to how many plans the republicans have put up there in the last 30 years. They couldn’t get enough support to even pass one. This may have been partially the problem of republicans being divided, but only 10% of the problem. The 90% was the 100% of democrat opposition. You can lose 4-5 republicans in the senate (10% of a majority) and you will never gain 20% of democrats (4-8 seats if they are the minority) while losing that 10% of your majority. In history, we have blamed the democrats unified against republicans, but we have always blamed republicans unified against the democrats. What is happening is that Celtica and Libby expect the republicans to do what they don’t expect democrats to do. They should just outright say, “I don’t think republicans will do it because I am biased on the left”
Instead they are saying “I really truly want them to do well” while they are insulting republicans, saying Iraq lies, hitting home on politics that are over 10 years old.
I don’t support that crap, and never will. It shows dishonesty.
November 14, 2014 at 6:06 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
That should read we have not blamed democrat’s opposition to republicans.
This is a fact. Not an opinion.
When was the last bill that should have been passed that you believe the democrats blocked it.
Name one.
Now name me the last time you believe the republicans blocked something (hint hint Stimulus, Jobs Bills, The government shut down)
Pay. Attention. To. Political. Trends.
The ignorance here is astounding.
November 14, 2014 at 6:09 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
In advance:
I know the one you will list, it is the only that got support:
Keystone Oil.
Now how about for example, healthcare plans?
Most people believe they didn’t have any, they just blocked the republicans right?
The fact that this exists alone, is enough to prove my point. The public sees gop obstruction even when there isn’t any. They refuse to see democrat obstruction.
November 17, 2014 at 10:37 am
KY jw says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I still think, if there is a superior plan presented that some democrats will bail on Obama. There is too much anti-Obamacare sentiment (among the citizens) for the democrats to continue to support it blindly.
Democrats are politicians, and most politicians will vote what ever way they think will get them re-elected.
I think the senators up for re-election in 2016 are the most vulnerable and will be paying attention to what happened in their states. Not because they care, but because they want to keep their jobs.
November 17, 2014 at 10:40 am
KY jw says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Also, bob, I’m not suggesting the republicans have to “reach across the isle.” I really think (my opinion, no stats or trends to site) that dems will wake up and smell the coffee. It’s strictly self preservation.
November 12, 2014 at 4:12 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Celtica,
Double standards. Talk is talk. Can you get 2/3rd’s of the senate and 2/3’rds of the house without 2/3rds of it in your court?
No.
Republicans do not have 2/3’rds majority. If they can’t get anything done they want, it is solely the fault of democrat politics.
How about the spending plans they put on the table, tax cuts and spending cuts? The majority of the public wanted that. That was the best plan. Was it put into play? Whose fault was it? Presidential and democrat. The president would still veto the same move if republicans tried it. And republicans don’t have a 2/3’rds majority.
Blame the people in the way. I’m about done with your comments and now fake attempt to show you want to give the republicans a chance.
If their plans are so good and the ACA is so bad, why would they have trouble getting some Democratic support?
Either you don’t have much faith in their plans or much faith in their ability to reach across the aisle.
November 12, 2014 at 4:44 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby,
Again, you think politicians pass the plans that are best? I’ve seen your opinion on politicians. It changes when it comes to republicans.
And no to both of those, those are not the only options.
You like to think you’re clever in the either or options. You’re not.
Exactly the case is the following: Democrats have this thing with power. In order to have it, they need an enemy. In order to have an enemy, everything the republicans say must be evil. They do not agree with republicans. Almost ever. It isn’t about what they think about the plan. It is that they simply cannot pass a plan that republicans support.
Throughout history, democrats have rarely if ever reached over the aisle. And suddenly you think if a plan is good they will do it. Will republicans do a good plan? You don’t agree with that statement. You specifically argued that republicans would not do Obama’s good plans. Suddenly you think democrats will do republican’s good plans and reach over the aisle? They. Will. Not. They. Have. Not. You are saying what could happen and are ignoring history.
Ok, let’s play Libby, I’m sick of this. You don’t pay attention!
I’m sorry, I forgot, democrats said there were no problems with financial soundness, and said that Bush W was going to make sure poor people couldn’t have a home.
Was Mc Cain’s attempts to change housing regulations bad?
Democrats showed Paul Ryan pushing a granny off a cliff. They didn’t show his plan.
Paul Ryan’s plan was a good one. I’m tired of you saying what republicans should be able to do without any majority nearly at all, and an obstructive democrat congress.
Social security hasn’t changed. Do you have any idea how many proposals have been put forth by republicans? The 401k plans and roths are basically the republicans additions. Not one, was supported by democrats. Only the tax rate and retirement age.
On the one end democrats say that people will die and lose support from republicans. Republicans have put forth good plans. Are you so ignorant to believe that in 30 years the democrats have made any changes or suggestions to retirement? They haven’t. Republicans have. They are good ideas. I need to hear you say the words “401ks and Roths are good”. Because it was the same fight. And democrats didn’t pass that. Republicans did. You might, MIGHT get some cross over, some times. But most the time, you will not. Democrats have been set in their ways since they won power in the 40’s, and have since not changed their paths to power.
November 12, 2014 at 10:27 pm
Celtica says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob, there is this little known negotiating device that has been known to work from time to time since no party will ever have an absolute 2/3 majority. It is called “reaching across the aisle.”
Try it. It just might work. If you’re not going to try, you gotta stop the whining.
November 14, 2014 at 2:38 pm
KY jw says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
bob, why are you giving up on the republicans in office? Don’t you think they can present a solution that democrats have to take seriously?
I just think that those democrats who did win last week had to have taken notice of the swing by voters. Politicians want to be re-elected; therefore, they want to do whatever it takes to be re-elected. If their voters want something bad enough, they better take notice.
November 12, 2014 at 3:24 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob – they had no plan to put in place once they repealed the ACA. Please point me to somewhere I can see a synopsis of these 9 plans you claim the Republicans had during the healthcare debate. The only one I remember was something about vouchers. They may have had some lame ideas that they claimed were plans, but they never had a solid plan that would accomplish supplying affordable care to all Americans. If they had, they sure were quiet about it.
Pardon my french, but bull Libby. Unacceptable bull at that. You cannot make a comment that there were no plans without being so inept that it is damaging to the the safety of the public. That is the level of danger in your previous comment.
A plan has to get to floor to be voted on. They had 9, which were all blocked. They were not mumblings or fumblings of plans, other than the democrats refused to discuss them whatsoever. I believe 2 became CBO rated.
Vouchers was not the only plan, and that was regarding medicare.
The patients choice act of 2009 democrats tried to dismiss based on the number of uninsured. Your side hid them. The republicans talked about it quite a bit. You need to realize that your side hides crap all the time, and quite well. The fact that you and I argue, should scare you considering you don’t know what I know. And what I know are facts you should know. In itself, it is the reason to NEVER vote democrat. Unless you also count the Japanese internment camps and the absurd power reaches the democrats did under FDR, the worst president in modern history.
It was rated to cover pre existing conditions, lower the deficit more than Obamacare, lower premiums by 9% by comparison to no reform, Obamacare was rated to increase it by 9% by comparison to no reform, an 18% swing, and it included subsidies. Google it. It will be hard to find. Not because republicans were quiet about it, but because your side tried to tear it to pieces.
The number of uninsured is what they focused on.
Increasing the number of uninsured is SOLELY to decrease premiums and expand the pool of risk.
Not to be able to claim you insure more people.
So if the only result is they are forcing more people to buy insurance,
That is not a benefit.
And it is the only difference that democrats argued was bad about it.
Bob – I will not say they had NO plans, they had no viable plans. Either that or the Republicans are totally inept at getting their message out. Which one is it? There is no way Democrats could BURY their plan without their complicency. Their strategy was to let the ACA pass and then fight it tooth and nail for repeal. Not such a good strategy.
You have a majority now. As Celtica says, it should be very easy for you to get your 9 plans out to the American people for their support. Will they?
November 12, 2014 at 4:14 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Option 3,
The republicans had plans, put it out there, and your side is good at tearing it apart.
It is not either they had good plans that they didn’t convey or they had no plans.
The majority will not make it any easier without a super majority and a republican president. Your side will as always block any efforts.
You accused the republicans of doing that same thing, and suddenly now that we are talking democrats it doesn’t happen?
You are a hypocrite and a liar, and I’m quickly getting sick of this fake act to appear balanced.
November 12, 2014 at 4:22 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
OK, Bob. You need to dial it down a little. I am neither a hypocrite or a liar. You have your opinions and I have mine. If these plans were so good, why couldn’t the Republicans get this news to the American people? The Democrats didn’t have any trouble getting their news to the people.
BOTH sides are blocking. I’m hoping a Congressional majority may help some of the gridlock. That’s why I voted Republican this past election.
I always try to be balanced. I can’t help it we still disagree. That doesn’t make me unbalanced, a liar, or a hypocrite and I think you owe me an apology for saying I am.
November 12, 2014 at 4:24 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
As for a super majority with a Republican president? I don’t see that happening any time soon.
November 12, 2014 at 4:31 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
You are a hypocrite, and are holding uneven standards to republicans.
When is the last time a veto has been superseded?
Did you yourself talk about republican presidents (Bush W) stopping the 2008 congress and democrat senate? Yes.
You now expect a veto supersede, which rarely happens, are willing to ignore the democrats going against public opinion, and expect the democrats will play nice and it’s in the republican’s court with a slight majority.
You sure get all rosy and in love with belief once a republican is in office when it comes to expectations. And they never live up to it. Whereas you lie, (to yourself) in order to justify the actions democrats do as being ok.
I don’t owe you an apology. You are a hypocrite, and a liar (to yourself).
The reason is obvious: Fox News is the only conservative media station with serious standing against the big liberal media stations. And you and your side has labeled conservative reporting as untrustworthy.
The democrats are stopping republican plans, tearing them apart, etc.
Why was the stimulus reported on so positively by all agencies but Fox News? You answer me that.
Learn to see learn to hear. It isn’t hard to see republican issues aren’t given nearly the attention they should be. Nothing to do with republicans. Guess what you need to go on air? A station that wants you on air. Guess who is more popular to young people? Democrats. Who do the stations want on air Libby? Plus you have to pay.
You think they magically get representation? If they have a good idea it simply MUST be shown by the media right?
I have coworkers in media who would laugh at that. And so would you, if we were talking about a democrat issue not being covered online.
Again, being a hypocrite, and lying, in favor of democrats. I don’t care who you voted for, this mindset is completely irrational and old.
November 12, 2014 at 4:47 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Well, Bob. If the plans are not good enough to garner bi-partisan support and the support of the American people, then no we will not have a veto override.
And I doubt I ever talked about Bush stopping the 2008 Democratic Congress. I don’t even know what those issues would have been. You’re putting words in my mouth in order to prove your hypothesis that I am a hypocrite.
Maybe an idealist, but not a hypocrite. I’m going to stop talking to you now because you have again turned into the irrational, name-calling Bob that I know and hate so well. You are so quick to jump down my throat and insult me instead of hearing me out. It’s not respectful and I’m not playing that game anymore.
November 14, 2014 at 11:23 am
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby, you said you didn’t see a Republican Super Majority happening any time soon. I also think you didn’t see the devastating rejection of Democrats in the mid terms either. The voters comprehensively rejected Obama and his minions and you are still in shock. All the Republicans need to do is keep their nose clean, pile that legislation on his desk and they will be good. We have had enough of the Progressive agenda in this country or are you still in denial?
November 14, 2014 at 11:54 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Agent – you’re totally clueless. I never claimed Democrats would do anything in this mid-term. I said I was going to vote incumbents out. Instead, I voted Republican because the Democrats were awful. I am so far from shocked as to be complacent.
“All the Republicans need to do is keep their nose clean, pile that legislation on his desk and they will be good.” Ha! That’s where they will all step on the d*cks. They can’t even agree with each other, let alone try for any bi-partisan support.
Oh no, my friendly curmudgeon. You are the one in denial and will be in shock come 2016. Mark my words.
Always, somehow I don’t think the average family will save $2,500 on their Healthcare costs. I have to go in on 11-15 to see about getting coverage for a client who had his plan that he liked terminated. It may be an ugly surprise. Tell me, what would have been wrong with allowing people to have a choice between what they had and what the government wanted them to have? We used to be a free country and people could make a choice between plans they wanted. If Obamacare was so great, they would have had new enrollees. Actually, as it turned out, the leftists had to force the issue by getting people cancelled (6 million)so they could get some people enrolled.
Bob, you and Libby have been arguing vetos and veto overrides by Congress since they don’t have 2/3 majority even after the election that was overwhelming. Since all this Gruber mess came out on how the legislation was passed, there has to be a lot of embarrassment with Democrats who joined in passing a law they didn’t read. I wonder now if there is enough sentiment for them to join the Republican side and nullify the President’s veto. I am sure there are more than a few who are now saying – what just happened here and how bad to I want to get re-elected.
Gruber, Benghazi, IRS, Fast & Furious, ISIS = Catastrophe. Didn’t your hero Slick Willy say we should just move on with the business of government after he got caught in his lies before a Federal Grand Jury? Shook his finger at the camera and lied again. An administration built on lies is not for long.
No, Freedom, me either. If Obama’s lips were moving you know he’s lying. Humana is supposed to be calling me on the 17th and help me find a plan with the same network of doctors and tell what my options are as well and I’m not looking forward to it one bit. I really liked the Humana plan that I had for the last 4 years. “If you like your healthcare plan you can keep your health care plan. If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.” Lies, lies, lies and more lies one top of one another. I don’t see how anyone with an ounce of common sense would believe anything thing Obama said or anything that he will say in the future. We should be able to pick and choose the coverage we want – not be FORCED to have “benefits” that we are never going to need. Let the folks who need maternity pay for it like the OLD plans we once had. We all have better plans now my ass. Affordable? What a flipping joke. The stupidity, Libby, is that all you liberals bought into Obamas lies, hook, line and sinker. And the stupidity in electing him not once, but twice is baffling. And this is what you get when you vote for someone not on his record, but by the color of his skin. A smooth talking nobody from the most corrupt town, Chicago, gets groomed for the presidency and you all jumped on the band wagon. He has the WORST legacy ever. Carter looks like a saint thanks to Obama. China is poking jokes at him! Our countries reputation is in the crapper. You guys took stupidity to a whole new level.
Wow, Always. Quite the spew of vitriol towards me specifically and all liberals in general.
FYI – I didn’t vote for ANYONE based on the color of their skin. Obama is what the GOP gets for not vetting better candidates. I didn’t vote FOR Obama (Hillary was my choice), I voted AGAINST Palin and then again AGAINST Romney.
Get some better candidates if you don’t want this to happen again. Take some personal responsibility like your party is so fond of saying to others.
Libby, I am with you all the way. The GOP vetted better candidates this time and bested the tea party candidates which is how they won the election.
I am for Hillary as I was in 2008. I liked McCain but Palin was a non starter. In the 2012 election, I liked having the ACA as a done deal (I might need it) and Osama Bin Laden also as a done deal.
How much will the new GOP congress get done? I will keep my eyes and ears open for the better healthcare plan that the GOP keeps saying they have. But look for internal jockeying to position themselves to springboard to the 2016 presidential election. That is what they will get done.
PS: For those who are unaware, Obama is also white. Just saying…
Celita – I actually voted Republican is this last mid-term. I am anxious to see if they will get anything done, but I fear the teajadists will not let them. Ted Cruz has already said he does not support McConnell and wants repeal of ACA and impeachment of Obama on the front burner. Both are time wasters and non-starters. So, I’m afraid we may have to get ready for more of the same. Until 2016 when we gain a super majority again.
Libby, we saw how your super majority worked out this time. Pelosi was saying a month before the election that Democrats would reclaim the House and the Senate would stay in their hands. Botox brain was slightly off in her prediction, don’t you think? Bill and Hillary have lost their luster as well. They stumped hard for Democrats under pressure, did all their huggies for the cameras and their candidates still lost, some by wide margins.
November 13, 2014 at 10:10 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Blah, blah, blah, Agent. You are a bore. SNORE….
November 13, 2014 at 12:43 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby, why did blue Pennsylvania elect a Democratic governor when other states put in Republicans? Was the Republican a dufus and get in trouble on Social Issues? Please don’t make such an issue on your derisive term for the Tea Party. There are plenty of Conservatives going to the House and Senate this time and they will make a difference and Democrats will be getting on the back of the bus for a change.
November 13, 2014 at 1:40 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I had no problem with the current governor and he got my vote. The Democrat was a pompous ass that had no plan whatsoever. I attended their first debate undecided and by the time I left, the Republican had my vote.
Just what was the point of your post anyway? I’ve already said (several times) that I voted Republican and I’m hopeful there will be some easing up of the gridlock. Your reading comprehension is getting worse, no better.
November 13, 2014 at 5:30 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Celtica, we are tired of you playing the “vetting” card on Republicans. Please, pray tell how Democrats vetted Obama prior to nominating him for President. He came from nowhere, nothing known about his background, radical associates of Bill Ayers and others, no access to educational records which are sealed and where did he get his Connecticut Social when he never lived in that state? He is truly the Manchurian candidate and yet you criticize Republicans for not vetting their candidates better. Obama is the country’s worst nightmare because he wasn’t vetted properly by the DNC.
What are you yammering about Agent? Of course he was vetted properly. HE GOT ELECTED! Not once, but twice.
You need to vet someone that can get elected. I’d start with Chris Christie if I were you.
November 14, 2014 at 2:48 pm
KY jw says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
The “vetting” Libby and Celtica want is to make sure the person running for office can get support from ALL voters, not just the die hard extremists.
No party can win with an extreme right or extreme left candidate. No matter how much you dislike the RINOs, they are your best chance at a republican president.
November 14, 2014 at 3:57 pm
Connie says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Just because he got elected twice doesn’t mean he was properly vetted. It just means a lot of people voted for someone they really didn’t know much about.
November 14, 2014 at 4:10 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Just because you have questions about his backgroud (citizenship, religion, hometown, education) doesn’t mean he wasn’t properly vetted. He definitely passed the sniff test. Twice.
You know who wasn’t properly vetted? Sarah Palin. And it cost McCain the election. He had my vote until that monumental blunder.
November 12, 2014 at 1:10 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby, where was your Personal Responsibility for voting for Obama twice, especially after the first four years of mess made? A dog catcher in Minneapolis could have done a better job. And yes, your side say Conservatives are racists for not voting for him. He had every chance to be a good President and he has failed miserably because he is all agenda all the time. A redistribution of wealth President is not what this country needs. Romney has some barnacles for sure, but he did understand business and the economy would be humming about now with pro business policies. Obama with his trillion dollar Stimulus created no worthwhile jobs and the economy has been poor with a 1.5%-2.0% growth rate. Every recession in prior decades came out with 4% or better growth rate and businesses started flourishing again. Your heroine Hillary has now said that businesses don’t create jobs in this country. We beg to differ with her on that faux pas and she will be held to account when she runs.
Agent – you’re like a broken record. Get some new material, OK? There was a landslide during both elections. Hold you party accountable for that, not the American people. It was a choice between a boil and a pimple. I’ll take the pimple. And Hillary will do just fine in 2016. Don’t worry about her.
And it was a landslide for the Republicans at every level last week – that’s why the map of the United States looked like it was hemmorhaging red. As for Hillary – I will never, never, never, never, never, never vote for someone who stood by the flag-draped caskets of four slain American citizens, including an ambassador, and looked into the eyes of the grieving moms and dads of those four young men and LIED by saying the reason they got murdered was the result of a video, when she KNEW that was a lie. That right there makes her reprehensible and despicable in my eyes and in no way deserving of occupying the Oval Office, EVER.
November 12, 2014 at 3:14 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
You don’t need to vote for her Connie. All the Democrats will take care of that for you. We outnumber you.
Regarding Benghazi: The reason for the attack is moot. The fact that it happened is the fault of the terrorists, not Hillary or Obama. You need to get over it. Blaming Hillary is like me trying to blame Bush for 9/11. He said it was Iraq’s fault. It wasn’t, it was Al Queda’s. How is that different? Oh! That’s right. Because THOUSANDS of innocent flag-draped caskets came home to the eyes of grieving moms and dads instead of just four.
November 12, 2014 at 5:02 pm
Connie says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
The fault of the Benghazi attack is most definitely at Hillary and Obama’s doorstep. Didn’t the ambassador plead for help and no help came? Where were the President and Secretary of State when they KNEW this was a dangerous area and terrorist attacks were imminent and the ambassador was begging for security? And then they blame it all on a stupid video so they don’t have to look culpable? The sickening thing is that so far they’ve gotten away with it, and people still think Hillary would make a good president – ugh.
November 12, 2014 at 5:12 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Is Obama the boil or the pimple Libby? The way he has governed, the entire country is covered in boils. That is what serial lying will do and total lack of understanding of how to be a President. He has just made another booboo. He went to China, negotiated the emissions of carbon deal. He agreed to substantially reduce emissions by about 25% by 2025 and China doesn’t have to reduce theirs at all until 2030. They are by far the worst polluter in the world, have built numerous coal fired plants in recent years and you can cut the air in Beijing with a knife. Does this sound like someone who knows how to negotiate?
November 12, 2014 at 6:07 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Connie, Leon Penetta went to the White House and told the President that Benghazi was a Terrorist attack and they still sent Susan Rice out to lie about it. He even lied at the UN about it and Hillary was still singing the “video” tune to the grieving families when they brought the bodies back. They are completely culpable and Trey Gowdy is going to continue to expose them. He said the other night that he will have more people testifying that were told to keep their mouth shut on what happened and are now ready to testify.
November 12, 2014 at 2:13 pm
Always Amazed says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Speaking of taking some personal responsibility – when has Obama EVER taken personal responsibility for anything he as done? Never. He blames everyone else but himself. Who did he throw under the buss not too long ago on 60 Minuets during he last interview? James Clapper!
Always Amazed:
Hello Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.
Hello going to war in Iraq under false pretense.
Hello draft dodging, AWOL Bush 43
Hello, Enron maniuplator Cheney (among other political and business manipulations).
Hello personal responsibility, meet the GOP leaders. I don’t think you’ve ever met.
Didn’t you hear that ISIS did find such a thing? Yes, the “Junior Varsity” terrorist group found some. You guys really need to stop watching CNN and MSNBC for your source of entertainment AKA news for liberals. And what about Solendra? Bush didn’t waste our money because he knew it wasn’t a good investment. How much tax payer money was wasted on them because Obama has never run anything in is life? Community Organizer? You call that business experience? Please..
Here’s another one for ya, Dear Celtica. I could do this all day.
November 13, 2014 at 1:44 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Interesting. Which President had the highest job growth? The best one ever!!! Bill Clinton! Thanks, Bill. Looking forward to Billary in the White House in 2016.
November 13, 2014 at 2:09 pm
Celtica says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Always Amazing — of course, you could post other people’s work all day — who couldn’t. But apparently, you cannot actually add anyting new to it. Just saying.
November 13, 2014 at 2:36 pm
Always Amazed says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Not Obama though. There are more people on Food Stamps now then there have ever been but don’t let that burst your balloon. What is the unemployment with the black community? Last I heard it was something like 11% or 14%. I wouldn’t be jumping up and down just yet, Libby. Obama’s popularity has gone done in those polls too.
November 13, 2014 at 2:58 pm
Always Amazed says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
A tidbit on Bush 43:
“So, while the Democrats have spread this malicious, fraudulent accusation that he went AWOL (without a shred of evidence) with the help of the liberal media, George W. Bush released copies of microfilm payroll records summarizing the days for which Bush was paid in 1972 and 1973. Though blurry and hard to read, they reflect payments for 82 days of services in 1972 and 1973. Guardsmen were required to get a minimum of 50 points annually and they received 15 just for being members of the guard. Bush accumulated 56 points from May 1972 to 1973 and he accumulated another 56 points in June & July of 1973 meeting the minimum requirement of 50 points for the May 73 to May 74 period. Despite the clear evidence that he served, Democrats still keep the lies coming.”
November 13, 2014 at 3:46 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
AA – Who mentioned Obama? I didn’t. I mentioned Clinton. The best President EVER.
He and Hillary are going to be even better in 2016!
November 13, 2014 at 3:58 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
We have had this debate, you disrespectful human being.
WMD’s were being pursed by Saddam in Iraq. GET OVER IT. British intelligence was presented. Not “Bush W’s” CIA intelligence was presented. Bush W didn’t manipulate it. If you are angry about the WMD info, be angry at democrats as well, as it came from and was waved around by them. Hillary Clinton and Al Gore literally wove it around. Al gore wove it around to HW Bush, saying we had every reason to act. Al gore wove it around to George W saying we had every reason to act. Then he said he was tricked and wove around a new swan song after the public didn’t like Iraq. Same as Hillary. THEY LIED Celtica. Not republicans. They lied because they knew it would fire you up. Either that, or they are too stupid to lead. Which is it??
Google Al Gore!!! Read the convos!
Bill Clinton was quoted as saying something to the extent of “they have used weapons of mass destruction before, they will use them again”. And you still, ignorantly beat the drum against George W but not Clinton. Outrageous! How dare you!
Iraq was not went into under false pretense. Bush W spelled it out. WMD’s were not the only one. He wanted to inspect Iraq for Osama Bin Laden. Quiz question: Where as Osama Bin Laden found? IRAQ.
Hello Cheney did not manipulate Enron.
And hello, Bush 43 did not draft dodge.
And GOP leaders have plenty of personal responsibility.
Hello trashy voter who won’t put responsibility onto democrat leaders.
November 13, 2014 at 4:01 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Clear evidence? Ha! Those records show he got paid. They don’t prove he showed up. The evidence is monumental that he skipped out on his duties.
Libby, Clinton (I never had sex with the woman) was a good president because he knew how to be a business man and work with the republicans who held the purse strings. We actually had a surplus back then.
November 14, 2014 at 2:44 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I know. And I’m glad you agree with me that he was a good President. Can’t wait to have him back at the White House in 2016!
November 13, 2014 at 10:46 am
Celtica says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Dear Always Amazed — Solendra was a bad investment — but it was only 1 investment. Bush had several businesses he ran into the ground. Just like he ran the U.S. into the ground. Hello recession 2008, bailout city and stock market crash. Yeah, Bush has a track record – a very, very poor track record. Just call Bush 43 touch it and wreck it Bush.
Being president during a recession doesn’t mean you caused it. Hello democrats. Spell out what lead to the recession, which laws? What did Bush W do?
Moving forward:
Bush W having failed businesses doesn’t matter. He didn’t finance with government dollars those businesses.
Solyndra wasn’t just a bad investment. That isn’t what made it bad. Obama gave his friends government dollars. Literally. You guys try to say tax cuts are giving friends dollars, even though they apply to everyone. This was Obama, giving his friends government dollars.
November 13, 2014 at 4:04 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Yup. Didn’t last long. Bob is back.
November 14, 2014 at 6:17 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Sorry Libby,
That is trashy bull crap.
The Iraq things you say should land you in a mental hospital.
It is delusional, it is not ok to say. You focus on the circus town of politics, with tin foil hat garbage.
I see you as no different than agent.
Remember how I said we were alike?
Quiz question: With how tin foil hat Agent is on the right, how in the world do you not see you are the equivalent on the right?
Bush W Draft dodged right? There’s no evidence he served!
Obama isn’t a U.S. Citizen right? No evidence! Right?
Equal ignorance. And I give you the same reply you give him:
Forget you! You disrespectful crazy human being. This is not politics, this is highschool name calling.
Iraq was false pretenses!
Even when Bush W talked about why we were there, and said Osama was indefinitely in Iraq.
Then Osama was found in Iraq.
Bush W was totally wrong.
Even after we left, and people died, you people say the problem was no exit strategy.
We didn’t leave, and there was no exit strategy, because this would happen. They needed us. There is no strategy where they didn’t need help.
End of story, but people like you made it politics instead of need, and people, and lives. Look at isis, and the executions, and then realize the guilt, it’s Y-O-U-R fault.
And here you are bashing the one man who had the courage to go help. Military intervention does not mean corruption, unless it is a republican right?
You seem to thin Iraq is a threat if Obama says it, and if Clinton says it.
November 14, 2014 at 6:18 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
If you didn’t catch Libby,
Say crazy things, and I will go crazy on you.
You will say you are wrong about Iraq and you respect the president on his efforts there.
We will respect presidents and military efforts. Including Obama. It will be done.
I am tired of this tin foil hat bull.
November 14, 2014 at 6:25 pm
Stan says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob that was quite the incoherent rant. Impressive and vindicating all at the same time. Classic GOP, they hold contradictory beliefs that are silly on their face, but they believe them nonetheless.
November 14, 2014 at 6:59 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob – I didn’t say Bush dodged the draft. He did’t show up for his National Guard service for over a year. Indisputable. I called no names on this thread. Iraq a WAS false pretenses. Bin Laden was not found in Iraq but in Pakistan as you have been so oft to throw in my face. Bush was totally wrong and all the guilt, shame blame and fault lays squarely with him. Period. Iraq was never a threat until now with ISIS. They are well trained, wealthy and nuts. As you well know that’s a very dangerous combination.
November 18, 2014 at 3:52 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob – how can you expect anyone to believe you when you lie about even the most obvious of topics?
“WMD’s were not the only one. He wanted to inspect Iraq for Osama Bin Laden. Quiz question: Where as Osama Bin Laden found? IRAQ.”
You failed your own quiz. He was not found in Iraq. He was found in Pakistan. I have a hard time believing any other point you try to make when you can’t even get this simple verifiable fact correct.
You do realize most people here don’t even pay attention to you Stan.
You once posted a blog opinion and told Agent he needed to read.
A blog opinion. For facts.
Let that sink in for a moment.
I saw your Xbox rant. I suppose you do play for keeps, when it comes to video games and or sports.
Politics aren’t sports. Politics aren’t games.
And a simple look at both sides will show nearly everything you have claimed about republicans has been:
A: Not backed up. You accused many people of supporting businesses by voting red. Prove it. I can show you how voting blue has specifically screwed over DHT in Oregon, and the Ohio senator who was making federal flight regulations in favor of one postal carrier vs another. He refused to take outside input other than from Ohio because he said he was an Ohio rep, even though he was passing a federal regulation. Show me some examples. I can also show the CRA ratings of the companies who failed in the recession, showing that the CRA praised the biggest failures for giving loans with little to no proof of income documentation, and were praised for giving higher dollar loans to low income borrowers. In order to expand their debt to net capital ratios, they had to have a high CRA rating. That is how you expand your rating. Look it up. .Gov sites have it.
B: Absurd. Your politics are mostly that of a young kid, who thinks he has things figured out.
Pick a topic you think republicans are bad on. Let me know why you think they are bad for the country.
Be prepared to be alarmed. Anything a young guy like you thinks you know, I know more and can easily research the sources again to back it up.
Bob, Stan is just angry that he spent 7 1/2 years getting three degrees and is wondering why no one will hire him. My guess is the potential employer gets a load of his attitude and they tell him to leave his resume’ and we will call you if we have an opening. He is still waiting. I wonder why.
November 12, 2014 at 3:53 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I respect his degrees. I don’t respect the attitude.
I don’t think that’s the only reason he is mad. Kids need an enemy. It’s easier to find one with republicans than it is with democrats.
Really, the pitch line has been given to me too often.
“Do you want to help the middle class from the bottom up? Or the top down failed trickle down economics of Bush W? Boy have we got a load of fluff for you!
Man they give those tax cuts to the rich and then you get hit with the bill!”
It’s a hard pitch to not buy into. I was sold it. So were we all from birth.
November 12, 2014 at 4:25 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Yes,Bob. Poor Stan really hates America because it is all the Republicans fault that he can’t get a job starting at the top due to all his education. I thought the rebellious stage was over when they at least reached 25 and saw how the world was and learned how to cope. He is like a little child screaming at his parents because he can’t get his way. He insults us veterans in the business as “Old Man”. Their mantra is to say how bad “trickle down economics” is when we have the worst tax code in history, but Democrats like Charlie Rangel wrote a lot of it. Their theory of Economics is “trickle up poverty” and make no mistake, Obama’s policies have created more poor people in this country and a very shrinking middle class. Lowest work participation in decades and enlarging the entitlement class with more food stamps, welfare and Social Security Disability paticipants who can work, but won’t work.
November 13, 2014 at 8:44 pm
Stan says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Robert, thank you for the kind words. I am sure that you do indeed know more than I do, as you have had many decades with which to accrue knowledge. That doesnt translate to a better opinion, but your wrongness is indeed rooted in more facts.
That aside, your silly defense of republican principles and Reaganomics has literally crippled the American middle class. In a free market capital flows to the top, it doesnt trickle down. Look around you for all the evidence you want.
And for the record, it wasnt an Xbox rant. It was an offer. An offer that I stand by, for you or for FFA.
Your friend,
Stan
November 13, 2014 at 8:48 pm
Stan says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Also, why are you guys so upset about a bad attitude? You all lilterally sit on here every single day lambasting poor libby for being the choice of reason, and I throw one “republicans ruined america” out there and everyone is all upset. You guys on the Right really need to toughen up. I mean shit, you all have jobs and wealth to protect. I literally have the computer that Im typing on and Bob’s jealousy-inducing Xbox.
Plus, I feel like I am getting a bad rap for being mad at republican politicians. I am not. I could not. Instead, I am mad at their constituents (perhaps you know of a few?) who demand their kinds of antics. People get the government that they deserve. And we, dear friends, do not deserve much.
November 13, 2014 at 8:50 pm
Stan says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Agent,
I know why people wont hire me and it has nothing to do with attitude. Its because the marketplace has little need for the skillset that I have. Which is to say, none. No college grads do, because the entry level marketplace does not exist after the great recession.
Why pay a kid to do something when you can get a GenX to do it with 5 yrs experience for the same cost? It’s Bob’s free market at work. I for one, if I could do it all over again, would take Bob’s advice and join a Union.
November 14, 2014 at 8:55 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Stan – I’m sure you have many skills that you don’t even know you possess. If you’re not working now, why not go for an internship? You don’t get paid (which you’re not now anyway) but it will give you some well needed experience and a foot in the door. All these greedy business owners would love to have a smart, handsome man working for them for free.
November 14, 2014 at 6:23 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Stan,
You like to insult regarding age often, it shows a lot about you, and shows you are probably wrong very often. I will clue you in on a little secret. One of my only lies on here is my age, solely because I was insulted for my age here. We are the same age. I grantee you. It is easy to spot my generation.
Moving on:
President Carter. President Reagan. Tax rates. President Clinton. Tax rates.
You are aware tax rates under president Clinton, when our economy expanded greater than any other, were less than half that of Kennedy or FDR correct?
Trickle down has been proven to 100% work.
Under Reagan, the labor participation rate shot up after dropping. It went up while the unemployment rate went down. Reagan’s plans work. This lie of the trickle down economics ruining the economy is that of a fool.
Moving off of that:
I said pick a topic. Is Reaganomics your topic?
Or was your pathetic insults the topic? Cool insults don’t make you right.
Sit down. Shut up. Pick a topic.
November 14, 2014 at 6:26 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Free markets do not remove entry level jobs. That is pure insanity.
Show me any evidence to the contrary. You are stating opinions. They aren’t well researched opinions at that.
It has been proven that high tax environments get rid of low skill jobs. I’m not saying that is what is doing it now, since our tax rates are relatively low right now. But I’m merely saying this because you seem to want to return to the FDR mentality of higher taxes.
November 14, 2014 at 6:42 pm
Stan says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bobby (you dont mind me calling you Bobby, do you? I feel like I can do it since were the same age and all, even though you dont know how old I am) —
1) you just got done insulting poor libby not 5 minutes ago. insults are par for the course here at the IJ. Stop being such a pansy and accept criticism.
2) the boom from clinton was because of NAFTA, not because of tax rates. and NAFTA was great at first, except when it wasnt because American manufacturing was no longer safe.
3) thank you for the compliment on being able to write “cool insults” It means a lot from a fellow bro.
4) want to play xbox?
5) I never said free markets destroy entry level jobs, I said free markets serve to move capital. and to simplify a complex topic, that means that capital flows up to the owners and away from labor because you, as an individual, are weak with bargaining power.
the owner of a business is strong, since he can fire you, bobby, for nothing at all. and he can find anyone else to take your place (for a myriad of reasons, automation, globalization, population growth, etc). Without unions to protect the rights of labor, management and capital have disparate bargaining power.
This disparity has a multitude of effects, the most pronounced being that they can force fewer people to do more work and hire fewer and fewer people. and with fewer and fewer positions available, they can require experience, which means that you dont have entry level positions.
youre welcome for the overview.
November 14, 2014 at 6:57 pm
Stan says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Also, Bobby, you say “one of my only lies on here has been to lie about my age.”
If youre lying about that, your probably lying about other things. After all, that sentence alone could be a lie! (ill wait for your brain to stop melting . . . )
Maybe you should stop being such a fruitcake and tell the truth. Or is that too damaging for a Republican like you, who is all for small govt except for the military and farm subsidies etc etc etc.
As far as I can tell, youre literally the only person on this thread thus far who has been found to be lying (by your own admission no less). Unfortunately, sweetheart, that does not bode well for your credibility. You should consider changing your moniker like Agent does.
Might I suggest Robbie? The Big Bobber? Dipshit Mcgee? All of them seem applicable.
November 14, 2014 at 7:38 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
You’re a funny guy Stan. You always say pointless crap.
Let’s talk facts. You will have to debate my incoming links. And you won’t be able to.
Libby and I already had this debate, though she has forgotten. The .gov links aren’t readily available but I can grab them for you.
I posted quite a bit. Read through it.
I know it’s hard to imagine reading, for people like you. But you should try it.
November 14, 2014 at 7:44 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
As a side comment:
I don’t say any insults to Libby like dip sheet mc gee.
I say she is trashy, I say she is ignorant (the literal ignorant, not insult ignorant, she doesn’t know what she’s talking about) and I make my facts known first and foremost.
Your post was insults, no facts, to hide that you don’t have any.
I’m going to enjoy playing with you Stan.
I admit it is a weakness of mine to crush high and mighty stupid people.
You don’t know what you’re talking about to do with the collapse.
You sound like trailer trash,
durh durh durh, dem dere deregulations!!!! That dem dere did it!
And then when I ask, “really? which law or deregulation?”
You reply saying absurd tar. It really actually is something that even though I insult you while you do it,
I like it. I admit I like to watch you stumble over your two left feet, metaphorically, inside your own brain, trying to tie your shoes and pull up your pants like a big boy.
How cute.
November 14, 2014 at 7:48 pm
Stan says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Dipshit McGee wasnt an insult. It was a suggestion. I am sorry you misinterpreted.
November 14, 2014 at 7:53 pm
Stan says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Also, I am not sure how you “wipe the floor” with someone on the internet. I guess it starts with lying about your age? Then posting links. Then research.
Bobbi, since youre on here fighitng with me, and youre my own age, why on earth are you a republican since youre presumably not rich. Are your folks? Or are you some country bumpkin who thinks that its manly to hate democrats and priuses and have some truck with big wheels to compensate?
please share your backstory. or at least make one up to go with your age.
November 14, 2014 at 10:52 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
And Stan,
When I say I lied about my age, I mean I didn’t correct you when you called me an old geyser or when someone else implied I was 50.
We have different standards for lying.
I have never said my age. But I know it’s roughly the same as you. I’m not in my 50’s.
November 14, 2014 at 11:03 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Stan,
Your insult types, are that of someone I wipe the floor with because you have nothing to stand on.
Basically showing a person in my age, they don’t know anything.
Which you don’t. Why am I republican? I know how the collapse happened. I looked up FDR. Japanese internment camps, and burning food because he thought it would increase the cost of food. He thought that was a good idea in a depression. And he was so powerful, we still remember him as a great guy. If that was Bush W, it would be remembered as worse than Hoover.
Civil rights bill of 1957 goes ignored, made by republicans, republicans are called racist. Civil rights bill of 1964, a greater percentage of republican minority voted for it than democrats, and democrats are still racist.
Democrats as percentage voted for segregation more than republicans. Republicans spear headed the right to vote for women.
Democrats have been for power a long time.
On tax rates, Clinton showed lower is better than higher. Yet your side still argues that Reagan’s lower taxes (which is what lead to Clinton’s Lower taxes) was trickle down. What exactly was Clinton’s then Stan? That was still about half the rate as before Reagan.
On government issues, how do you think people win over the small guy like you? I know when someone is fluffing me.
Hey look here! See that big wig! We will take his money for you because we are nice!
Right Stan? Did you really buy into that? I’m not dumb…That’s why. You just said why is a guy like me who isn’t rich republican? It’s because of bull like what you just said, how you were sold.
Putin says he needs to be in control of wealth.
So does Kim Jung Il (SP)
So does every leader of nations whose real goal is power.
Your knowledge is amateur, and you have a good degree. Another reason I am republican. Watching my peers, disregard common sense in favor of slogans, and class warfare over actually looking at policies and laws.
Show me one. ONE LAW. Just ONE. I put the gay rights bill in Washington up, and then I put up the REPUBLICAN (yes one existed) back a few years ago. Then I went over how the republican one was superior. Democrats framed it as republicans wanting to take away rights.
No. The republicans supported the gay rights.
What they didn’t support was two provisions. One that allowed the governor to pass alterations without public approval.
Bad right?
One that made it so the government could fine churches that charged for ceremonies.
The democrats only put that in to be able to say they fought the church.
They even said it in public. It was solely to get the churches.
It shouldn’t be about “getting” anyone. They intentionally made a non issue a problem to have a dominated class they needed to protect.
The birth control issue. No one cared. It was $15 dollars. Then it became a battle of epic proportions. They needed an enemy. They only put it in for that reason. To battle the church.
I could go on, but you don’t read laws.
Show me one. Just one, law that you disagree with on republicans and why.
You are a graduate!
You should be able to thesis this out.
But I have NEVER seen a democrat in my age group do that.
THAT is why I am republican. People who act stupid who aren’t because of a mighty D who will take care of them, whereas the R will support the rich!
What a crock of crap. How the hell were you sold that with a degree?
Do you read political laws? Or do you read pundits commentary on political laws? I already know based on your commentary.
Don’t be an idiot. Learn to read.
November 14, 2014 at 10:40 am
Always Amazed says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby, Clinton was a good president because he knew how to work with the Republicans who held the purse strings. We actually has a surplus of money in that term. Obama spends money like it grows on trees. Here is a link to the national debit clock. We are approaching 19 TRILLION dollars. That is sickening.
There are more people then ever on food stamps with this administration and yet they boast that the economy is doing better. Tell that to the people getting Welfare who don’t want to be but have no choice.
WEll, AA. On whose watch did the economy fall in the tank? Enough said.
Obama was just handed a giant pooper scooper and told to get to work.
November 14, 2014 at 6:29 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Being president when an economy fails does not make you responsible.
Point out how George W Bush caused the recession.
I need specifics. I am tired of your childish one liners when it comes to politics.
We have had this debate, and when I showed you the CRA ratings of WAMU, and that they needed them to expand, you finally said George W could have changed them or removed them.
I said, really? He tried in 2003 to do some changes, and people said he was taking houses from the poor (democrats).
So what could he have done? What did he do?
Laws passed please. Time to put up or shut up. And if you have nothing, then don’t repeat it like a parrot, and admit you are wrong.
November 14, 2014 at 6:46 pm
Stan says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bobby, Bush removed regulatory requirements permitting subprime mortgages to run rampant. He also fabricated pretenses to take America to war. He permitted the NSA to turn their powers of observation on the american people, against the 4th amendment of the constitution. He destroyed the national debt with two unfunded wars and medicare part d, not to mention he was just a poor reflection of this nation with his idiotic one liners and texas gumption (prob why Agent likes him).
So yes, I admit that youre wrong.
November 14, 2014 at 7:25 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Show me the Law Stan, that deregulated. Bush W did not deregulate. That is a lie.
I take it you’re talking about the patriot act which Obama resigned. He resigned all of the most controversial sections.
I warned you Stan, that I have researched this more than you. You have read blog sites, never .gov, not research papers. So let’s play, this out.
“In a 2002 study exploring the relationship between the CRA and lending looked at as predatory, Kathleen C. Engel and Patricia A. McCoy noted that banks could receive CRA credit by lending or brokering loans in lower-income areas that would be considered a risk for ordinary lending practices.”
A bank that gave low income loans would be given a high CRA rating. Having a high rating removed your need to have as high of a debt to net capital ratio.
Now let’s have fun, you little child!
WAMU exploded by 20 locations in a few years, part of this was expanding their CRA rating. Let’s see what theirs said!
“Washington Mutual’s Community Access program is a combination of loan products and services that make it easier for low- to moderate-income (LMI) borrowers to achieve homeownership. The program, launched in 2002, combines a flexible menu of loan products that can be personalized to meet the unique financial needs of customers, even when their loan may fall outside typical credit, income or debt constraints. Last year, more than 5,000 loans totaling more than $795 million were originated. ”
Emphasis on “d to meet the unique financial needs of customers, even when their loan may fall outside typical credit, income or debt constraints”
“One such statutory provision requires the Board to have received notice from the Massachusetts Housing Partnership Fund (the “MHPF”) that satisfactory arrangements have been made by Lehman Brothers consistent with statute and the MHPF’s various affordable housing loan programs. The Board received notice from the MHPF that arrangements satisfactory to it had been made for this transaction in a letter dated January 11, 2007″
What do you notice? In order to buy, expand, etc, you needed to meet the CRA regs showing you gave loans to low income housing.
This allowed Leahman brothers to buy companies. They could not if they did not meet these requirements.
This is only to show regulation caused the collapse. Regulation required banks and financial institutions in growth to give loans. They tracked it. WAMU collapsed. Leahman Brothers collapsed.
A little history on CRA Regs, just a research paper, but it would do you good.
Now on to the sweet spots:
WAMU, Leahman Brothers, all were given high CRA ratings in 2006 and 2007 for providing loans to consumers with “little to no proof of income documentation”‘
The most important part, which I’m sure you will say from wikipedia, is that most democrats say that CRA regs don’t apply to all loans, and that it didn’t cause the crises.
I can show how it did with Leahman and Wamu. They both made CRA commitments to get a higher rating. One to buy companies, and one to expand their locations. Wamu to expand, Leahman to buy.
WAMU made a commitment I already showed you above. It earned them a higher CRA rating. They then expanded past their breaking point. They collapsed.
Country wide also collapsed. Why did they make a $1 trillion dollar commitment? If they knew it would hurt them why?
They knew the government would help for one, but for two, it was the only way to earn the CRA ratings they needed to conduct business. If they didn’t have the high CRA rating, they couldn’t buy companies, they couldn’t have higher debt to net capital ratings, etc.
You are a two point mind. I am not.
You have not looked into this.
I have.
To call me ill researched, I laugh at the infantile amount of research you have done into this, and your two sentence comment about what George W Bush did to cause this is nothing short of insulting to humanity. You offered no proof, no law, nothing!
Ignorance astounds me in our age group Stan, you have a degree, learn to research on important matters, kid.
November 17, 2014 at 10:42 am
Stan says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
What is a two-point mind?
November 17, 2014 at 12:33 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Someone who grabs two points, to make a point.
See your comment prior.
You said Bush W deregulated, then you said he passed the greatest security threat to privacy, which Obama re passed all the most controversial sections.
Two points of reference data to make a point.
I just used what…10? All showing the same point.
The fact that I can show 3 firms that made CRA commitments to low income housing, totaling over 1.5 trillion, shows that they did do this to get high CRA ratings and expand, DUE to regulation. Not because of a lack of it.
It shows directly how they collapsed. They aren’t the only ones. Then we have the companies that insured those types of loans, or bought them from the companies that made them. They did this WITH government assistance, guarantee, and regulations, not against them.
Libby and I already had this debate, and eventually after I showed her some 50 companies, she finally admitted that I was right about the banking side of the collapse, but that it didn’t matter. Bush W could have fixed it was how she finally argued. Then I pointed to the fact he did, and instantly people said he was against low income housing (the poor) and he never would have had the support to stop banks from giving loans to low income earners with little to no proof of earnings documentation.
So you can admit you were wrong about how the economy collapsed now.
Or I can show you more of these companies if you prefer.
How about Obama and other Lawyers suing Citi Bank for redlining against low income earners? They also collapsed.
Every time someone even said the words CRA, whether to sue a company, or to get a commitment to CRA loans, that firm collapsed.
November 17, 2014 at 1:26 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Really Stan.
Citibank is the best example, because they were sued specifically for not giving low income loans.
Then about ten years later they went bankrupt for giving low income loans.
The government is exactly why they were pressured into that.
These companies had the government forcing a path of business that would never have worked out.
November 17, 2014 at 1:51 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Check your facts, Bob. Law professor Michael S. Barr, a Treasury Department official under President Clinton, stated that approximately 50% of subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA, and another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates. Barr noted that institutions fully regulated by CRA made “perhaps one in four” sub-prime loans, and that “the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight”.
So much for CRA causing the crash. Next?
November 17, 2014 at 2:13 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby,
The government says a lot of things. Check my links.
It doesn’t make what they say correct. Not every loan is CRA. As I told you before. But every company is bound by CRA regulations to not red line if they are to buy companies, sell, merge, or exceed certain debt to net capital ratios.
Leahman brothers did fail for what I put above. WAMU did as well. So did Country, so did Citibank.
You are the one who needs to fact check. Again: Not all loans are CRA. Not all CRA loans even are regarding low income. That’s obviously a true statement Libby. You are so blind you don’t look at what is relevant truth.
I don’t disagree with the comment you just said.
Your comment however does not disprove mine.
The loans that did fail, which were not always CRA loans, came from trying to expand loans to low income earners, and to have the government sign off on it.
It is very clear that nearly every company who made this commitment failed. And they always referenced the CRA when they did it, even though the loans they were making were NOT CRA.
We have Leahman, WAMU, Citibank, and Country. Do I need to pull more who failed?
Fannie and Freddie both also worked in these markets.
There is 6. Do you want more?
The commitments to low income housing caused this collapse. Those commitments were done to be given higher ratings in order to expand.
November 17, 2014 at 2:22 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Ok, seeing as you don’t know this Libby:
CRA regulations are not the same as CRA loans.
You say the statement that the loans that failed were not CRA so CRA had nothing to do with the collapse.
Every company that has FDIC insurance, (most the whole industry) is subject to CRA loans, especially to grow.
“The Act mandates that all banking institutions that receive Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insurance be evaluated by Federal banking agencies to determine if the bank offers credit (in a manner consistent with safe and sound operation as per Section 802(b) and Section 804(1)) in all communities in which they are chartered to do business”
“An institution’s CRA compliance record is taken into account by the banking regulatory agencies when the institution seeks to expand through merger, acquisition or branching. ”
Everyone says what CRA was “intended” to do when they say the law isn’t meant to force low income loans.
However, firms had to have a high CRA rating to merge, buy, expand, etc.
What ended up happening is banks who were not making a lot of CRA loans, who had FDIC insurance, (most) started making agreements to make low income loans to expand their CRA rating.
CRA ratings are available online. The government signed off on this. They graded it by the median loan, vs the median income. If you had a low median income and gave them loans, they said your record was outstanding in the low income neighborhoods and gave you a high rating.
Due to this, companies began giving out these loans. The government would back them, they were FDIC insured, they had the blessing. There was no risk. This caused the collapse.
It is a fact.
November 17, 2014 at 2:25 pm
Stan says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob you love links, and Libby sends you one with your preferred .gov domain, and your response is a wikipedia link, Bro?
What happened to all that lofty research that you were toting earlier? Cant you break it down into sheep and baseballs for us?
November 17, 2014 at 2:25 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“It is very clear that nearly every company who made this commitment failed. And they always referenced the CRA when they did it, even though the loans they were making were NOT CRA.” Huh?
They can reference whatever they want, that doesn’t make it so. The fact that 50% of the loans were given by mortgage companies NOT REGULATED BY CRA speaks for itself. If they aren’t regulated by CRA, how can they blame the CRA for their crappy loans? It was greed, not the CRA that caused this glut.
November 17, 2014 at 2:28 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
That should read that every company that is FDIC insured is subject to CRA regulations, not CRA loans.
You take these governments at face value when a democrat sponsored person says it.
Then when a republican says it they most be lying.
You listen to pundits, and politicians. I look up the ratings for myself, and then I find out why they gave the loans by piecing together facts to make a sound theory.
You need to start doing this.
I gave you the tools. CRA ratings, and CRA commitments, of firms that failed. Proof that they needed high CRA ratings to expand, buy, and merge.
Proof of companies that did it. WAMU did do this. It is not an opinion. Do you disagree? If you don’t, you agree with my methodology. I gave you 6 examples.
If you want I can pull the records for any company that failed. Just give me the name. CRA ratings are available on-line, and then you simply google if the company made low income commitments prior to their expansion.
Think on your own two feet.
November 17, 2014 at 2:34 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Stan,
WIKI itself was only to show two comments.
Do you dispute the two comments I put up?
Stop going after the source and the character. Do you dispute the two comments I used Wikipedia to state?
If you do, you’re wrong. That easy.
I ignored Libby’s piece because it is irrelevant. Any FDIC insured bank is subject to CRA regulations.
Not all loans are CRA loans. This is what Libby isn’t seeing. That is why her info is incorrect.
That means most if not all banks were subject to CRA regulations when it came to growth, expansion, etc.
Again,
Give me bank names that failed. I showed you 6 that used the CRA to grow without risk.
Each of the 6 I showed you did not primarily give CRA loans. They made commitments to loans for the poor, which were not majority CRA loans.
November 17, 2014 at 2:39 pm
Stan says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
NPR is known for being democratic, but you use NPR links?
Bobby, get back to what you know man, baseball, sheep, and seeing sound.
November 17, 2014 at 2:45 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Stan,
You’re like a Labrador puppy. Only you have spikes. It’s actually hard for me to insult you. That’s why I have backed off. I feel sorry for you. I get why you act the way you do. I really do, but you’re wrong.
You can’t focus very well can you?
Look at my facts, then look them up.
Do you dispute that all FDIC loans are regulated by CRA?
Rather than saying to argue things I know as if to insinuate I don’t know what I’m talking about, and then throwing out character insults to disregard my facts, look at the facts.
FDIC loans are regulated by the CRA. True statement or not?
Most if not all banks are FDIC regulated. True statements or not?
In order to expand, merge, buy, etc, banks must have a high CRA rating. True statement or not?
Leahman bros, WAMU, Country, Fannie & Freddie, and most banks that failed made commitments to expand their CRA rating to expand.
They all failed.
Citibank was sued for redlining. Do you deny that? Why did they then fail 10 years later for giving low income loans?
Maybe that law suit that cited red lining (CRA) was part of it?
November 17, 2014 at 2:49 pm
Stan says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob, why a labrodor? And why a puppy? I was unaware of any dog with spikes, much less labradors specifically, and even then only very young ones. or were you referring to a spiked collar?
Also, I am sorry for being unclear. I 100% did not mean to insinuate that you didnt know what you were talking about. I mean to explicitly say that. So here, ill help:
Your rhetoric is incoherent, emotional, delusional, unorganized, and sophomoric (highschool sophomore, not college). In short, you have no idea what you’re talking about.
There is a silver lining though. I dont want you to stop talking because you do more to damage the Republican brand than I ever could. Please continue.
Your friend,
Stanley
November 17, 2014 at 2:57 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob – Citigroup and Countrywide had brokerage arms that were not subject to FDIC or CRA regulations. These are the entities that made these bad loans.
Whether CRA made it possible for greedy bankers become more greedy is really a moot point.
It was GREED that caused all of these subprime loans to be made, the majority of which were not new home loans but were refi’s, 2nd mortgages, or HELOCs. Nothing to do with the CRA.
You’re right, we have had this debate before. It’s all coming back to me. I stand on my original position.
Greed not CRA.
November 17, 2014 at 2:58 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Stan,
You being a sheep, and being a ball, is a bad thing.
I’ll stick to facts and logic. Here I have a democrat telling me I’m basically too stupid to think and shouldn’t try.
Yes. If I don’t think what you think I should just cease to exist, not think at all and focus on seeing sound.
Don’t insult my intelligence when I quote things you clearly don’t understand.
When someone has no argument, they go after character instead of content. I gave you content.
You have given me nothing but grade school replies. Another reason I am not democrat.
When I show how this collapse happened, that’s what I hear back. At least Libby has facts and details (though wrong) for why she believes what she believes,
And at least her and I did debate the wording of the patriot act.
She had info. You just don’t. It is disappointing.
I actually like to see these details.
November 17, 2014 at 3:00 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Stan,
Rhetoric is not at all putting together a methodology for how a collapse happened.
Emotional and erratic are your comments. You haven’t debated the points at all. Rhetoric includes your comments. You haven’t at all debated my facts or provided counter-info.
You’re a funny guy. Delusional, but funny.
November 17, 2014 at 3:06 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby,
Country and Citi still expanded their operations to low income borrowers to comply with CRA.
Even if you aren’t CRA “regulated” you are still breaking the law, subject to CRA laws, to be sued, as Citibank was.
And the companies still made loans to get a higher CRA rating to expand. Country had a CRA rating.
I can see if your argument was that they had one division to get a higher CRA rating, and one to make crap loans, that the CRA was not in whole responsible. That is sound logic.
However it ignores why they had the separate division to begin with, and ignores that separate division can still be sued for redlining.
If they had separate divisions, one was to get the rating they needed to make loans, and one was to make the loans. This would mean they gave bad loans to get a better rating to expand, and had a secondary part of itself try to sell loans that made sense.
From there, it is a matter of which loans caused them to fail, their secondary or their primary.
Judging on the fact of how many firms did this and failed, I’m going with the low income loans were the driving factor.
And Greed is not a cause when it comes to regulations. So you’re going to have to show HOW not WHY. That means more facts. Though I’m impressed you had the research to know what you knew about Citi.
November 17, 2014 at 3:09 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Also Stan:
If you have owned a Lab puppy, you would know why on both accounts.
If you’re done calling my research rhetoric and talking points, I’m about done talking with you, though I have some degree of interest into Libby’s commentary on the matter.
She’s actually giving points. Unlike you.
November 17, 2014 at 3:45 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob – you blew by my best point. Most of these bad loans were not for new home purchases (CRA) they were for re-fi’s, seconds, and HELOCS. Some financial institutions were giving people personal loans for up to 125% of their home valuations.
That is unmitigated greed. They knew these loans couldn’t be sustained, yet the closed them anyway to make a quick buck. Then turned around, packaged them, and sold them. Only to pass go, collect $200, and do it all over again.
November 17, 2014 at 5:16 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby,
Greed is a motivator, not a means.
Every loan is subject to the CRA. If you red line against low income consumers, CRA regulations are quoted for why you are being sued, even if you made zero CRA loans, and Zero loans with the regulations of how to make a CRA compliant loan. You keep forgetting that CRA are also a set of banking protection regulations, which apply to ALL banks. If you use the CRA program, which is set up in a way that doesn’t fail (which is why CRA loans didn’t fail as often) then you are writing a CRA loan under CRA regulations as to how to write a CRA loan. However, any loan you write, is subject to the discriminatory laws in the CRA. Any deal you do, is subject to showing you follow the discriminatory laws in the CRA. As such, you cannot red line, period, against low income borrowers, whether or not you are doing a CRA loan, and whether or not the loan itself is CRA rated, when you are sued you broke a CRA law. No matter what, you are still subject to the discriminatory sections of the CRA law. There is no such thing as a loan that is not subject to the CRA.
So on to the refi etc, and the quick buck:
Explain how deregulation allowed that. Regulation encouraged it. By giving the refi or other aspects they appeared in compliance with CRA, and the more loans they gave the higher a CRA rating they received.
The higher the CRA rating, the more they could loan. Regardless of whether they were writing CRA loans or not.
November 18, 2014 at 12:12 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Huh? I can’t make heads or tails of your response. I’ll just say this, my company has a completely unsecured stock room. This makes it very easy for me to go in and steal office supplies. Is it may company’s fault for not securing the stock room or mine for stealing their stuff?
Just because a law may have encouraged bad behavior does not excuse the bad behavior.
November 18, 2014 at 1:34 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
It didn’t just encourage.
The laws strong armed the firms who didn’t give the loans and wouldn’t let them give loans.
It would be more like this:
You need a pen. In advance, your company puts all the pens to do your job inside an open room. Whenever you grab a pen from this room, it triggers a bowling ball to fall on someone’s head who is walking down below.
They didn’t “encourage” They forced the companies to make bad loans in order to buy, sell, grow, and use capital freely.
It is not an opinion that regulation caused this. It is a fact.
You are acting like in your example that there should have been a block to stop the supply stealing. It isn’t equivalent. The government would have sent you in there forcing you to use the supplies.
November 18, 2014 at 1:40 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
And when you say “huh” several times it shows you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Everything I have posted is true.
You are quite lost as to what CRA regs are for. There are no loans that are not subject to CRA discriminatory regulation. None. Zero. Even if they don’t write CRA loans.
That is what is flying over your head.
They put a gun up to the heads of the banks and said “You will write loans to low income housing, we won’t tell you how, but you will do it. By the way, if you want you can do it your way, but here is our way”.
If you knew the law, even though what I put above makes no sense, it is what they did.
This is how Citibank was sued. You said yourself, they had a side that didn’t do CRA loans. They were still sued for red lining against low income borrowers through CRA laws. All, 100%, every loan, is subject to CRA laws.
There is a CRA loan, in order to make a CRA loan you have to follow the regulations for what a CRA loan is. These loans would be “CRA regulated”. This is how people twist this.
They can then say, that 50% of all loans that failed were not under CRA regulations (the parameters that the government set so that people could fulfill the amount of people they had to give loans to,) this did not dismiss the fact that no matter what, banks have to give low income loans. The government doesn’t really care how, but they offer a regulated method for those who follow it.
Also: If 50% that failed were CRA regulated, then how in the hell do you consider that not aiding the collapse? It shows that 50% that even the government regulated with laws failed. 50% that they told the banks to just write failed. So 100% of the failed loans were low income loans, made foolishly, half even when they used the path the government gave.
That doesn’t show greed. That shows that the plan the government set up didn’t work, even with the government’s path. The business fared about equal in the end result to the government.
Do you get it yet?
It is indeed complicated, and you don’t understand it clearly.
November 18, 2014 at 4:36 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
You’re right, I don’t understand it as you are explaining it. If 50% of the loans that failed were not subject to CRA – how does that make them low income? How does that make the CRA 100% responsible. Maybe if you tried bullet points or step by step taking me through your logic, I could understand better. But I don’t understand what you are trying to say here. That’s why I said huh?
November 21, 2014 at 3:47 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Ok,
So Libby the reason I said you add 50% to 50% is that 50% of the loans that were made were within CRA guidelines set up by the state for low income loans.
The other 50% were also low income loans, that businesses took their own path to give the loans. The federal government still requires those banks to give low income loans. They can take the path given by the government or not, but they still have to meet CRA requirements in not discriminating against low income borrowers.
So there are two sections at play there.
The section of CRA that requires banks to give loans.
The section of the CRA that gives a government method of giving loans.
You don’t have to take the CRA regulated path to fulfill your CRA requirements.
If 50% of the loans that failed were the CRA regulated ones, this shows a huge danger in the government’s path to make low income loans. But it also implies, that the other 50% was banks taking their own path to make the loans, and failing at an equal rate as the government’s path to low income loans.
The government would have made them make low income loans either way to be compliant with CRA laws.
The fact that they failed about equally shows the CRA requirements were the issue. Not necessarily how they made the loans and whether or not they followed the CRA regulations that were supposed to be a safer way of making loans to lower income groups. They shouldn’t have had requirements to hit certain numbers of low income loans to being with. What is more sloppy is that the government doesn’t even have a good way of giving a firm a high CRA rating. All they had to do is show they gave loans to people in typically poor neighborhoods. They didn’t have to show they were good loans. In that scenario, I guess better regulations in terms of specifying what a good low income loan was would have helped. But also, not having requirements based on how many low income earners you gave loans would have been a better path than that.
November 12, 2014 at 10:54 am
blu lightning says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
In the years prior to the ACA, the media commonly cited numbers starting at #0MM uninsured. Then the number went to 35, then 40 and by the time the ACA passed, it was close to 50 MM people who didn’t have insurance and who would now be able to get it.
Now we are talking about 7 MM. Either the libs and media lied in the numbers of uninsured to get this albatross passed or the law and the associated penalties and subsidies are not enough to entice people to buy it.
You can’t always make people do what they want, even if it might be for their own good. There was never an “availability” problem as their are many insureers willing to offer the coverage, then and now. And its not an affordability issue either, even with the carrot and sticks in the law.
Its about human nature and libs God love ’em think that they can play nanny over all of us and change everything about us that they don’t like or think is appropariate.
Let us run our own lives and quit trying to be our nanny and I can only hope that we repeal this monstrosity and use the proceeds to lowere the federal deficit.
blu, We have always said that the unhealthy that couldn’t be underwritten should be in Pools which could have been supplemented at a fraction of the cost, companies should have been allowed to sell across state lines to create competition which would reduce costs. These were Republican ideas that were dismissed by our Progressive President and his followers Pelosi and Reid. Instead, look what we got in the 2,700 law with 20,000 pages of regulations, numerous taxes etc. Gruber made it very clear what the agenda was and how it was executed by deception and outright fraud.
KY, in this age of technology, I think you are off base on your assumption that insurance cannot be sold across state lines. If a company is home officed in one state, that doesn’t mean they don’t have offices to sell in another state. The products offered may be slightly different, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be done.
Agent – Of course they do that already. But Blue Cross Georgia can’t sell in Mississippi. They have to sell Blue Cross Mississippi in Mississippi. Boy are you dense.
November 12, 2014 at 12:28 pm
Sargeant Major says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Here is a Forbes article that includes Gruber’s American Voters are stupid comment.
By The way this was not the only time Gruber made the comment. There is now a second video according to the Washington Times.
One comment I saw is that Gruber was stupid for making the comments as now they can be used when he is deposed for trial and or used by the plaintiffs in the latest Supreme Court suit.
This guy has to be the dumbest MIT professor on the planet.
Sargeant, Michelle Malkin had the best comment on Gruber. She said this weasal’s s##t would make the bacteria in a septic tank gag. He went on the wonderful MSNBC and interviewed with one of their snot nosed hosts and said he regrets the statements he made. The only thing he regrets is being caught being brutally hones about what he did.
Actually, as with all liberals, you have to parse the sentence very carefully, as they’re very good at verbally weaseling out of responsibility. He said he “regrets making the statements,” not that he regretted the actual statements. Once again, it’s like “it depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”
Connie, Gruber is the gift that keeps on giving. He is up to three videos now saying the same thing about how it was necessary to deceive and lie to get Obamacare passed and calling the voters stupid. For this, we paid him $400,000 for his services. I wonder if John Roberts has been paying attention to these new revelations as he and the other court members weigh the issues of the subsidies in the law. A law that was passed by crooks lying and deceiving should not even be Constitutional. Perhaps if this information had come out before they made their ruling, we would have had a different outcome and the law could have been re-written and all the bad stuff taken out.
Yes Connie, our Impeached but not dismissed former President that everyone thinks is so great made that statement famous. His wife, on the Today show said that the prosecution was all the fault of the “vast right wing conspiracy”. Hmm, she changed her tune when the blue dress made its appearance. The Clinton’s are one nasty couple. Hopefully, Trey Gowdy will pin down her complicity on Benghazi. Stay tuned because he will begin questioning many more witnesses in the next few weeks that were told to keep their mouths shut and now they will be testifying.
Agent, I also appreciate your comment about Obama not having been vetted before he was elected. Libby seems to think he “passed the sniff test.” Well, the dictionary definition of “vetting” is “to investigate (someone) thoroughly to see if they should be approved or accepted for a job.” (Merriam Webster definition). We were not allowed to investigate this man thoroughly as so much pertinent about his background has always been kept under lock and key. We weren’t ALLOWED to “sniff” ANYTHING. I repeat that the man was elected because he is a glib talker who seems charismatic and captured the imagination of the people who weren’t even paying attention to how much they didn’t know about him, they only knew they liked him – a classic con man. Harold Hill couldn’t have done it any better. Sarah Palin may come across as a goofball to a lot of people, but we have always known a heck of a lot more about her background than we have EVER been allowed to know about Obama’s background. If someone came into my office and applied for a job, and gave the HR department nothing more to hire them on than “I am charismatic and a good talker,” but couldn’t give any definitive proof they could actually do the job they’re applying for, HR would never even call them back after the job interview!
November 17, 2014 at 1:23 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Connie – We had access to all the information divulged for any other Presidential candidate. Nothing was under “lock and key.” There is no candidate in the history of presidential candidates that has been required to publish their college transcripts. Bush refused to do so. Why weren’t you up in arms about that? Maybe you should do some fact checking before spouting off about that which you know nothing.
Connie, Stan the Man was a professional student who acquired three degrees, made applications to various companies for the past two or three years, told them how wonderful he was, how good looking he was and they still didn’t call him back. Why hasn’t he found a worthwhile job yet?
November 12, 2014 at 5:33 pm
Sargeant Major says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Agent, I have seen a lot of people like him. Think they are the smartest person in the room. Then they shoot their mouth off without really thinking about what they are saying. Then get their As* stomped and made look stupid.
My biggest problem- 1 he speaks the truth about his party and 2- MIT allows him to actually teach kids who pay lot of money to go there and listen to his bullsh*t.
Sargeant, the smartest in the room comment fits a lot of Progressives, some on this forum. Ronald Reagan once said the problem with liberals is that a lot of what they know simply isn’t true. Truer words have not been spoken.
How many names have you and I been called in the past 3-4 years because we have a Conservative viewpoint? We were right and they were wrong all along on Obamacare. They just can’t stand it so they name call saying we are morons, idiots and that is just the nicer names. It is nice to see how this has blown up in their face.
Sargeant, did you see the info that came out this weekend that our favorite Progressive Socialist professor from MIT did a little better than the $400,000 than the HHS paid him? This guy has collected about $4million from Federal and State contracts to spread his poison. Lies and deception can be very lucrative and it is very easy to pull the wool over peoples eyes.
What this is, on the part of the Democrat party, is the condemnation of their own voters. Here is a liberal Democrat, MIT professor who was touted by the Democrats, hired as a key ACA author and paid $400,000 to do it. He stands up and says what his other fellow Democrats think but won’t say. What is that? That their voters (Democrats) are not smart enough to take care of their own self. That government must decide what is good for them (not really for them but for their votes) and then enact legislation that they (Democratic party leaders)will be good for those stupid uninformed voters and in turn gets them elected.
Why do you think Obama made mention of the fact that only 36% voted when he gave his press conference? Why do Democrats criticize mid term voter turn out? why do Democrats reject voter ID laws? Because their own voters are apathetic? Or they are “low informed”?, the ignorant? or maybe it is to costly for the Dems to drive around, pick them up, drive them to the right polling place and tell them who to vote for? Or all of the above?
In my area the “get out the vote” initiative was just that- dig up as many “low informed”, breathing, that you could find, drive them to the polls and tell them how to vote. Then give them a little something on the side as a token of the Dems appreciation.
Then the city council wanted something for “delivering the city to Obama” as 97% of the city residents voted for him. Yes voter fraud and voting law violations were rampant.
Good one Sargeant. Of course, those on the left are going to call you a racist for pointing out the truth. You should know all about Detroit since you are a resident. My question is, are these city council people still on office and particularly the one doing the speaking or have they been drummed out by now. I was glad to see the bankruptcy petition go through so Detroit can focus on re-building instead of sinking lower into the abyss with those unfunded pension plans.
Sargeant, it was brought out last night on O’Reilly that the major networks of CBS, ABC, NBC had not devoted one minute of air time on the Gruber scandal. CNN had one brief mention on an obscure program that no one watches. Do you think we have media bias in this country? The Internet and Fox are all over this story with now up to 3 videos by the now infamous Gruber about his lying, deceiving and calling voters stupid.
Missing the point – Whether or not his comments were “true,” the overriding point is that they KNEW they were lying, they felt they HAD to lie to get this law passed because they felt it wouldn’t be passed UNLESS they lied, and this man’s comments, revealed in at least three videos now, reveal the overwhelming contempt and disdain that this administration has for the American people they are supposed to be serving. It demonstrates their arrogance.
November 13, 2014 at 12:02 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Connie – Did you even read the article? It specifically says all of those issues were exposed ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS to both Congress and the American people.
If you don’t know how group insurance is rated, then you must be one of the voters they’re referring to. That’s what GROUP means. Community rating. Some pay more, some pay less. That was no big secret.
And whether the tax is called a tax or a penalty makes no difference, as it has the same effect. The individual will pay. Period.
You guys, as usual, are making a mountain out of a molehill. Ebola anyone???
November 13, 2014 at 12:20 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Sorry Libby, but you can’t spin your way out of this by posting a leftist website “thinkprogress.org article. The facts are the facts and the American people have been lied to for 6 years to force the leftist agenda.
November 13, 2014 at 12:37 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Agent – you wouldn’t know the facts if they came right up and bit you. You expect me to read Townhall articles, which I do, but you won’t give me the same courtesy. Your credibility on here is zilch.
November 13, 2014 at 2:45 pm
Always Amazed says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Agent,
CBS is finally jumping on the band wagon. I wonder how those Progressives are going to feel when they hear how they got duped. Pretty stupid I would imagine. LOL.
> The Internet and Fox are all over this story with now up to 3 videos by the now infamous Gruber about his lying, deceiving and calling voters stupid.
That is because that is what Fox does for a living. Not that it is an actual news story. Must be a slow day for the Benghazi bashing.
Always, CBS is too busy hacking into their own reporters computers ala Sheryl Atkinson for doing truthful stories that were critical of Obama. Thank goodness she is out of there now.
November 14, 2014 at 5:34 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Hey always, the major media like CBS is a little late to the table, don’t you think? Maybe they have decided they couldn’t beat us so they can join us now that Obama and Obamacare are toast.
November 13, 2014 at 11:42 am
Sargeant Major says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Agent-
There will be a number of these because Gruber likes to get in front of a crowd and tell people how smart he is and how dumb everyone else is. He has a big ego, big mouth and he gets paid for it. I have seen many of these idiots.
I can’t wait to watch the Senate and congressional hearings when they subpoena him. That will be worth paid admission.
Sarge – for once you’re on the right track. He is an egotistical nerd that likes to hear himself talk.
Everything he spoke about was divulged to the public and Congress on numerous occasions in 2009-2010. Anyone with half a brain knows health insurance is “community rated.” Some pay more (younger/healthier), some pay less (older/sicker.) There was no lying about that to anyone.
And the tax v. penalty thing? Who cares what you call it? It has the same effect either way. And that was no secret either.
Can you guys get some REAL news to discuss instead of nitpicking every single thing spoken or written by a Democrat?
November 13, 2014 at 2:48 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Well Libby, if Gruber’s statements had come out before the Supreme Court ruled on the Constitutionality, the opinion may have been different. The Ponzi scheme would have been revealed for what it is, just a redistribution of wealth scam.
November 13, 2014 at 4:07 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
You really are dumb, aren’t you? This twerp’s comments would have had no influence on the decision.
November 13, 2014 at 4:22 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby, we will hold every Democrat accountable and even though you don’t think this is real news, it is for the country. It is too bad you don’t stay up with the “real news”. Yes, this election was all about Barack Obama’s policies which were on the ballot. The voters have spoken loud and clear. Voters: We don’t much like your policies or your governance and can’t wait until you pack your bags for Hawaii permanently.
November 13, 2014 at 4:30 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Whatever, Agent. I’m not defending Obama. I’m ready for a change, too. That’s why I voted the way I did. But I certainly will be voting for my favorite couple in 2016! Billary!!! Two, two, two prez in one!
November 14, 2014 at 5:32 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby, sorry the news is so bad for Democrats. I am sure you are exhausted trying to defend them. All you need to do is start posting the good news of the Republican victory and wishing them well to dismantle this garbage law and you will be ever so much more popular on this site.
November 13, 2014 at 11:17 am
Connie says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Sargeant, you’re just making too much sense! Preach it!! LOL!
Connie-
Well, I guess the truth hurts even if the socialists won’t believe it. LOL
Hey, want to see another video of a prominent Democrat that was on the Detroit City Council? This woman is John Conyers wife. John has been in congress for 30 40 years and is about 80 years old. He marries this numbskull and she is put on the city council. One of the biggest crooks in the Midwest. She got nabbed by the FBI for taking bribes and extortion and her husband skates and is still in Congress. Good news? the State of Michigan took over the city and put it thru a managed bankruptcy, got rid of most of the city council (either ran them out of town or put them in prison) and guess what? there is more investment, building and renewal than since the Democrats took over in 1964! In fact it recently made two magazines as the place to invest and visit.
I love the statement in the video from her that says “I might have committed extortion but I didn’t take any bribes” Ha Ha Ha!!! She got 37 months in federal prison. She should have got life without parole LOL
Good one Sargeant. It is good to see that Detroit has taken action to recover. I was struck by the admission that her husband was no where to be found to support her when this came down. Perhaps he has a new honey to keep him company while she is in prison. It looks like the rat’s nest of corrupt Democrats has been cleaned out. Let’s hope that the “stupid voters” don’t start sending some more crooks to the City Council.
Well Sargeant, the fur and feathers are flying. Nancy Pelosi was asked about Gruber in a press conference and she said, Gruber??? I don’t know Gruber. He didn’t have anything to do with writing the law. So my question is, why pay a man $400,000 to do his thing messing with Healthcare and then brag about all the things he did to screw the American people and then insult them for being stupid. I think Gruber was front and center on every meeting with Pelosi & Reid putting this travesty together. Her Botox brain is working overtime to make this go away. Let’s just move on to the important business of government ala Bill Clinton after Lewinsky.
Agent, yes I saw Pelosi and her Sargeant Shultz ” I know nothing” response. I thought to myself “she has got to be kidding”. You got to give it to her she has nerve to stand up in front of a mic and lie, deceive, cheat or what ever she has to do to deflect the issue from her. LOL
I think her face is pulled so tight from plastic surgery that it causes her to have brain malfunction, memory problems or has made her a pathological liar.
At least she stands up there even if she looks stupid. The community organizer in charge just blames it all on someone else. Remember he blamed the outcome of the mid term elections on his own voters- ” the 2/3s that did not vote”.
November 14, 2014 at 10:07 am
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Sargeant, Obama promptly got out of town when the heat was ratcheting up and went to Asia to make a bad deal on C02 emmissions with China. Didn’t he look great in that monkey suit they provided?
November 13, 2014 at 4:17 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Unlike you Libby, Supreme Court Justices do have some common sense and when fraud is perpetrated and exposed in a law, I don’t think it would be ignored when making an important decision on Constitutionality. Please give us one good reason why this law passes the smell test given the facts that have come out on it. In our view, it reeks with criminal behavior.
Gruber is the Democrat’s smoking gun and yet another video has just came out and is on C-Span at Holy Cross in Massachusetts. Thank God someone dug it out of the trash bin so we could see what came down and how he was a part of it all.
November 13, 2014 at 6:14 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
No lies, no fraud, nothing to this. We should just move on no matter what the evidence shows. Forgive me for not trusting Progressive websites for “facts” according to them. Since your computer doesn’t have sound, perhaps you should take a course in lip reading so you can understand what Gruber is saying and he is up to four videos now. You are about as hard headed as a liberal can be. You argue about everything that anyone has to say. I don’t know why Bob, Connie, Always and others even tries anymore.
November 14, 2014 at 9:03 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Agent – Gruber is this weeks Ebola. There is nothing he says that wasn’t divulged to Congress and the American people had they been listening.
35 times the words “community rated” were found in Congressional records. What do you think that means, old wise one? It means some pay more and some pay less.
Gruber makes a big deal of using the word penalty v. tax. I’ve said all along, what difference does it make what you call it? A rose by any other name is still a rose.
But you guys spend your time jumping up and down, blogging, holding investigations, and basically doing much of the same things you’ve done for the past 4 years. Meanwhile, we’ll be working on 2016. See you there!
November 17, 2014 at 1:02 pm
Connie says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
How could it be “all out in the open for everyone to see” when it was still in the process of being written? We all heard rumors about what would be in the law, but nobody had a chance to see it until it was rammed through. The only true thing Nancy Pelosi ever said in her life was “We have to pass the bill so you can see what is in it.” The lies and fraud were taking place while it was being written, before the public ever got a chance to see it. Gruber said one of the lies was to fool the CBO so they wouldn’t call it a tax. Yes, whether it’s a tax, fine, penalty, whatever, it all comes out to the same thing in the end – money taken out of people’s pockets – but their fear was if it was called one, it would pass, and if it was called the other, it wouldn’t pass, so they felt they needed to fudge everything in order to get the CBO to approve it. And they didn’t CARE – lying and obfuscation and lack of transparency meant ZERO to these people.
November 17, 2014 at 1:28 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I see you STILL have not read the article in my link.
“The Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation scored the individual mandate as increasing revenue by $4 billion in 2016, and, on average, “an estimated $5 billion will be collected per year over the 2017–2024 period.” Whether they viewed the mandate as a “tax” or not would not have affected their analysis because the economic effect is the same whether it is called a tax or a penalty. That penalty is collected under the Internal Revenue Code and policy makers have always claimed — and detractors complained about — the fact that individuals would have report it on their tax returns “as an addition to income tax liability.”
That same office — which produced a flurry of cost estimates throughout the legislative process — was also plainly clear that healthy people would have to subsidize sick people in a larger health care insurance pool. In this letter dated November 30, 2009 to then-Democratic Senator Evan Bayh (IN): “some provisions of the legislation would tend to decrease or increase the premiums paid by all insurance enrollees, while other provisions would tend to increase the premiums paid by healthier enrollees relative to those paid by less healthy enrollees or would tend to increase the premiums paid by younger enrollees relative to those paid by older enrollees.”
That concept of healthy people subsidizing the sick was also widely covered in media reports. In a Sep. 29, 2009 story titled, “Age and higher premiums go together,” Associated Press reporter Erica Werner explained that the various reform bills making their way through Congress rely on a concept called “community rating,” in which insurers would only be allowed to vary premiums by certain factors such as age, geographic area and tobacco use, within certain limits. Tying the rates of younger and healthier people to the rates of older and sicker beneficiaries causes the former to pay more.”
Perhaps you’d like to do some RESEARCH before spouting off. BTW – are you Agent’s wife? You sound just as clueless as he is.
Libby, you are STILL not getting my point. The point is, while the bill was being written, the people writing it were AFRAID of how the CBO would view it, and they feared that the semantics of words (“tax” or “penalty”) would increase or decrease the chances of it being passed depending on which way the CBO viewed it. They might very well have been wrong, but it was the way they FEARED the CBO would interpret it that caused them to indulge in lies and deceit to get it passed. And my point that I have been trying so hard to make has NOTHING to do with talking about community ratings, only with how the people writing the bill were trying so hard to get the frickin’ thing passed that they were nervous every step of the way that something would happen to derail their schemes. They were willing to do whatever it took, including lies and smoke and mirrors, to make sure it went through. I am not talking about healthy people subsidizing the sick, or what the CBO and Joint Committee on Taxation ultimately wound up doing, but what the people writing the bill were NERVOUS that they would wind up doing. What part of that is so hard to get through your noggin?? They didn’t KNOW for SURE ahead of time that “whether they viewed the mandate as a “tax” or not would not have affected their analysis because the economic effect is the same whether it is called a tax or a penalty” – what they were nervous about was “what if their decision goes against us? We better do everything we can and fudge the numbers just to be sure we get this thing through.”
November 17, 2014 at 4:37 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Well, of course they did. It was their signature bill. They wanted to put everything in the best light to make sure it passed. That was their job.
That doesn’t mean they lied. That only means they had concerns about the perception and wanted to do all they could to address those concerns up front.
Any good salesperson will tell you that’s how you sell. Are you in the insurance business? Would you present your program any differently to a prospective client? If you say you would, you’re not being truthful.
November 18, 2014 at 11:22 am
Connie says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Well, Libby, at least you finally got the point I was trying to make, that they “wanted to put everything in the best light to make sure it passed.” THAT was the point I was trying to make. However, I disagree that it wasn’t lies and fraud. Your opinion is “that’s how you sell” and asked me if I would do differently with a prospective client? Well, if I had a good or a service to sell, and I needed to use smoke and mirrors in order to sell it, I wouldn’t do it, even if I lost the sale. To me, “smoke and mirrors” is a euphemism meaning “not telling the entire truth.” Not telling the entire truth is a form of lying. You can’t be a little bit dishonest any more than you can be a little bit pregnant. If the good or service I’m selling is worthwhile, it wouldn’t need “smoke and mirrors” for me to sell it. I don’t believe in doing business via dishonesty. I do believe in karma – if you do something immoral or illegal, it will eventually come back to bite you. Maybe later and not sooner, but eventually it will. I was raised by my parents to be 100% honest in my dealings with people, not to try to tell half-truths or fudge facts or hide behind pretenses just to accomplish something or sell something. Jonathan Gruber openly admitted they lied – he’s PROUD of it, he’s BRAGGING about it – and you’re contradicting him by saying “no, they didn’t lie, no fraud here.” Are you saying he’s lying when he said he lied? He didn’t originally lie, but he’s lying now in admitting to lying back then? That doesn’t make sense!
November 18, 2014 at 12:18 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Connie – I understood your point all along, I just didn’t think it was valid.
If the fact that the young/healthy were going to pay to subsidize the older/unhealthy was discussed 34 times in Congress, how is it now a lie that this was never disclosed?
And if I want something called a penalty instead of a tax, how is that dishonest or a lie? I’m not saying there will be no penalty or tax. That would be a lie.
I think Gruber is just an egotistical nerd that likes to hear himself talk and thinks he was instrumental in duping the American people, when all he did was assist in writing a complicated law. Was it intentionally complicated? Maybe. Is that a lie or disception? No.
November 13, 2014 at 10:02 am
Robert says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
A million dollar question: Why won’t another tactic bounce the pin?
No need to insult you? That’s rich coming from you. Ha!
November 14, 2014 at 2:51 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Wise up Libby, according to Gruber, the young must be penalized with higher premiums to pay for the sick older citizens. Health rates have always been low for the young because they didn’t use much healthcare. It is no wonder they couldn’t get their numbers last year on enrollment. When the 11-15 enrollment starts, they will again have sticker shock. Young people don’t have any money even if they get one of those wonderful subsidies that may be overturned soon. After all, if they are in one of the 36 states that refused the exchanges and didn’t want to expand Medicaid, they are not “entitled” to subsidies.
Wrong Libby again. The ACA is a big POS as has amply been pointed out in the past week. Uh yes, Obamacare should be scrapped as soon as possible with a workable bi-partisan plan of the Republicans which was totally trashed. Universal Care such as single payer, not so much. Too much for a dysfunctional government to handle. They cant’ even build a website that works and it cost $1billion+.
Friends, I responded to your comments above. I only tell you down here because I know how forgetful you old folks can be, whether its forgetting to pass along a functioning economy with affordable healthcare, housing, and education, or forgetting to check a previous comment thread, stuff can get away from you. No hard feelings on my part though, at least for the comment portion.
I will hand it to you Stan. You have mastered the art of the insult. It must be all that lawyer education you are so proud of. By the way, you can thank your Progressive government for handing you a government of disfunction and an economy going along with 1.5% to 2.0% growth and practically no good jobs created. That is what Progressives do since you believe like Hillary that businesses don’t create jobs.
That is ridiculous. I am at the older end of the Millennial generation and I have been able to vote in exactly 3 elections, two of which resulted in a Republican president with republican majorities in both houses. To blame anything on young people is just lunacy.
Face it, you guys ruined the economy, you know it, and now youre looking to pass the blame. Grow up, Agent.
Let’s see, Slick Willy for 8, Bush for 8 and now Obama for 8 if he avoids Impeachment. How is that two out of three Republicans? Obama had both houses his first two years before he made such a mess on Obamacare that he lost the House. Tell me how he had so much trouble passing the law when he had total control in 09-10? Please spare us with the Republicans blocked it tactic. We have heard that sad story too much from the President. Perhaps the Blue Dogs heard the rumors of what was going on behind the scene with Gruber, Pelosi & Reid and that caused their misgivings.
I wasn’t old enough to vote for Clinton, just Bush. And he crippled the housing market, the financial sector, medicare part D, the debt with two unfunded wars, and eroded privacy as we know it in this country. I challenge you to name a worse president. You cant.
I didnt vote for either republican (I wont ever). But the only two presidents that have been elected in my voting lifetime have been Bush and Obama. So if youre holding young people to account for todays economy, recognize that half of our voting lives have been spent under republican rule (remember that, when Bush ruined the country?).
Though it is popular for the younger crowd to believe he did.
I will ask again:
How?
Just being president won’t cut it.
You use that same argument for Obama. Just being president isn’t why the economy is bad for Obama. It is his passed laws. QE, Stimulus, Twist, new housing regs which restricted the market, passed laws that taxed certain aspects of loans, so now the mortgage insurance rates have nearly doubled (I would know, I refinanced at a 3.15% rate and I barely saved money due mortgage insurance doubling) he passed laws specifically to ensure that housing costs would not drop (when there is a money issue and credit crunch and no one has money, you let the housing costs drop so the poor can afford a house. You don’t inflate them).
Etc.
What did Bush W do to ruin the economy?
November 17, 2014 at 1:44 pm
Stan says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Aside from two unfunded wars started on false pretenses, Medicare Part D, presiding over the near collapse of the financial system, not much.
November 17, 2014 at 1:59 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“when there is a money issue and credit crunch and no one has money, you let the housing costs drop so the poor can afford a house. You don’t inflate them.”
Huh? Housing costs plummeted during the crash. No poor people were buying them. Many people were forced out of their home that was now worth a fraction of what they paid for it. You’re delusional.
November 17, 2014 at 2:01 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Which was then gobbled up by the rich that had cash and re-sold to some other shmuck for a hefty profit.
The only ones benefiting from the crash are the rich.
November 17, 2014 at 2:03 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Medicare part d is still in affect, and is not ruining the current economy. Including Medicare part d, which helped people, there were still years under 200 billion of a deficit under Bush W. Which would be considered good.
Two unfunded wars? Raising taxes would not have funded them. I always love that comment from liberals, but regardless, Iraq is not why we are having issues with spending in current day. Even with Iraq, Bush W’s “unfunded wars” lead to deficits that were as a percent of gdp low. It wasn’t until after the recession started that we had issues with funding, and that has nothing to do with Bush. Take Bush’s years including Iraq, and you will find that they aren’t the cause of our debt either.
However, military spending in Obama’s tenure continued to go up. There were years under 600 billion including Iraq for the DOD budget. There were years over 800 billion under Obama. Iraq spending didn’t put much of a dent into our debt. It was included in the DOD.
Presiding over the collapse does not equate to causing it.
Democrats said there were not issues of financial soundness with the system while republicans tried to fix the housing crises. They said that republicans hated the poor for trying to restrict loans to the poor. It was something the republicans could never have sold. Blame the people who made it impossible, not the ones who couldn’t get it done.
You have a lot of slogans, as I said, but you haven’t looked at the numbers.
Do you have any idea how many times I have heard that one liner?
“two unfunded wars!!!” comes from someone with the IQ of a baseball. I am the one however, who knocks that baseball out of the stadium. You can be the ball, or you can be the player. You seem to like being the ball. Being the sheep.
If you had an ounce the Independence I do (which most your type thinks they have)
You would know what freedom was.
November 17, 2014 at 2:09 pm
Stan says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob, could you please elaborate on the relative IQs of both baseballs, players of baseballs, and of course, sheep along with their relationship to baseballs and baseball players. After that, we can move onto the even more incredible premise that:
“Two unfunded wars? Raising taxes would not have funded them.” As I thought that taxes, not deficits, was the responsible way to fund government initiatives. Or are you a conservative who is all for raising the deficit now?
Please use more sheepy baseball analogies if possible. It should be pretty easy for someone with your mental prowess.
November 14, 2014 at 11:22 am
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby, you just cant help the lazy. They either want to better themselves or sit around playing X Box. Some peoples opinions just are not relevant because they just want everything handed to them.
Yes, that is true. Sure, I paid 14x what you did for my education (in real 2014 dollars), but that shouldnt entitle me to a job any more than you should be entitled to the same tax bracket and regulatory framework of years past.
The world changed for both of us, FFA. Get used to it. Or do you just want “the old days” to be handed back to you?
FFA – I wouldn’t call getting 3 degrees lazy or not trying to better yourself. I think you are trying to compare Stan to others you know and that’s not fair. All he wants is a job so he can be independent and pay off his student loans. I don’t think that’s asking for too much.
No work to succeed huh? Well let me ask you this, what should 100k new graduates competing for 50k entry level jobs do? Basic math says that only so many people can work their way into a seat at the table. Say it with me now, the.world.has.moved.on.
Ten Resumes and Ten interviews face to face a week. Squeaky wheel gets the grease. Nag your way in.
November 14, 2014 at 4:09 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby, he don’t have a job, but yet he found his way into an insurance blog. Instead of posting in a forum for insurance professionals – he is not even a part of this industry- he should be out looking for a job. I am comparing him to him.
If he really wanted a job, the rule of ten is still valid. Instead, Career Builder supposed to be the magic bullet.
Oh and Stan, if you havnt noticed, the Good Ole days worked.
Still do as a matter of fact. They just hired a thirtysomething in here on track to become a producer. Doesn’t even know how to spell insurance and isn’t interested in anyone helping him either (Daddy got him hired.) He make more than I do and I’ve got nearly 35 years in this business. I think he’s written maybe $4k in premium so far…
Wow Libby, that might only be one package policy written or a small WC which doesn’t pay much commission. I have seen plenty of born with a silver spoon young men that Daddy brought into the agency and at least 90% just want to be handed guaranteed income/book and all the benefits and don’t hit a lick. After all, they are “entitled”.
They worked, but they’re over. That’s what he’s complaining about. Not sure why he’s on an insurance forum. Thought he might have had a call center job at one point.
It also helps when you destroy the rest of the world in a massive war, thereby eviscerating the need to compete on a global scale. Face it, FFA. There never was a “good old days.” Youre nostalgic for a time that doesnt exist, much like a child wishing to once again believe in Santa Clause. Again, time to grow up.
FFA, since Stan has struck out on the job situation sending out resume’s on the internet, he could try a headhunter whose business is finding people jobs. However, if he started giving the headhunter the attitude and his sad life story about blaming Republicans for anything and everything, I think they would send him packing since employers don’t want to hear that every day of the week.
lol Agent, that is so cute, thinking that employers care about what their employees think. Hint: they dont. Employees exist to contribute as much and to take as little as possible. Anything outside of that and bam, bring in the next body. You really dont understand how a surplus labor market works do you?
Try the rule of ten. EVERYONE I know that has stuck to it is working. But your much too smart for the tried and true so stick to what your doing while mommy & daddy bring home the bacon. Try saying thank you to your mom for doing your laundry while you sit around with the x box your daddy went out and earned the money to buy it.
Me, I am in Southern Cali enjoying the perks of my hard work.
You have a serious attitude issue, that for sure.
Agent, never did the head hunter thing. 10 resumes ten interviews weekly – face to face may I add. Got a DM at a captive to take a chance on me. Handed me a stack of apps, some books and patted me on the back “Go Get Em Tiger”.
FFA, what DM of a company would take a chance on smart mouth Stan? I am sure the interviews are short if he has done any. He is uniquely unqualified for any type of sales position in a captive agency or independent agency. Perhaps a law firm would put him on as their in house ambulance chaser. That might suit him more to go after insurance companies on auto accidents.
November 17, 2014 at 1:19 pm
Stan says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Thanks for the congrats, Agent. I’m excited too. I don’t have a managerial position yet, but I think I really have what it takes to succeed.
November 14, 2014 at 7:05 pm
Stan says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I do my own laundry and my dad is dead. But I do enjoy the Xbox, so it could be worse.
Also, out of morbid curiosity, what year was it that the DM took a chance on you? I assume that there were calendars back then.
June, 1990. No Guarantees at all. Straight up Commission. In Sept, 1990 WORKED my way to a 1500 MONTHLY draw against commissions.
Sorry about your dad. Meant no disrespect to him.
November 15, 2014 at 10:29 am
Stan says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
It’s ok. It was a long time ago and there is no way that you could have known. You’re still wrong on your politics, but I learned long ago that life goes on without missing a beat. No sense holding a grudge.
November 15, 2014 at 10:34 am
Stan says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Also, doing some quick math, that $1500 monthly draw is now roughly $2772 in today’s wages, or roughly $50k a year depending on your state’s tax rate.
Do you know what the starting wages are for entry level attorneys? I am not making this up. It’s $35k no benefits. Wages have actually gone down in the last 25 years.
The real disconnect is that in your world hard work was both necessary and sufficient. Today hard work is still necessary, but the sufficiency element is no longer there.
The world is littered with young people who have worked hard but cannot, literally cannot, get ahead because the jobs available just dont offer a future. Surely you can think of one person that you know who has worked extremely hard, yet has nothing to show for it despite their best efforts (perhaps an illness wiped out their net worth, or their industry collapsed, or their job was outsourced).
November 15, 2014 at 7:41 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
So dissect how far $1500 @ month went.
Rent, Phone, Auto Expense, Health Insurance, Tech Expense, Employee Wages. Even back then left me enough for Bowling Night, absolutely no social life at all.
I have no clue what starting wages in the legal profession are. I know that when my staff works hard, they get rewarded. Every year my producer gets something more out of me. Last year bumped him to $40K working 4 days a week. If your working for an outfit that hard work is not rewarded, then take the experience and move on as soon as you can.
I do know that the job market is terrible for you college grads. Wages are repressed. Way too many jobs out sourced. I don’t blame Obama for that, but the lack of anything to stop the flow of jobs the past 6 years is on his shoulders. Aside from ruining the Health Industry, that would be my top gripe with him. Nothing to bring jobs back home.
November 15, 2014 at 7:42 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Best of luck with your new job.
November 17, 2014 at 9:08 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
In 1980, when I first started in insurance (as a filing clerk) I made $625 a month gross. I think I netted $100-$125 a week. (Not sure what that would be in today’s dollars.) I had an apartment ($200 rent), a car payment ($75), car insurance, gas, a dog, and a Montogomery Wards credit card. If I couldn’t find it at MW, I couldn’t buy it. After all the bills were paid, I had enough on payday to buy a six-pack of beer and go to the carwash with my dog. Of course, being a single 21 year old female helped out at the bars and back in those days, they always had free food on ladies night.
Not sure why I felt a need to share this, just reminiscing I guess…
November 14, 2014 at 7:14 pm
Stan says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Actually, you guys will be happy to know that I think I have a lead on a new job. Its a type of sales, but basically what I do is I call up old folks who are unhappy with the status quo and I solicit money from them for conservative candidates.
Granted, the money just goes to the admins of the PAC and doesnt actually further any causes, but luckily there are no regulations around this and its all totally legal! All I have to do is promise old people that we can Take Back America!
I guess you all were right all along. Lack of regulations does indeed lead to job growth. And sure, it may look like I am praying on the vulnerable: elderly constituents who cant possibly accept that the world has moved on and liberals are not to blame. But thanks to fox news, there is a market for this vitriol. And given what I have learned from you all here, I think my future is getting brighter by the day.
Yes We Can!
——
You all might think that I am making this up. I can assure you that I am not.
FFA, Bob, and Agent – – what are your phone numbers? I am representing tea party candidates across the US and we need your help defeating Obama and his cadre of liberal terrorists. Please do your part in rescuing this great nation!
Are we going after intelligence because I said an expression that it would be interesting to see you stumble?
Don’t go after my intellect. I was forced to re take our WA state test in Highschool due to having a near perfect score. I have an IQ of 156.
My facts on the collapse of the government is more than “it was deregulation”
Instead,
I show the ratings and the commitments of each company that collapsed. I then show law suits, of firms who were fine but later collapsed.
My IQ shows in my comments.
Yours doesn’t. If you want to insult my intellect, you will be crushed in every single way, boy.
November 17, 2014 at 1:33 pm
Stan says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bobby, I hate to tell you this, but High Schools dont give IQ tests. Its SAT or ACT. You are one old millenial.
That being said, you are correct, your IQ does indeed show in your commentz. You dont have to have perfect ears to see that.
November 18, 2014 at 5:01 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob — “I then show law suits, of firms who were fine but later collapsed. My IQ shows in my comments. Yours doesn’t. If you want to insult my intellect, you will be crushed in every single way, boy.”
You have horrible grammar, punctuation and sentence structure.
This does not seem to be indicative of someone with an IQ of 156.
Just sayin’….
November 17, 2014 at 11:22 am
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Stan, did you not see the results of the last election? The Tea Party, in conjunction with other Conservative Republicans and a lot of moderate Democrats totally rejected Obama and his minions in the House & the Senate. It truly made the 2010 shellacking look miniscule by comparison.
Leave it to you Stan to go to work for a Ponzi scheme ripping off people. You are no better than Gruber with all his lies and deception about Obamacare. My prediction is you will not do well at this.
read the latest (foxnews et al) about the admin’s architects knowing “the stupidity of the voters,” when it came to this healthcare package
WOW!! What a successful plan! The projections are lowered by 30% for 2015; they expect reductions in the 2014 enrollment and still, let me quote, “the smaller numbers could give President Barack Obama a political victory if actual enrollment surpasses the goal.”
What a great country! Any (fill in the blank) can obtain victory!!
This could be an episode of The Good Wife…or ‘Yes, Prime Minister’:
‘Bernard: But surely the citizens of a democracy have a right to know.
‘Sir Humphrey Appleby: No. They have a right to be ignorant. Knowledge only means complicity in guilt; ignorance has a certain dignity.’
It wasn’t just the voter that was ignorant. Didn’t Pelosi herself say – “We need to pass it to see whats in it”… Tells me no one knew what we were getting into.
Pelosi may have said it, but that’s just par for course. She plays dumb well and has the ability to push her agenda with perceived ignorance. The leadership: Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader knew what they were delivering. They may not have known all the specific details, but they knew the primary direction and the clear disdain that the ignorant public would have if they knew.
PM, Pelosi plays dumb well and is dumb on top of that so it is natural for her. She, Reid and Obama all knew what was coming down the pike and the agenda ruled the day. Progressives have wanted Universal Healthcare for 100 years and look what they have produced. Their fix will be “single payer” after Obamacare is dismantled. Won’t that be great? Government, Government and more Government. Too bad they won’t be in charge to make it happen.
Freedom, your preach’in to the choir! I’m just glad to be in the majority, the ignorant, deprived majority, but the majority none the less….
Lord help us!
Well PM, we know the leftists lurk on this forum. I am sure they will weigh in soon when someone gives them smelling salts and brings them to consciousness. In our view, the smoking gun revelations are far worse than even we imagined. Do you consider this to be criminal intent or just telling a little white lie like Libby opines? Massive fraud is considered to be a crime. I think we have massive fraud on the American people perpetuating the myth of Obamacare. It is a good thing we changed out the Senate this time or it would be far worse the next 2 years.
We don’t lurk. We’re loud and proud.
This is random, but has anyone else noticed the tide turning here? Just a few years ago, the Obama supporters had all the “liked” or “well-loved” posts. A few short years later, and with only a quick glance over any of the articles on IJ with comments, you see that there isn’t much support for him any longer. :)
Didn’t mean to interrupt any arguing. Just wanted to point out something I noticed. Carry on.
uct – don’t know where you’ve been, but the liberals have NEVER gotten the majority of thumbs-up on here. The insurance industry is notoriously infected with righties. Everyone knows that.
In addition, have you not noticed the bid-rigging being done by Agent? The votes mean nothing as long as Agent keeps rigging them. He’s as bad as the AIG he keeps complaining about.
Yeah, not sure ive ever seen Obama positive comments ever get much love. What you will see from time to time are up-voted comments that call out Agent for his silliness. People really seem to enjoy that.
Hey, Libby, sometimes I just lurk. I don’t have time to be loud & proud. ;)
Freedom & PM, I agree the little pooper economist is a scum bag. His comments are very revealing.
However, don’t all politicians think the voters are stupid?
Hi FFA. Did you make it in with the latest Arctic blast coming in from the melting North Pole according to the Global Warming crowd?
Actually, certain Progressive minions did know what we were getting into, but they chose to pull the wool over the eyes of the citizens and lie to them including our POTUS who famously said 39 times on tape that if we liked our plan, we could keep it and if we liked our doctor, we could keep him and we would save $2,500 per family on costs. We have now seen the smoking gun on the elitist Progressive plan and many of us on this blog have been insulted ad nauseum by the liberal bloggers whenever we criticized Obamacare. I look for a lot more than a 30% decline in enrollments this year after the information is widely known.
Freedom: Did you say global warning and arctic blast in same sentence? The Polar Vortex is a result of global warming. Suffice it the delicate balance of weather is greatly impacted with warmth and cold in unpredictable patterns. No, I don’t expect you to understand the relationship, being too busy denying it and all.
http://www.catholic.org/news/green/story.php?id=57595
With cold temperatures so extreme and so early, it is difficult to talk about global warming. The logical conclusions is that the weather is growing colder, not hotter. You could be forgiven for thinking this. Yet, the polar vortex, dipping into the lower 48, is a result of global warming, not in spite of it
http://geology.utah.gov/surveynotes/gladasked/gladice_ages.htm
AA — you need to do better than to just include a link of someone else’s work. I dunno — maybe a thought or two to go along with it perhaps — that is, if it is not to much work for you.
Good one Always. It kind of flies in the face of the Global Warming/Climate Change folks who think man is responsible for the different weather patterns the earth has gone through. Your info provided is much better than the disgraced scientists who trumped up their theories.
Thanks, Agent. I’ve always said Al Gore should have been stripped of this Nobel Prize but then they gave one to Obama for a Peace Prize. So, obviously anyone can get one these days with out much credibility.
Your article clearly states that the data used in the report is “not global averages.” We cannot have a discussion about climate change on a global scale if you keep looking at results from a specific area of the globe instead of the earth as a whole. Global warming, after all, relates to the entire earth and not just a sliver of one specific area.
Please feel free to post other links to different articles you believe supports your theories and I will be happy to review them…I’m guessing, like the 3+ links in different comment sections of IJ articles, they will actually refute your claims once again.
Spoken like a true believer Celtica. Your Al Gore was on his bandwagon for several years saying the earth is getting hotter every year and said in 2007 that the Polar Cap would be gone in 7 years. Sorry, it has increased instead of melted. The cap has increased 1.7 million square miles and the endangered Polar Bears are just loving it. Only a Progressive would say that the earth is getting cooler due to Global Warming. Keep on parsing words and theories and we will keep shooting them down.
Agent: you need to let Nasa know of your extraordinary findings regarding polar ice. If endangered polar bears are just loving it, they wouldn’t be endangered, now would they.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/thick-melt.html
A new NASA study revealed that the oldest and thickest Arctic sea ice is disappearing at a faster rate than the younger and thinner ice at the edges of the Arctic Ocean’s floating ice cap
Your date is from 2012. Nice try. The last two winters, and now this one as well have produced more ice with the Polar Vortex which is caused by weather.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/19121-with-ice-growing-at-both-poles-global-warming-theories-implode
This article is from September 2014. It’s a bit long but proves the ice caps are increasing not melting away as Al Gore predicted.
@AA – I read the September 2014 article you posted and the writer’s arguments are not reliable. He claims “Global temperatures, meanwhile, have remained steady for some 18 years and counting.” Besides not putting a source to that so it could be verified, it’s pretty clear he’s wrong.
Here’s a nice chart showing global mean temperatures from 1880 to 2014. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201301-201312.png
Global mean temperatures have increased consistently since 1960, and definitely over the past 18 years too. If that writer can’t even support his opening argument with evidence, and the evidence available proves his opening argument is false, it’s illogical to believe he’d be right about everything else he’s claiming.
Not sure what’s so tough to accept here – global mean temperatures have been continuing to rise for decades. That means global warming is going on.
And while I find your graph fascinating, here is another article with more accurate graphs and logic. We are headed for a cooling trend.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-cooling-is-here/10783
@AA – I have to say, that article you posted which was written Easterbrook, was pretty informative – except for the fact that he admits numerous times that his graphs and charts and analysis are all based on his assumptions that we’re entering a cooling period. He does make a great case that we’re entering a cooling period, but again, as he admits, he’s just assuming that’s true.
Rosemblatt, You can believe what ever you want to believe and that is your choice. I believe the earth is going through its cycles as it always has and always will even when we’re all dead and gone.
Have a nice weekend.
@AA – You too can believe what ever you want to believe and that is also your choice. I believe the earth is warming up as all the evidence I’ve been presented with indicates.
Regardless, I hope you have a nice weekend too!
Dear Celtia, if you are too lazy to open a link then that’s not my problem.
AA – lazy no, that would be you.
If you cannot bother to state your thoughts in relationship to a link you post, I can’t be bothered to read it.
There, is this better for you? The truth has got to sting a little bit. The graphs though really bring the point home, sorry those didn’t come across.
Ice Ages – What are they and what causes them?
by Sandy Eldredge and Bob Biek
What is an ice age? An ice age is a long interval of time (millions to tens of millions of years) when global temperatures are relatively cold and large areas of the Earth are covered by continental ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Within an ice age are multiple shorter-term periods of warmer temperatures when glaciers retreat (called interglacials or interglacial cycles) and colder temperatures when glaciers advance (called glacials or glacial cycles).
At least five major ice ages have occurred throughout Earth’s history: the earliest was over 2 billion years ago, and the most recent one began approximately 3 million years ago and continues today (yes, we live in an ice age!).
Currently, we are in a warm interglacial that began about 11,000 years ago. The last period of glaciation, which is often informally called the “Ice Age,” peaked about 20,000 years ago. At that time, the world was on average probably about 10°F (5°C) colder than today, and locally as much as 40°F (22°C) colder.
Simplified chart showing when the five major ice ages occurred in the past 2.4 billion years of Earth’s history. Modified from several sources including Dynamical Paleoclimatology: Generalized Theory of Global Climate Change, 2002, by Barry Saltzman.
What causes an ice age and glacial-interglacial cycles? Many factors contribute to climate variations, including changes in ocean and atmosphere circulation patterns, varying concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and even volcanic eruptions. The following discusses key factors in (1) initiating ice ages and (2) the timing of glacial-interglacial cycles.
One significant trigger in initiating ice ages is the changing positions of Earth’s ever-moving continents, which affect ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns. When plate-tectonic movement causes continents to be arranged such that warm water flow from the equator to the poles is blocked or reduced, ice sheets may arise and set another ice age in motion.
Today’s ice age most likely began when the land bridge between North and South America (Isthmus of Panama) formed and ended the exchange of tropical water between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, significantly altering ocean currents.
Glacials and interglacials occur in fairly regular repeated cycles. The timing is governed to a large degree by predictable cyclic changes in Earth’s orbit, which affect the amount of sunlight reaching different parts of Earth’s surface. The three orbital variations are: (1) changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun (eccentricity), (2) shifts in the tilt of Earth’s axis (obliquity), and (3) the wobbling motion of Earth’s axis (precession).
Four fairly regular glacial-interglacial cycles occurred during the past 450,000 years. The shorter interglacial cycles (10,000 to 30,000 years) were about as warm as present and alternated with much longer (70,000 to 90,000 years) glacial cycles substantially colder than present. Notice the longer time with jagged cooling events dropping into the colder glacials followed by the faster abrupt temperature swings to the warmer interglacials. This graph combines several ice-core records from Antarctica and is modified from several sources including Evidence for Warmer Interglacials in East Antarctic Ice Cores, 2009, L.C. Sime and others. Note the shorter time scale of 450,000 years compared to the previous figure, as well as the colder temperatures, which are latitude-specific (e.g., Antartica, Alaska, Greenland) temperature changes inferred from the Antarctic ice cores (and not global averages).
How do we know about past ice ages? Scientists have reconstructed past ice ages by piecing together information derived from studying ice cores, deep sea sediments, fossils, and landforms.
Ice and sediment cores reveal an impressive detailed history of global climate. Cores are collected by driving long hollow tubes as much as 2 miles deep into glacial ice or ocean floor sediments. Ice cores provide annual and even seasonal climate records for up to hundreds of thousands of years, complementing the millions of years of climate records in ocean sediment cores.
Within just the past couple of decades, ice cores recovered from Earth’s two existing ice sheets, Greenland and Antarctica, have revealed the most detailed climate records yet.
Do ice ages come and go slowly or rapidly? Records show that ice ages typically develop slowly, whereas they end more abruptly. Glacials and interglacials within an ice age display this same trend.
On a shorter time scale, global temperatures fluctuate often and rapidly. Various records reveal numerous large, widespread, abrupt climate changes over the past 100,000 years. One of the more recent intriguing findings is the remarkable speed of these changes. Within the incredibly short time span (by geologic standards) of only a few decades or even a few years, global temperatures have fluctuated by as much as 15°F (8°C) or more.
For example, as Earth was emerging out of the last glacial cycle, the warming trend was interrupted 12,800 years ago when temperatures dropped dramatically in only several decades. A mere 1,300 years later, temperatures locally spiked as much as 20°F (11°C) within just several years. Sudden changes like this occurred at least 24 times during the past 100,000 years. In a relative sense, we are in a time of unusually stable temperatures today—how long will it last?
Glad You Asked article, Survey Notes, v. 42 no. 3, September 2010
1594 W. North Temple, PO 146100, Salt Lake City, UT 84114-6100, 801.537.3300, Fax 801.537.3400
Hours: Monday – Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Follow us on FacebookFollow us on TwitterFollow our Blog
DNR | Utah.gov | Contact | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Accessibility Policy
Copyright © 2013 State of Utah
OMG. You DID NOT just post the entire article!
Those are not your thoughts. Those are Sandy and Bob’s thoughts regurgitated by you.
AA – ah, the old age theory. Glad to see it is still in use. I didn’t see the polar vortex addressed though. Got a source for that?
You guys can deny it all you want. It doesn’t change the fact the we are still going through an ice age.
When i was a short order cook we used to throw a couple strands of cooked pasta or spaghetti against the wall to “see if it sticks;” then we knew the batch was cooked enough to douse it with cold water.
I guess that was partially how they cooked up this healthcare policy.
And apparently the Iraq invasion in 2003…
The Iraq Invasion. Lovely wording you chose there.
We didn’t invade Iraq. I’m not restarting this debate, it’s old.
Never have I seen such manipulation regarding a war as I have with Iraq.
Not by republicans. By you, democrats, and the people who cannot comprehend in the modern world how well Iraq was done.
Compare it to for example, North Korea.
Saddam is gone. He has been gone. We won the war. The problem is extremists there keep fighting. You call it failure to have continued conflict with Iraq. In our absence, the people there would go through worse, as seen with Isis.
One dictator or another, or one brutal force or another. Us there, 5,000 of us may have died, but we saved apparently 100’s of thousands from brutal murder from Saddam, and 100’s of thousands from Isis who would take the place in absence of Saddam. They need us. End of story.
It’s time to shut up about the Iraq war being immoral. NOT ACTING would have been immoral. As you are, Celtica. Selfish, and immoral. Iraq is a talking point for you. Not the war. Not the people. Not the lives. No not them. It’s politics.
How dare you!
I misspoke. The Iraq Invasion is better known as “the Invasion of Iraq” Invasion, invasion, invasion. It was actually was an invasion. Just ask Wikipedia to correct their entry and I will correct my understanding of the Invasion.
BTW, there were no morale grounds — it was pure and simple out and out debacle by Bush and Cheney.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq
The 2003 invasion of Iraq lasted from 19 March to 1 May 2003 and signaled the start of the conflict that later came to be known as the Iraq War, which was dubbed Operation Iraqi Freedom by the United States (prior to 19 March, the mission in Iraq was called Operation Enduring Freedom, a carryover from the conflict in Afghanistan[20]).
An invasion requires invading and taking over, a people.
We freed the people. We did not invade Iraq. I don’t care what wiki calls it.
And forget you, trash. Calling it an invasion and then talking like a little brat smearing it around.
You fake your bi partisan nature, which is why I went off on you here. You are claiming you support republicans, solely to hide this, this ugly face of yours, your true personality.
“Saddam is gone. He has been gone. We won the war. The problem is extremists there keep fighting.”
Yeah, the extremists by the name of ISIS that were former military leaders under Saddam. He was the only thing keeping that POS country in check. What a great idea to kill him and let everyone just run amok.
Nice job, Bush.
“You are claiming you support republicans, solely to hide this, this ugly face of yours, your true personality.”
Who’s got the ugly face here, Bob? You do. Calling people trash, immoral, a brat, and telling them to shut up. You need to check yourself boo.
Dear Bob: I dare. All the time. Now about the Iraq invasion, oops, the invasion of Iraq — it seems that Bush was very intent on taking over Iraqis. Take a look at the deck of cards and see if you see any familiar faces.
I’ll see your pair of 2 with a royal flush, Bobberrooo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most-wanted_Iraqi_playing_cards
the 2003 invasion of Iraq by a United States-led coalition, the U.S. military developed a set of playing cards to help troops identify the most-wanted members of President Saddam Hussein’s government, mostly high-ranking members of the Iraqi Regional Branch of the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party or members of the Revolutionary Command Council. The cards were officially named the “personality identification playing cards”.
Invasion:
“An invasion is a military offensive in which large parts of combatants of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering, liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory, forcing the partition of a country, altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government, or a combination thereof. An invasion can be the cause of a war, be a part of a larger strategy to end a war, or it can constitute an entire war in itself. Due to the large scale of the operations associated with invasions, they are usually strategic in planning and execution.”
Not the use of the word “usually” in the last sentence. This did not apply during the Invasion of Iraq aka Operation Freedom aka the Iraq War.
Don’t care Libby.
It was not an invasion as you and Celtica see it. You say invasion not for the definition you posted.
You say it for the sake of making it unmerited.
That’s what it means to you.
And by that measure, it is not.
Bob, Iraq was so well done that ISIS is running rampant with beheadings.
Bush went in without an exit plan and unleashed holy hell there.
Iraq was NOT done well.
Now Bob is redefining the English language to fit his absurd assumptions. He’s also the new Carnack that sees into other people’s minds and knows their intent.
Newsflash, Bob. Whatever you want to call it (by the way what do YOU call it?), it WAS without merit.
And it was done willy-nilly with little to no planning and no, I repeat no, viable exit strategy. Another knee-jerk Bush move. Way to go Dubya.
Dear Celtica,
When you give the enemy information as to the month and year you’re going too pull your troops out, hell yeah it wasn’t finished. Iraq wasn’t ready to stand on their own and when ISIS attacked they left our weaponry, which sadly is now in ISIS hands, they ran! This is what you get when you have a president that has NO military experience. Period. And calls ISIS a junior varsity threat then throws Clapper under the buss for his ignorance. Period!
Go on, AA. Stand up for your miserable excuse for a POTUS. He basically had no military experience either. At least none he showed up for.
Hussein, for all his cruelty, had Iraq under control. We decided to go in, kill him, and leave the country to fend for itself. What in the hell did you think was going to happen?
BTW, ISIS leaders are all former military leaders under Saddam. He had them in check. Now they’re free to wreak havoc on the world. They’re smart, well-trained, and have access to unlimited amounts of cash. Place blame where blame is due. Squarely on Dubya’s shoulders.
Hussein sure did have control. Especially of the Kurds whom he gassed to death.
And you started caring about the Kurds when?
I have said many times- Obamacare has fallen off the table. If this was such a home run, the Democrats would have been waving the banner and that is all we would have heard. hat has not happened, in fact most of the Democrats have run from it or denounced it. So, given they have gone silent, I would bet it has not been successful and my bet- a bust.
So let’s say they hit 10 million sign ups (Makes for easy math). What does that mean?
The questions are:
What is the net number of insured and how does that compare to pre obamacare? In other words are there more uninsured who are now insured today than pre obamacare? And what is the formula to determine the net number?
For example: 10 million sign ups, minus the number who do not pay equals X. X – Minus the number of people who lost their insurance and had to go back and sign up for Obamacare (Approx 6,000,000)equals Y. Now add back the number of actual new people who have signed up and pay and then you have Z the real net number of Obamacare benefactors.
Now divide that number into the total cost to all Americans including the billion dollar website that does not work, the cost of the “Navigators” including support, cost to those Americans who now have double/triple the premiums they use to have and 3x the deductibles, cost to hire the thousands of IRS numbnuts who are going to have to “pursue” those who don’t buy, pay the fines, The cost of the subsidies now given that were not given or needed before, the added burden to Medicaid, the added burden on Social Security (the 750MM taken out to pay for Obamacare) etc. etc. etc.
Using my formula above we have 10,000,000 – .30 (number who sign up but do not pay)= 7,000,000. 7,000,000- The people who were canceled (6,000,000) equals 1,000,000. Now add the costs and the end result is really bad.
Brilliant Sargeant! By the way, Libby doesn’t think a crime has been committed on this new revelation. Per the dictionary:
Fraudulent Misrepresentation – Instance of false statement where (1) the party making the statement is aware that it is false or disregards the possibility of it being false, (2) the party making the statement does so to induce another party to enter into a contract, and (3) the other party enters into the contract as a result of the statement and consequently suffers a loss.
This is Bernie Madoff territory and we know where he is because of his misrepresentations to investors. Gruber and Emanuel need to go to his current abode.
Agent, the Democrats would have to claim fraudulent misrepresentation since they voted for the ACA. I don’t see them clamoring to do that. Since Republicans didn’t vote for it, they were not induced by fraudulent misrepresentation. Nice try, but still no cigar.
In addition, you would have to prove damages. The ACA is doing exactly what it was designed to do – provide all Americans access to affordable health insurance. Where are the damages? That it cost more than anticipated? That’s not gonna work, either.
You need to give up this current line of thinking just like impeachment and repeal. Those dogs won’t hunt.
Libby, even with my estimated subsidy and adding three dependents to the mix (not covering them), my premium is still going up. It wasn’t affordable (old School definition) last year, and now I am going to get premium assistance and my premium increases?
I wonder how many more years till I am paying IChip rates…
FFA, I saw another example of how bad things are with this country. There was this “green solar panel” company who secured a billion + loan to build their plant in California. It is owned by Google and another large company. They have now asked for a $539 million “grant” so they can pay off their government loan. Google must not have any money now if they need a grant to pay off a loan. Why did we think Google had all the money in the world? I don’t think grants have to be paid back. Way to go Google for ripping of the American people. You are as bad as the government is now.
FFA – you had told me your premium went down. What changed?
Libby, I don’t recall saying my premiums went down. I got my hands on 2015 rates and ran it. I am going up in 2015.
You said they went down in 2014.
I just read an article in the Wall Street Journal that says there are alot of lower premium players entering the market in 2015 and it will pay to shop your plan. Just sayin.
Yes Libby. In 2014 they went down. But will all OOP expenses, I have paid more. NOw, 2015 – 2015, my premiums are going up for same plan I had in 2014.
Libby, Democrats don’t clamor after they voted for this travesty. Not one of them even read it before voting. They just went along to get along and hoped it worked out except in the case of the Blue Dogs who had to be coerced and bribed to vote for it since they had reservations. We know what happened to them in the 2010 mid terms. Now, we have dismissed a bunch of the rest of them and turned the Senate over to rational Republicans to straighten out the monumental mess. Hopefully, there will be an alternative presented soon although nothing can really be done until 16 when we see Obama packing up. This is nothing more than massive fraudulent misrepresentation on the part of Progressives so they could ram their agenda down our throat. Good try on the spin. Keep working at it.
Affordable is the key word here, Libby. We will not know how affordable or not affordable this is until November 15th. This is a HUGE redistribution of wealth where the healthy people are now paying a lot more for their insurance so their premiums can pay for the others who are on the subsidies. Is that fair? I don’t think so. Not all Americans are being offered affordable healthcare. Obama and his cronies have been lying to us since he got in office and as the days go by more “truths” are coming out. You libs would be screaming bloody murder if the POTUS was a republican and was exposed telling all these lies. Where are the damages? The damages are going to hit us all right in the wallet in just 4 days when we see what our premiums are going to be now that we have a bunch of “benefits” that we don’t need so some liberal progressive who smokes pot all day can have insurance. Nice going.
Always, rated are out.
It’s my understanding from the not-so-estimable Jonathan Gruber’s comments that came to light yesterday that the fraudulent misrepresentation was not to get the Republicans to vote for the ACA, it was to get the American people to support the ACA. He came right out and said there was no transparency and that they were counting on people’s stupidity. Did you see the video? It was very enlightening as to how these people think and operate.
I did not see the whole video only bits and pieces but I’m sure they’ll be playing it on the news for a while. It’s actually very evil the way these people think and operate. Counting on the stupidity of the liberal masses was brilliant yet diabolical. They couldn’t have played it better.
Yes, Connie & Always, the video is on everything from Foxnews.com to several other websites including Michelle Malkin, Political Outcast among others. It is the most asinine video I have ever seen on the net. I wanted to take that smug elitist Progressive dude and wring his neck. Arrest him and put him in the drunk tank for a while and then prosecute him. If not that, put him in front of a select committee and then prosecute him for lying to Congress.
“They couldn’t have played it better.” So now maybe you will give them credit for not being as stupid as you think they are. Didn’t read it? Of course they read it! They wrote it! They knew all along what they were doing. And the Republicans played right into their hands. Shades of Karl Rove…
The Republicans played right into their hands? How? By taking a firm stand against something that turned out to be a scam? Sounds more to me like the Democrats just hung themselves with their own rope, being caught on tape admitting that they had to lie, count on the stupidity of the American voters, and have no transparency, in order to get the bill passed into law. The Republicans wind up looking like shining stars because they can say, “See, we told you this was a big con game; there was nothing on the up and up about this and we tried all along to tell you.” Mike Gallagher said on his radio show this morning that the stupid people Gruber was referring to was not the members of the public that were dead set against this law; the stupid people he and the administration were counting on were the ones who they could con into supporting the law. Just like a used-car salesman; he knows pretty quickly which people who walk onto the car lot are the smart ones who know good cars from bad cars, and which ones are the gullible ones who he can sweet-talk into buying a pile of junk. The fact that this guy Gruber was caught admitting on tape that they had to rely on lack of transparency and the stupidity of the American voter or else the bill would never become law is proof positive of just how bad this law really is.
Newsflash, Connie. The American people did not vote for this law. Congress did. And yes, the Republicans played right into their hands by not being involved in the process. It’s their fault this thing went through as written. They dug their feet in and refused to participate and this is what we got. Thanks alot Republicans.
News flash, Libby – the Republicans were shut out of the process. The Democrats did not ALLOW them to participate. And nobody said the American people VOTED for the law. The administration wanted them to SUPPORT the law so that the chances of Congress passing it would be better. Congress went ahead and passed it anyway, in spite of the fact that many many American citizens were letting them know they didn’t want this stupid law. The Republicans really weren’t able to stop the law because the Democrats were so determined to get it passed and ram it down our throats. Should the Republicans have done more about health care when they were in power? Yes. That is their fault for not doing so. But when it came to THIS bill becoming law, the Republicans were not allowed to participate by the Dems, and the ire of the American people was ignored.
Well, I’m glad to see you take some responsibility on behalf of the Republicans. They have done nothing to further healthcare reform in this country. And you’re right, it is a BIG reason why people voted for Obama. The majority wanted it.
As far as I’m concerned, the law is a big turkey. I wanted single payer with a private option. But this is better than nothing, which is what we’ve always gotten from the Republicans.
Everyone reaps what they sow.
Connie, if your memory is like mine, Obama kept blaming Republicans for blocking his signature bill from getting passed when the Democrats had both houses. Another huge lie since Republican’s couldn’t block anything. The problem was with the moderate Democrat’s that didn’t like what they saw and resisted for a long time until Pelosi threatened them, bribed them so she could pole vault over the fence. This whole thing for 4 long years has been one lie after another and the lies have caught up with them. Thanks for weighing in. We need you, Always, Perplexed to offset the heavy load of Libby & Celtica.
Agent, thank you for your kind comments. I’m glad to chime in – I just don’t see how the Republicans can be blamed for “not participating in the process” when they were outnumbered in the Senate, and Harry Reid and the other Dems had no intention of listening to anything the Republicans had to say about the ACA bill. What kind of input could they have had, what kind of suggestions or advice could they have possibly offered, that would have been given attention?
They had plenty of time to participate before 2008, Connie. Instead they sat on their hands and blocked every move the Democrats made about health care reform. Why would we have expected anything different now?
So now even Polosi is lying and saying she doesn’t know Gruber but low-and-behold – there’s a tape of her back in 2010 saying his name and associating it with Obamacare. She must have short-term-memory or is just a pathological liar. Which do you suppose it is?
You can’t judge the “results” of Obamacare this early in it’s existence. It was never promised to “pay off” right off the bat. Only to give more Americans access to health insurance. Of course that’s going to cost money.
Let’s cut some of the fat from other programs instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water. There is plenty of room for trimming. I wish the Republicans would get started.
Connie, do you remember the famous Blair House meeting when all this first started? Obama, Pelosi, Reid facing down McConnell and the Republican contingent? They presented their ideas on Tort Reform, selling across state lines to create competition between companies and Obama said thank you, but I think we will do it our way. Gee, I wonder why Republicans were so opposed to this plan. Now, the opposition is vindicated with the revelations that just came out on the wonderful MIT professor.
Hey Agent, so much for this “reaching across the aisle,” huh? What do you do when you try to reach across the aisle and your hand gets slapped away? And then you’re accused of being the ones who aren’t cooperating…good grief.
With the new GOP majority in both houses, let them have a good go at creating the health care plan they always said they had — but that the Democrats wouldn’t listen to.
Nothing stopping them now…
You are right Celtica. The GOP did benefit from the Progressive Left’s terrible governance and ramming their version of Healthcare Reform through. The video shows graphically how bad this process was. By the way, the GOP just picked up Alaska to add to the total. Only one state left, Louisiana in the runoff. I don’t think the voters will be stupid enough to send Mary Landrieu back to the Senate. After all, she accepted the Louisiana Purchase money from Harry Reid. The net results in this rejection of Progressives will be 9 seats picked up. It might have been more had the video surfaced a few days prior to the election.
Freedom: Looking forward to seeing the GOP details of the new, improved healthcare plan. And if the GOP plan is to derail the healthcare plan entirely, this bodes well to sweep in Hillary for 2016 — and a Democratic congress to restore basic health care benefits.
I am glad the GOP took my advice to get better candidates this time around. And Palin was notably absent this cycle. That helped break the association with idiocy.
“Took your advice” right you make me laugh. So, you think that because we had the first mixed-race president – that didn’t have a record nor a resume to run on – and got in because of the color of his skin – obviously because his credentials were so lacking – that now we’d be ready for a woman president. Hillary legacy is quite peppered with quite a few things too. Another huge liar. And she’s distancing herself pretty nicely from Obama these days too. Does Benghazi ring any bells with you? “What difference does it make?” People do not forget so easily, Celtica. Derail healthcare? Our healthcare was derailed and you guys are to blame. 70K Humana customers are loosing their healthcare at the end of the year for more expensive useless plans for crap we don’t heed but have to pay for. That a derailment in our eyes.
Dear Always Amazed — you sound pretty bitter. Why don’t you just move it up a notch to sore winner.
Benghazi is in no way any comparison to what happened on 9-11. No way. Invasion of Iraq? Just brilliant. Exit plan? What exit plan.
As for the rest of your remarks, they are your remarks, not mine.
No,9-11 is not way in comparison to what happened in Benghazi and when did I make such a comparison? All other embassies in that area pulled out and left. Why, pray tell, didn’t we? Our guys were sitting ducks. And then our government told lie after lie to cover it up. I’m not bitter and I’m certainly not a sore winner either. I was pleased as punch that the GOP kicked Obama in his butt at the midterms. He deserved it. People are not buying into the race baiting nor the so-called war on women any longer. You guys have played those two issues into the ground. It’s time to start getting things done. Ried had 350 bills sitting on his desk that he did nothing with and Obama let him get away with it. In case you haven’t been following the news ISIS is pretty big in Iraq. And in case you didn’t hear after ISIS cut of an America’s head, our dear president made a 15 minuet speech and then went back to his golf game. Gee, sorry we bothered you, Obama. I think he lost a lot of votes from the Veterans too, and rightly so. He let go 5 top terrorists out of Gitmo for one deserter and let a marine spend how many months is a Mexican jail? Thank goodness Mexico finally let the poor guy out. Now if he would have been trying to join the Taliban and learning to speak Arabic maybe Obama would have helped him.
Always – what happened in Benghazi was a terrible thing. People made mistakes and four people died. What else can be said?
As far as kicking Obama’s butt in the mid-terms, you do realize he is no longer running for office, right? I, for one, do not fall for race-baiting or any so-called war on women. With that being said, there is no doubt we still have racism in the country and women do not have equal rights with men. Are things getting better? Yes. Are they where they should be? No.
As far as the deserter goes, hopefully he will be able to provide us with invaluable intelligence and insight into Al Queda. That would be the only reason I can see for making that trade.
Yes, Libby, I do realize Obama can’t run again and after the mess he’s made with this country I’m sure there isn’t a living soul that voted last Tuesday who isn’t as happy as I am.
“As far as the deserter goes, hopefully he will be able to provide us with invaluable intelligence and insight into Al Queda. That would be the only reason I can see for making that trade.” I think not. This guy wanted to join the Taliban, learned Arabic, as did his father who also grew a very long beard as did his son. Now if that doesn’t cause a bit of suspicion for you it sure does me.
I’m not an expert on this deserter, but I heard he just wanted to desert and come home as he was disillusioned with the war. Regardless, it still doesn’t mean he can’t provide good intelligence.
His father learned Arabic after his son was captured. He’s not a Muslim.
Palin is too busy sorting out the details of her family trailer park fight. Golly Gee the Palin Klan has good conservative Christian values. Anybody up for some 5 on 1 basketball against the University of Michigan? Sarah would, but only if she can be skins.
Stay tuned for the new improved Healthcare Plan Celtica although Obama will surely veto it and he can be the obstructionist.
Celtica,
This is grossly inaccurate. The democrats were one vote shy of being able to pass obamacare. If you recall, Snow (R) was a crucial win for getting the debate through the floor.
A slight majority does not give them the super majority needed to pass bills without road blocks from democrats, or a veto from the president.
The republicans had 9 alternative plans they presented during the healthcare debate. 9.
They never said repeal and put in place nothing. Not once.
Bob, Grossly inaccurate is if I said that the ACA vote was unanimous. As for the 9 alternative GOP plans, it should be a cakewalk to bring them to the floor starting with the new Congress. You can surely overcome a presidential veto if the plans are so vastly superior. Have a good go at it.
No. You can’t overcome a veto if a plan is vastly superior. There were of the 9 already vastly superior plans to Obamacare.
Grossly inaccurate is claiming they had no plans to replace obamacare with. You clearly emphasized you wanted to see what they could do, IF they had a plan to replace obamacare with.
They do. They presented 9. One of which was rated to lower premiums by 9%, of which Obamacare was rated by CBO to raise them by 9%. 18% swing. The democrats said the number of uninsured would be less in the republican plan.
Yes. By choice, because some people don’t want to buy insurance. Forcing them to buy it and raising costs for everyone is not a benefit. Hitting a magical number of insured is not as important as the costs. Explain to me the benefit of having higher costs with more people insured. The point of insuring more people was to bring down costs.
The republican plan of 2009 lowered costs, eliminated pre existing condition exclusions, and offered subsidies.
There were other plans offered to be passed at the same time, including many reforms.
The republicans had a better plan. Obama already said they sit in the back. If he didn’t negotiate then, he won’t now.
Greater than 50% of the public wanted tax cuts and spending cuts.
Obama refused spending cuts without tax increases. We call this austerity in Europe. The combo of tax increases (harms the economy) with spending cuts (temporarily harms the economy at long term gains) causes short term pain.
The public didn’t want this. Obama didn’t care. Republicans have had better ideas. Obama won’t suddenly pass them.
Having a better plan wont’ make Obama change. He shut down the government fighting against what the public wanted, in favor of his political platform to keep the debate of taxes and spending alive and seared into your brain.
He isn’t going to suddenly debate with politicians against his platform if he won’t change it even if the people want it.
If the majority of the people speak out and say they want one of these better plans, he’ll have a hard time using his veto power.
The majority spoke out against obamacare, and spoke out against his budget plans.
All that needed to happen was he labels the other guys as for the rich so you don’t trust them, and says they don’t have credible plans, and you the public as long as you hear it long enough believe it.
Ergo, you don’t know about the republican alternatives.
He will have an easy time vetoing it. People will forget, and he doesn’t have a reelection to worry about.
Bob, you can overcome a presidential veto with 2/3 majority vote of both houses.
Is it easy? No.
Can it be done? Yes.
Now please get those 9 vastly superior plans dusted off and astonish me with how quickly the GOP can get this onto the floor.
Thank you.
In fact, in 2010 elections the majority of people voted in republicans to stop Obama.
Then Obama spoke so well, when the republicans did what the voters wanted, the public got mad at the republicans.
For not compromising, which Obama made the new focus.
But compromising was giving up what the people wanted and voted them in for.
Democrats are good at this game. Republicans aren’t. You need to see this as it happens.
I see the climate flip against republicans no matter what. Even if they do what you want.
Whereas democrats have specifically gone against voter opinion for all their major bills. Stimulus, QE, buying bonds from rich companies to lower interest rates and also to allow them to sell properties at an inflated cost (that is what happened when Obama stopped property values from dropping) Obamacare, which like it or not was passed against public opinion, his spending policies and budgets, every thing he has passed has been against public opinion. And every time republicans try to go with public opinion, he whines about republicans not compromising, and says they don’t know how to compromise. Then you guys get mad (Ron specifically goes against what he wants in favor of this fake bi partisan nature) and say they need to play politics the republicans that is.
Then it repeats.
Bob – the majority of Americans WANTED healthcare reform. What we got was the ACA. Americans don’t like the plan we got but the majority are still in favor of healthcare reform. I think we all want to see a universal plan with a private option. Personally, I think that’s what people expected would happen when they voted for Obama. Instead we got this turkey.
If you guys can come up with something better, the American people will listen and Obama will have to listen too. He may not have a re-election coming up, but he’s still got his legacy to worry about.
Bob – you are wrong when you say the majority of Americans didn’t want the ACA. That’s the reason why Obama was elected in the first place. The majority STILL want some type of health care reform.
In addition, Democrats historically don’t vote in the mid-terms so it’s not a suprise you guys won in 2010 and 2014. Actually, I hope some things can finally get done.
And please stop acting like Republicans are all about reaching across the aisle, because they’re not. Especially the ones that drink tea.
Libby,
The point remains that republicans won’t be able to get anything passed, so long as a democrat is president.
End of story. It never has worked out, it never will work out. It won’t change, and it has nothing to do with republicans.
Bush W would have stopped democrat issues in 2008. You know you believe that. Even though as a side comment he passed tarp with their support as well as other bills. You know you believe Bush W could have stopped the same amount of democrats in congress. And you are changing that belief preemptively to call republicans failures when they can’t get past Obama.
You are in dire need of learning how to be fair in politics to both sides.
You know I’ll bite Celcita.
With equal democrats in office to republicans, when is the last time a congress and senate of democrats went past a veto?
You want republicans to pull of some miracle in order to earn your trust, and democrats simply have to show up and do whatever the hell they want.
This is what angers me about you. This double standard, where republicans should feel blessed to have the opportunity to get past a hostile democrat block, and veto. A Hail Mary is your requirement for them to be considered good, a miracle in the house and senate.
This is completely unrealistic, and frankly, so rude it should not even be thought or said.
It’s out of line.
I’m not calling Republicans failures for not being able to get past a veto. You misunderstood what I said.
I said, if the American people are so against the ACA and Congress brings a bill that gets passed with bi-partisan support and the people’s unmitigated support, I think Obama will have a hard time using his veto power. He would be basically giving a big “f” you to the American people. I’m not sure he’s that dumb. He might find another way to sidestep, but given the scenario I outlined above, I don’t think he would veto.
Reform is ONE thing. Tearing it down and rebuilding it and taxing the crap out of the insurance companies who in turn are passing all those hidden taxes to the consumers with our new higher deductibles and higher premiums is not want the Americans in this country wanted. This is a HUGE taxation and the Obama administration knew it but we the people were to stupid to realize it – hence the video of Gruber who came clean over a year ago with it but this wasn’t revealed to us until now.
I, for one, want every American citizen to have access to healthcare; paid for by our taxes. Just like the U.K., Canada, Australia and almost every other civilized first-world country. Our current healthcare system (which hasn’t changed ONE BIT) is broken. There should not be profit attached to healthcare. Period. That’s what causes fraud, over-treating, unnecessary tests and unneeded surgeries. All of which contribute to the increased costs. It DID need to be torn down, gutted, and rebuilt. Instead, it was jerry-rigged into this monstrosity called the ACA to appease Republican politicians. Not do what is right for Americans.
bob, you’re preparing excuses. Why can’t the republicans in office convince enough democrats & independents to over ride a veto?
From what I’ve read, many democrats (senate and house) distanced themselves from Obama and the ACA. Doesn’t it stand to reason that they can be convinced to support a superior solution?
KY JW:
No. They are preparing to blame the gop.
If all the gop stands up, it will not be enough to over ride a veto.
I blame the 90% of the democrats who will not budge, over the gop when a plan can’t get through a veto, that and the democrat president standing with that.
Why can’t that happen the other way KY JW, and I will ask again:
How many vetos have ever been overridden?
It doesn’t happen, it won’t happen, it will not change based on the good factor of the plans. We already had plans to change social security. Pay attention to how many plans the republicans have put up there in the last 30 years. They couldn’t get enough support to even pass one. This may have been partially the problem of republicans being divided, but only 10% of the problem. The 90% was the 100% of democrat opposition. You can lose 4-5 republicans in the senate (10% of a majority) and you will never gain 20% of democrats (4-8 seats if they are the minority) while losing that 10% of your majority. In history, we have blamed the democrats unified against republicans, but we have always blamed republicans unified against the democrats. What is happening is that Celtica and Libby expect the republicans to do what they don’t expect democrats to do. They should just outright say, “I don’t think republicans will do it because I am biased on the left”
Instead they are saying “I really truly want them to do well” while they are insulting republicans, saying Iraq lies, hitting home on politics that are over 10 years old.
I don’t support that crap, and never will. It shows dishonesty.
That should read we have not blamed democrat’s opposition to republicans.
This is a fact. Not an opinion.
When was the last bill that should have been passed that you believe the democrats blocked it.
Name one.
Now name me the last time you believe the republicans blocked something (hint hint Stimulus, Jobs Bills, The government shut down)
Pay. Attention. To. Political. Trends.
The ignorance here is astounding.
In advance:
I know the one you will list, it is the only that got support:
Keystone Oil.
Now how about for example, healthcare plans?
Most people believe they didn’t have any, they just blocked the republicans right?
The fact that this exists alone, is enough to prove my point. The public sees gop obstruction even when there isn’t any. They refuse to see democrat obstruction.
I still think, if there is a superior plan presented that some democrats will bail on Obama. There is too much anti-Obamacare sentiment (among the citizens) for the democrats to continue to support it blindly.
Democrats are politicians, and most politicians will vote what ever way they think will get them re-elected.
I think the senators up for re-election in 2016 are the most vulnerable and will be paying attention to what happened in their states. Not because they care, but because they want to keep their jobs.
Also, bob, I’m not suggesting the republicans have to “reach across the isle.” I really think (my opinion, no stats or trends to site) that dems will wake up and smell the coffee. It’s strictly self preservation.
Celtica,
Double standards. Talk is talk. Can you get 2/3rd’s of the senate and 2/3’rds of the house without 2/3rds of it in your court?
No.
Republicans do not have 2/3’rds majority. If they can’t get anything done they want, it is solely the fault of democrat politics.
How about the spending plans they put on the table, tax cuts and spending cuts? The majority of the public wanted that. That was the best plan. Was it put into play? Whose fault was it? Presidential and democrat. The president would still veto the same move if republicans tried it. And republicans don’t have a 2/3’rds majority.
Blame the people in the way. I’m about done with your comments and now fake attempt to show you want to give the republicans a chance.
If their plans are so good and the ACA is so bad, why would they have trouble getting some Democratic support?
Either you don’t have much faith in their plans or much faith in their ability to reach across the aisle.
Libby,
Again, you think politicians pass the plans that are best? I’ve seen your opinion on politicians. It changes when it comes to republicans.
And no to both of those, those are not the only options.
You like to think you’re clever in the either or options. You’re not.
Exactly the case is the following: Democrats have this thing with power. In order to have it, they need an enemy. In order to have an enemy, everything the republicans say must be evil. They do not agree with republicans. Almost ever. It isn’t about what they think about the plan. It is that they simply cannot pass a plan that republicans support.
Throughout history, democrats have rarely if ever reached over the aisle. And suddenly you think if a plan is good they will do it. Will republicans do a good plan? You don’t agree with that statement. You specifically argued that republicans would not do Obama’s good plans. Suddenly you think democrats will do republican’s good plans and reach over the aisle? They. Will. Not. They. Have. Not. You are saying what could happen and are ignoring history.
Ok, let’s play Libby, I’m sick of this. You don’t pay attention!
http://www.401khelpcenter.com/401k/meigs_2006_budget.html#.VGPSvWd4WuI
WAS THIS A BAD PLAN?
The democrats said it would benefit the rich too much.
Was revising housing regulations a bad plan?
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html
I’m sorry, I forgot, democrats said there were no problems with financial soundness, and said that Bush W was going to make sure poor people couldn’t have a home.
Was Mc Cain’s attempts to change housing regulations bad?
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/s190
Again, democrats said it was against the poor.
Democrats showed Paul Ryan pushing a granny off a cliff. They didn’t show his plan.
Paul Ryan’s plan was a good one. I’m tired of you saying what republicans should be able to do without any majority nearly at all, and an obstructive democrat congress.
Social security hasn’t changed. Do you have any idea how many proposals have been put forth by republicans? The 401k plans and roths are basically the republicans additions. Not one, was supported by democrats. Only the tax rate and retirement age.
On the one end democrats say that people will die and lose support from republicans. Republicans have put forth good plans. Are you so ignorant to believe that in 30 years the democrats have made any changes or suggestions to retirement? They haven’t. Republicans have. They are good ideas. I need to hear you say the words “401ks and Roths are good”. Because it was the same fight. And democrats didn’t pass that. Republicans did. You might, MIGHT get some cross over, some times. But most the time, you will not. Democrats have been set in their ways since they won power in the 40’s, and have since not changed their paths to power.
Bob, there is this little known negotiating device that has been known to work from time to time since no party will ever have an absolute 2/3 majority. It is called “reaching across the aisle.”
Try it. It just might work. If you’re not going to try, you gotta stop the whining.
bob, why are you giving up on the republicans in office? Don’t you think they can present a solution that democrats have to take seriously?
I just think that those democrats who did win last week had to have taken notice of the swing by voters. Politicians want to be re-elected; therefore, they want to do whatever it takes to be re-elected. If their voters want something bad enough, they better take notice.
Bob – they had no plan to put in place once they repealed the ACA. Please point me to somewhere I can see a synopsis of these 9 plans you claim the Republicans had during the healthcare debate. The only one I remember was something about vouchers. They may have had some lame ideas that they claimed were plans, but they never had a solid plan that would accomplish supplying affordable care to all Americans. If they had, they sure were quiet about it.
Pardon my french, but bull Libby. Unacceptable bull at that. You cannot make a comment that there were no plans without being so inept that it is damaging to the the safety of the public. That is the level of danger in your previous comment.
A plan has to get to floor to be voted on. They had 9, which were all blocked. They were not mumblings or fumblings of plans, other than the democrats refused to discuss them whatsoever. I believe 2 became CBO rated.
Vouchers was not the only plan, and that was regarding medicare.
The patients choice act of 2009 democrats tried to dismiss based on the number of uninsured. Your side hid them. The republicans talked about it quite a bit. You need to realize that your side hides crap all the time, and quite well. The fact that you and I argue, should scare you considering you don’t know what I know. And what I know are facts you should know. In itself, it is the reason to NEVER vote democrat. Unless you also count the Japanese internment camps and the absurd power reaches the democrats did under FDR, the worst president in modern history.
It was rated to cover pre existing conditions, lower the deficit more than Obamacare, lower premiums by 9% by comparison to no reform, Obamacare was rated to increase it by 9% by comparison to no reform, an 18% swing, and it included subsidies. Google it. It will be hard to find. Not because republicans were quiet about it, but because your side tried to tear it to pieces.
The number of uninsured is what they focused on.
Increasing the number of uninsured is SOLELY to decrease premiums and expand the pool of risk.
Not to be able to claim you insure more people.
So if the only result is they are forcing more people to buy insurance,
That is not a benefit.
And it is the only difference that democrats argued was bad about it.
They didn’t argue premium.
Bob – I will not say they had NO plans, they had no viable plans. Either that or the Republicans are totally inept at getting their message out. Which one is it? There is no way Democrats could BURY their plan without their complicency. Their strategy was to let the ACA pass and then fight it tooth and nail for repeal. Not such a good strategy.
You have a majority now. As Celtica says, it should be very easy for you to get your 9 plans out to the American people for their support. Will they?
Option 3,
The republicans had plans, put it out there, and your side is good at tearing it apart.
It is not either they had good plans that they didn’t convey or they had no plans.
The majority will not make it any easier without a super majority and a republican president. Your side will as always block any efforts.
You accused the republicans of doing that same thing, and suddenly now that we are talking democrats it doesn’t happen?
You are a hypocrite and a liar, and I’m quickly getting sick of this fake act to appear balanced.
OK, Bob. You need to dial it down a little. I am neither a hypocrite or a liar. You have your opinions and I have mine. If these plans were so good, why couldn’t the Republicans get this news to the American people? The Democrats didn’t have any trouble getting their news to the people.
BOTH sides are blocking. I’m hoping a Congressional majority may help some of the gridlock. That’s why I voted Republican this past election.
I always try to be balanced. I can’t help it we still disagree. That doesn’t make me unbalanced, a liar, or a hypocrite and I think you owe me an apology for saying I am.
As for a super majority with a Republican president? I don’t see that happening any time soon.
You are a hypocrite, and are holding uneven standards to republicans.
When is the last time a veto has been superseded?
Did you yourself talk about republican presidents (Bush W) stopping the 2008 congress and democrat senate? Yes.
You now expect a veto supersede, which rarely happens, are willing to ignore the democrats going against public opinion, and expect the democrats will play nice and it’s in the republican’s court with a slight majority.
You sure get all rosy and in love with belief once a republican is in office when it comes to expectations. And they never live up to it. Whereas you lie, (to yourself) in order to justify the actions democrats do as being ok.
I don’t owe you an apology. You are a hypocrite, and a liar (to yourself).
The reason is obvious: Fox News is the only conservative media station with serious standing against the big liberal media stations. And you and your side has labeled conservative reporting as untrustworthy.
The democrats are stopping republican plans, tearing them apart, etc.
Why was the stimulus reported on so positively by all agencies but Fox News? You answer me that.
Learn to see learn to hear. It isn’t hard to see republican issues aren’t given nearly the attention they should be. Nothing to do with republicans. Guess what you need to go on air? A station that wants you on air. Guess who is more popular to young people? Democrats. Who do the stations want on air Libby? Plus you have to pay.
You think they magically get representation? If they have a good idea it simply MUST be shown by the media right?
I have coworkers in media who would laugh at that. And so would you, if we were talking about a democrat issue not being covered online.
Again, being a hypocrite, and lying, in favor of democrats. I don’t care who you voted for, this mindset is completely irrational and old.
Well, Bob. If the plans are not good enough to garner bi-partisan support and the support of the American people, then no we will not have a veto override.
And I doubt I ever talked about Bush stopping the 2008 Democratic Congress. I don’t even know what those issues would have been. You’re putting words in my mouth in order to prove your hypothesis that I am a hypocrite.
Maybe an idealist, but not a hypocrite. I’m going to stop talking to you now because you have again turned into the irrational, name-calling Bob that I know and hate so well. You are so quick to jump down my throat and insult me instead of hearing me out. It’s not respectful and I’m not playing that game anymore.
Libby, you said you didn’t see a Republican Super Majority happening any time soon. I also think you didn’t see the devastating rejection of Democrats in the mid terms either. The voters comprehensively rejected Obama and his minions and you are still in shock. All the Republicans need to do is keep their nose clean, pile that legislation on his desk and they will be good. We have had enough of the Progressive agenda in this country or are you still in denial?
Agent – you’re totally clueless. I never claimed Democrats would do anything in this mid-term. I said I was going to vote incumbents out. Instead, I voted Republican because the Democrats were awful. I am so far from shocked as to be complacent.
“All the Republicans need to do is keep their nose clean, pile that legislation on his desk and they will be good.” Ha! That’s where they will all step on the d*cks. They can’t even agree with each other, let alone try for any bi-partisan support.
Oh no, my friendly curmudgeon. You are the one in denial and will be in shock come 2016. Mark my words.
Read it and weep:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obamacare-2015-higher-costs-higher-penalties/
So much for this be anything but AFFORDABLE.
Always, somehow I don’t think the average family will save $2,500 on their Healthcare costs. I have to go in on 11-15 to see about getting coverage for a client who had his plan that he liked terminated. It may be an ugly surprise. Tell me, what would have been wrong with allowing people to have a choice between what they had and what the government wanted them to have? We used to be a free country and people could make a choice between plans they wanted. If Obamacare was so great, they would have had new enrollees. Actually, as it turned out, the leftists had to force the issue by getting people cancelled (6 million)so they could get some people enrolled.
Bob, you and Libby have been arguing vetos and veto overrides by Congress since they don’t have 2/3 majority even after the election that was overwhelming. Since all this Gruber mess came out on how the legislation was passed, there has to be a lot of embarrassment with Democrats who joined in passing a law they didn’t read. I wonder now if there is enough sentiment for them to join the Republican side and nullify the President’s veto. I am sure there are more than a few who are now saying – what just happened here and how bad to I want to get re-elected.
You’re a joke, Agent. Gruber = Ebola. Move on.
Gruber, Benghazi, IRS, Fast & Furious, ISIS = Catastrophe. Didn’t your hero Slick Willy say we should just move on with the business of government after he got caught in his lies before a Federal Grand Jury? Shook his finger at the camera and lied again. An administration built on lies is not for long.
No, Freedom, me either. If Obama’s lips were moving you know he’s lying. Humana is supposed to be calling me on the 17th and help me find a plan with the same network of doctors and tell what my options are as well and I’m not looking forward to it one bit. I really liked the Humana plan that I had for the last 4 years. “If you like your healthcare plan you can keep your health care plan. If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.” Lies, lies, lies and more lies one top of one another. I don’t see how anyone with an ounce of common sense would believe anything thing Obama said or anything that he will say in the future. We should be able to pick and choose the coverage we want – not be FORCED to have “benefits” that we are never going to need. Let the folks who need maternity pay for it like the OLD plans we once had. We all have better plans now my ass. Affordable? What a flipping joke. The stupidity, Libby, is that all you liberals bought into Obamas lies, hook, line and sinker. And the stupidity in electing him not once, but twice is baffling. And this is what you get when you vote for someone not on his record, but by the color of his skin. A smooth talking nobody from the most corrupt town, Chicago, gets groomed for the presidency and you all jumped on the band wagon. He has the WORST legacy ever. Carter looks like a saint thanks to Obama. China is poking jokes at him! Our countries reputation is in the crapper. You guys took stupidity to a whole new level.
Wow, Always. Quite the spew of vitriol towards me specifically and all liberals in general.
FYI – I didn’t vote for ANYONE based on the color of their skin. Obama is what the GOP gets for not vetting better candidates. I didn’t vote FOR Obama (Hillary was my choice), I voted AGAINST Palin and then again AGAINST Romney.
Get some better candidates if you don’t want this to happen again. Take some personal responsibility like your party is so fond of saying to others.
Libby, I am with you all the way. The GOP vetted better candidates this time and bested the tea party candidates which is how they won the election.
I am for Hillary as I was in 2008. I liked McCain but Palin was a non starter. In the 2012 election, I liked having the ACA as a done deal (I might need it) and Osama Bin Laden also as a done deal.
How much will the new GOP congress get done? I will keep my eyes and ears open for the better healthcare plan that the GOP keeps saying they have. But look for internal jockeying to position themselves to springboard to the 2016 presidential election. That is what they will get done.
PS: For those who are unaware, Obama is also white. Just saying…
Celita – I actually voted Republican is this last mid-term. I am anxious to see if they will get anything done, but I fear the teajadists will not let them. Ted Cruz has already said he does not support McConnell and wants repeal of ACA and impeachment of Obama on the front burner. Both are time wasters and non-starters. So, I’m afraid we may have to get ready for more of the same. Until 2016 when we gain a super majority again.
Libby, we saw how your super majority worked out this time. Pelosi was saying a month before the election that Democrats would reclaim the House and the Senate would stay in their hands. Botox brain was slightly off in her prediction, don’t you think? Bill and Hillary have lost their luster as well. They stumped hard for Democrats under pressure, did all their huggies for the cameras and their candidates still lost, some by wide margins.
Blah, blah, blah, Agent. You are a bore. SNORE….
Libby, why did blue Pennsylvania elect a Democratic governor when other states put in Republicans? Was the Republican a dufus and get in trouble on Social Issues? Please don’t make such an issue on your derisive term for the Tea Party. There are plenty of Conservatives going to the House and Senate this time and they will make a difference and Democrats will be getting on the back of the bus for a change.
I had no problem with the current governor and he got my vote. The Democrat was a pompous ass that had no plan whatsoever. I attended their first debate undecided and by the time I left, the Republican had my vote.
Just what was the point of your post anyway? I’ve already said (several times) that I voted Republican and I’m hopeful there will be some easing up of the gridlock. Your reading comprehension is getting worse, no better.
Celtica, we are tired of you playing the “vetting” card on Republicans. Please, pray tell how Democrats vetted Obama prior to nominating him for President. He came from nowhere, nothing known about his background, radical associates of Bill Ayers and others, no access to educational records which are sealed and where did he get his Connecticut Social when he never lived in that state? He is truly the Manchurian candidate and yet you criticize Republicans for not vetting their candidates better. Obama is the country’s worst nightmare because he wasn’t vetted properly by the DNC.
What are you yammering about Agent? Of course he was vetted properly. HE GOT ELECTED! Not once, but twice.
You need to vet someone that can get elected. I’d start with Chris Christie if I were you.
The “vetting” Libby and Celtica want is to make sure the person running for office can get support from ALL voters, not just the die hard extremists.
No party can win with an extreme right or extreme left candidate. No matter how much you dislike the RINOs, they are your best chance at a republican president.
Just because he got elected twice doesn’t mean he was properly vetted. It just means a lot of people voted for someone they really didn’t know much about.
Just because you have questions about his backgroud (citizenship, religion, hometown, education) doesn’t mean he wasn’t properly vetted. He definitely passed the sniff test. Twice.
You know who wasn’t properly vetted? Sarah Palin. And it cost McCain the election. He had my vote until that monumental blunder.
Libby, where was your Personal Responsibility for voting for Obama twice, especially after the first four years of mess made? A dog catcher in Minneapolis could have done a better job. And yes, your side say Conservatives are racists for not voting for him. He had every chance to be a good President and he has failed miserably because he is all agenda all the time. A redistribution of wealth President is not what this country needs. Romney has some barnacles for sure, but he did understand business and the economy would be humming about now with pro business policies. Obama with his trillion dollar Stimulus created no worthwhile jobs and the economy has been poor with a 1.5%-2.0% growth rate. Every recession in prior decades came out with 4% or better growth rate and businesses started flourishing again. Your heroine Hillary has now said that businesses don’t create jobs in this country. We beg to differ with her on that faux pas and she will be held to account when she runs.
Agent – you’re like a broken record. Get some new material, OK? There was a landslide during both elections. Hold you party accountable for that, not the American people. It was a choice between a boil and a pimple. I’ll take the pimple. And Hillary will do just fine in 2016. Don’t worry about her.
And it was a landslide for the Republicans at every level last week – that’s why the map of the United States looked like it was hemmorhaging red. As for Hillary – I will never, never, never, never, never, never vote for someone who stood by the flag-draped caskets of four slain American citizens, including an ambassador, and looked into the eyes of the grieving moms and dads of those four young men and LIED by saying the reason they got murdered was the result of a video, when she KNEW that was a lie. That right there makes her reprehensible and despicable in my eyes and in no way deserving of occupying the Oval Office, EVER.
You don’t need to vote for her Connie. All the Democrats will take care of that for you. We outnumber you.
Regarding Benghazi: The reason for the attack is moot. The fact that it happened is the fault of the terrorists, not Hillary or Obama. You need to get over it. Blaming Hillary is like me trying to blame Bush for 9/11. He said it was Iraq’s fault. It wasn’t, it was Al Queda’s. How is that different? Oh! That’s right. Because THOUSANDS of innocent flag-draped caskets came home to the eyes of grieving moms and dads instead of just four.
The fault of the Benghazi attack is most definitely at Hillary and Obama’s doorstep. Didn’t the ambassador plead for help and no help came? Where were the President and Secretary of State when they KNEW this was a dangerous area and terrorist attacks were imminent and the ambassador was begging for security? And then they blame it all on a stupid video so they don’t have to look culpable? The sickening thing is that so far they’ve gotten away with it, and people still think Hillary would make a good president – ugh.
Is Obama the boil or the pimple Libby? The way he has governed, the entire country is covered in boils. That is what serial lying will do and total lack of understanding of how to be a President. He has just made another booboo. He went to China, negotiated the emissions of carbon deal. He agreed to substantially reduce emissions by about 25% by 2025 and China doesn’t have to reduce theirs at all until 2030. They are by far the worst polluter in the world, have built numerous coal fired plants in recent years and you can cut the air in Beijing with a knife. Does this sound like someone who knows how to negotiate?
Connie, Leon Penetta went to the White House and told the President that Benghazi was a Terrorist attack and they still sent Susan Rice out to lie about it. He even lied at the UN about it and Hillary was still singing the “video” tune to the grieving families when they brought the bodies back. They are completely culpable and Trey Gowdy is going to continue to expose them. He said the other night that he will have more people testifying that were told to keep their mouth shut on what happened and are now ready to testify.
Speaking of taking some personal responsibility – when has Obama EVER taken personal responsibility for anything he as done? Never. He blames everyone else but himself. Who did he throw under the buss not too long ago on 60 Minuets during he last interview? James Clapper!
Always Amazed:
Hello Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.
Hello going to war in Iraq under false pretense.
Hello draft dodging, AWOL Bush 43
Hello, Enron maniuplator Cheney (among other political and business manipulations).
Hello personal responsibility, meet the GOP leaders. I don’t think you’ve ever met.
Didn’t you hear that ISIS did find such a thing? Yes, the “Junior Varsity” terrorist group found some. You guys really need to stop watching CNN and MSNBC for your source of entertainment AKA news for liberals. And what about Solendra? Bush didn’t waste our money because he knew it wasn’t a good investment. How much tax payer money was wasted on them because Obama has never run anything in is life? Community Organizer? You call that business experience? Please..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-173198/Weapons-mass-destruction-found.html
Guess you missed this one…..
Always Amazed, thank you for pointing out what ISIS found. It WAS in the news just a couple weeks ago. Some people just don’t pay attention.
They haven’t “found” anything:
“Experts were trying to determine whether the site was involved in making chemical weapons, US officials said.”
They don’t even know what it is yet. Quit getting your “news” from the Daily Mail.
P.S. There is no mention of ISIS in your little story.
It’s like me posting something from the National Enquirer.
Connie, an undated article that states in the first sentence:
“US Forces MAY have found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, it has been reported. …”
does not actually make it true. And if we use the Daily Mail of the UK as a basis to go to war, then Bush was even dumber than I thought possible.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/08/04/have-most-economic-indicators-improved-under-president-obama/
Here’s another one for ya, Dear Celtica. I could do this all day.
Interesting. Which President had the highest job growth? The best one ever!!! Bill Clinton! Thanks, Bill. Looking forward to Billary in the White House in 2016.
Always Amazing — of course, you could post other people’s work all day — who couldn’t. But apparently, you cannot actually add anyting new to it. Just saying.
Not Obama though. There are more people on Food Stamps now then there have ever been but don’t let that burst your balloon. What is the unemployment with the black community? Last I heard it was something like 11% or 14%. I wouldn’t be jumping up and down just yet, Libby. Obama’s popularity has gone done in those polls too.
A tidbit on Bush 43:
“So, while the Democrats have spread this malicious, fraudulent accusation that he went AWOL (without a shred of evidence) with the help of the liberal media, George W. Bush released copies of microfilm payroll records summarizing the days for which Bush was paid in 1972 and 1973. Though blurry and hard to read, they reflect payments for 82 days of services in 1972 and 1973. Guardsmen were required to get a minimum of 50 points annually and they received 15 just for being members of the guard. Bush accumulated 56 points from May 1972 to 1973 and he accumulated another 56 points in June & July of 1973 meeting the minimum requirement of 50 points for the May 73 to May 74 period. Despite the clear evidence that he served, Democrats still keep the lies coming.”
AA – Who mentioned Obama? I didn’t. I mentioned Clinton. The best President EVER.
He and Hillary are going to be even better in 2016!
We have had this debate, you disrespectful human being.
WMD’s were being pursed by Saddam in Iraq. GET OVER IT. British intelligence was presented. Not “Bush W’s” CIA intelligence was presented. Bush W didn’t manipulate it. If you are angry about the WMD info, be angry at democrats as well, as it came from and was waved around by them. Hillary Clinton and Al Gore literally wove it around. Al gore wove it around to HW Bush, saying we had every reason to act. Al gore wove it around to George W saying we had every reason to act. Then he said he was tricked and wove around a new swan song after the public didn’t like Iraq. Same as Hillary. THEY LIED Celtica. Not republicans. They lied because they knew it would fire you up. Either that, or they are too stupid to lead. Which is it??
Google Al Gore!!! Read the convos!
Bill Clinton was quoted as saying something to the extent of “they have used weapons of mass destruction before, they will use them again”. And you still, ignorantly beat the drum against George W but not Clinton. Outrageous! How dare you!
Iraq was not went into under false pretense. Bush W spelled it out. WMD’s were not the only one. He wanted to inspect Iraq for Osama Bin Laden. Quiz question: Where as Osama Bin Laden found? IRAQ.
Hello Cheney did not manipulate Enron.
And hello, Bush 43 did not draft dodge.
And GOP leaders have plenty of personal responsibility.
Hello trashy voter who won’t put responsibility onto democrat leaders.
Clear evidence? Ha! Those records show he got paid. They don’t prove he showed up. The evidence is monumental that he skipped out on his duties.
http://awolbush.com/
Libby, Clinton (I never had sex with the woman) was a good president because he knew how to be a business man and work with the republicans who held the purse strings. We actually had a surplus back then.
I know. And I’m glad you agree with me that he was a good President. Can’t wait to have him back at the White House in 2016!
Dear Always Amazed — Solendra was a bad investment — but it was only 1 investment. Bush had several businesses he ran into the ground. Just like he ran the U.S. into the ground. Hello recession 2008, bailout city and stock market crash. Yeah, Bush has a track record – a very, very poor track record. Just call Bush 43 touch it and wreck it Bush.
Oh really?
http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/22/news/economy/obama-energy-bankruptcies/
You are a ignorant piece of trash.
Being president during a recession doesn’t mean you caused it. Hello democrats. Spell out what lead to the recession, which laws? What did Bush W do?
Moving forward:
Bush W having failed businesses doesn’t matter. He didn’t finance with government dollars those businesses.
Solyndra wasn’t just a bad investment. That isn’t what made it bad. Obama gave his friends government dollars. Literally. You guys try to say tax cuts are giving friends dollars, even though they apply to everyone. This was Obama, giving his friends government dollars.
Yup. Didn’t last long. Bob is back.
Sorry Libby,
That is trashy bull crap.
The Iraq things you say should land you in a mental hospital.
It is delusional, it is not ok to say. You focus on the circus town of politics, with tin foil hat garbage.
I see you as no different than agent.
Remember how I said we were alike?
Quiz question: With how tin foil hat Agent is on the right, how in the world do you not see you are the equivalent on the right?
Bush W Draft dodged right? There’s no evidence he served!
Obama isn’t a U.S. Citizen right? No evidence! Right?
Equal ignorance. And I give you the same reply you give him:
Forget you! You disrespectful crazy human being. This is not politics, this is highschool name calling.
Iraq was false pretenses!
Even when Bush W talked about why we were there, and said Osama was indefinitely in Iraq.
Then Osama was found in Iraq.
Bush W was totally wrong.
Even after we left, and people died, you people say the problem was no exit strategy.
We didn’t leave, and there was no exit strategy, because this would happen. They needed us. There is no strategy where they didn’t need help.
End of story, but people like you made it politics instead of need, and people, and lives. Look at isis, and the executions, and then realize the guilt, it’s Y-O-U-R fault.
And here you are bashing the one man who had the courage to go help. Military intervention does not mean corruption, unless it is a republican right?
You seem to thin Iraq is a threat if Obama says it, and if Clinton says it.
If you didn’t catch Libby,
Say crazy things, and I will go crazy on you.
You will say you are wrong about Iraq and you respect the president on his efforts there.
We will respect presidents and military efforts. Including Obama. It will be done.
I am tired of this tin foil hat bull.
Bob that was quite the incoherent rant. Impressive and vindicating all at the same time. Classic GOP, they hold contradictory beliefs that are silly on their face, but they believe them nonetheless.
Bob – I didn’t say Bush dodged the draft. He did’t show up for his National Guard service for over a year. Indisputable. I called no names on this thread. Iraq a WAS false pretenses. Bin Laden was not found in Iraq but in Pakistan as you have been so oft to throw in my face. Bush was totally wrong and all the guilt, shame blame and fault lays squarely with him. Period. Iraq was never a threat until now with ISIS. They are well trained, wealthy and nuts. As you well know that’s a very dangerous combination.
Bob – how can you expect anyone to believe you when you lie about even the most obvious of topics?
“WMD’s were not the only one. He wanted to inspect Iraq for Osama Bin Laden. Quiz question: Where as Osama Bin Laden found? IRAQ.”
You failed your own quiz. He was not found in Iraq. He was found in Pakistan. I have a hard time believing any other point you try to make when you can’t even get this simple verifiable fact correct.
Bob is not a serious person, just mock him and move on.
JK Bobby youre very smart with your two point mind and sound seeing skillz.
I told you not to be nice, Libby. In this game, play for keeps.
Stan, I can be civil and still stand up for my principles.
You do realize most people here don’t even pay attention to you Stan.
You once posted a blog opinion and told Agent he needed to read.
A blog opinion. For facts.
Let that sink in for a moment.
I saw your Xbox rant. I suppose you do play for keeps, when it comes to video games and or sports.
Politics aren’t sports. Politics aren’t games.
And a simple look at both sides will show nearly everything you have claimed about republicans has been:
A: Not backed up. You accused many people of supporting businesses by voting red. Prove it. I can show you how voting blue has specifically screwed over DHT in Oregon, and the Ohio senator who was making federal flight regulations in favor of one postal carrier vs another. He refused to take outside input other than from Ohio because he said he was an Ohio rep, even though he was passing a federal regulation. Show me some examples. I can also show the CRA ratings of the companies who failed in the recession, showing that the CRA praised the biggest failures for giving loans with little to no proof of income documentation, and were praised for giving higher dollar loans to low income borrowers. In order to expand their debt to net capital ratios, they had to have a high CRA rating. That is how you expand your rating. Look it up. .Gov sites have it.
B: Absurd. Your politics are mostly that of a young kid, who thinks he has things figured out.
Pick a topic you think republicans are bad on. Let me know why you think they are bad for the country.
Be prepared to be alarmed. Anything a young guy like you thinks you know, I know more and can easily research the sources again to back it up.
Your choice. Your court. Go ahead.
Bob, Stan is just angry that he spent 7 1/2 years getting three degrees and is wondering why no one will hire him. My guess is the potential employer gets a load of his attitude and they tell him to leave his resume’ and we will call you if we have an opening. He is still waiting. I wonder why.
I respect his degrees. I don’t respect the attitude.
I don’t think that’s the only reason he is mad. Kids need an enemy. It’s easier to find one with republicans than it is with democrats.
Really, the pitch line has been given to me too often.
“Do you want to help the middle class from the bottom up? Or the top down failed trickle down economics of Bush W? Boy have we got a load of fluff for you!
Man they give those tax cuts to the rich and then you get hit with the bill!”
It’s a hard pitch to not buy into. I was sold it. So were we all from birth.
Yes,Bob. Poor Stan really hates America because it is all the Republicans fault that he can’t get a job starting at the top due to all his education. I thought the rebellious stage was over when they at least reached 25 and saw how the world was and learned how to cope. He is like a little child screaming at his parents because he can’t get his way. He insults us veterans in the business as “Old Man”. Their mantra is to say how bad “trickle down economics” is when we have the worst tax code in history, but Democrats like Charlie Rangel wrote a lot of it. Their theory of Economics is “trickle up poverty” and make no mistake, Obama’s policies have created more poor people in this country and a very shrinking middle class. Lowest work participation in decades and enlarging the entitlement class with more food stamps, welfare and Social Security Disability paticipants who can work, but won’t work.
Robert, thank you for the kind words. I am sure that you do indeed know more than I do, as you have had many decades with which to accrue knowledge. That doesnt translate to a better opinion, but your wrongness is indeed rooted in more facts.
That aside, your silly defense of republican principles and Reaganomics has literally crippled the American middle class. In a free market capital flows to the top, it doesnt trickle down. Look around you for all the evidence you want.
And for the record, it wasnt an Xbox rant. It was an offer. An offer that I stand by, for you or for FFA.
Your friend,
Stan
Also, why are you guys so upset about a bad attitude? You all lilterally sit on here every single day lambasting poor libby for being the choice of reason, and I throw one “republicans ruined america” out there and everyone is all upset. You guys on the Right really need to toughen up. I mean shit, you all have jobs and wealth to protect. I literally have the computer that Im typing on and Bob’s jealousy-inducing Xbox.
Plus, I feel like I am getting a bad rap for being mad at republican politicians. I am not. I could not. Instead, I am mad at their constituents (perhaps you know of a few?) who demand their kinds of antics. People get the government that they deserve. And we, dear friends, do not deserve much.
Agent,
I know why people wont hire me and it has nothing to do with attitude. Its because the marketplace has little need for the skillset that I have. Which is to say, none. No college grads do, because the entry level marketplace does not exist after the great recession.
Why pay a kid to do something when you can get a GenX to do it with 5 yrs experience for the same cost? It’s Bob’s free market at work. I for one, if I could do it all over again, would take Bob’s advice and join a Union.
Stan – I’m sure you have many skills that you don’t even know you possess. If you’re not working now, why not go for an internship? You don’t get paid (which you’re not now anyway) but it will give you some well needed experience and a foot in the door. All these greedy business owners would love to have a smart, handsome man working for them for free.
Stan,
You like to insult regarding age often, it shows a lot about you, and shows you are probably wrong very often. I will clue you in on a little secret. One of my only lies on here is my age, solely because I was insulted for my age here. We are the same age. I grantee you. It is easy to spot my generation.
Moving on:
President Carter. President Reagan. Tax rates. President Clinton. Tax rates.
You are aware tax rates under president Clinton, when our economy expanded greater than any other, were less than half that of Kennedy or FDR correct?
Trickle down has been proven to 100% work.
Under Reagan, the labor participation rate shot up after dropping. It went up while the unemployment rate went down. Reagan’s plans work. This lie of the trickle down economics ruining the economy is that of a fool.
Moving off of that:
I said pick a topic. Is Reaganomics your topic?
Or was your pathetic insults the topic? Cool insults don’t make you right.
Sit down. Shut up. Pick a topic.
Free markets do not remove entry level jobs. That is pure insanity.
Show me any evidence to the contrary. You are stating opinions. They aren’t well researched opinions at that.
It has been proven that high tax environments get rid of low skill jobs. I’m not saying that is what is doing it now, since our tax rates are relatively low right now. But I’m merely saying this because you seem to want to return to the FDR mentality of higher taxes.
Bobby (you dont mind me calling you Bobby, do you? I feel like I can do it since were the same age and all, even though you dont know how old I am) —
1) you just got done insulting poor libby not 5 minutes ago. insults are par for the course here at the IJ. Stop being such a pansy and accept criticism.
2) the boom from clinton was because of NAFTA, not because of tax rates. and NAFTA was great at first, except when it wasnt because American manufacturing was no longer safe.
3) thank you for the compliment on being able to write “cool insults” It means a lot from a fellow bro.
4) want to play xbox?
5) I never said free markets destroy entry level jobs, I said free markets serve to move capital. and to simplify a complex topic, that means that capital flows up to the owners and away from labor because you, as an individual, are weak with bargaining power.
the owner of a business is strong, since he can fire you, bobby, for nothing at all. and he can find anyone else to take your place (for a myriad of reasons, automation, globalization, population growth, etc). Without unions to protect the rights of labor, management and capital have disparate bargaining power.
This disparity has a multitude of effects, the most pronounced being that they can force fewer people to do more work and hire fewer and fewer people. and with fewer and fewer positions available, they can require experience, which means that you dont have entry level positions.
youre welcome for the overview.
Also, Bobby, you say “one of my only lies on here has been to lie about my age.”
If youre lying about that, your probably lying about other things. After all, that sentence alone could be a lie! (ill wait for your brain to stop melting . . . )
Maybe you should stop being such a fruitcake and tell the truth. Or is that too damaging for a Republican like you, who is all for small govt except for the military and farm subsidies etc etc etc.
As far as I can tell, youre literally the only person on this thread thus far who has been found to be lying (by your own admission no less). Unfortunately, sweetheart, that does not bode well for your credibility. You should consider changing your moniker like Agent does.
Might I suggest Robbie? The Big Bobber? Dipshit Mcgee? All of them seem applicable.
You’re a funny guy Stan. You always say pointless crap.
Let’s talk facts. You will have to debate my incoming links. And you won’t be able to.
Libby and I already had this debate, though she has forgotten. The .gov links aren’t readily available but I can grab them for you.
I posted quite a bit. Read through it.
I know it’s hard to imagine reading, for people like you. But you should try it.
As a side comment:
I don’t say any insults to Libby like dip sheet mc gee.
I say she is trashy, I say she is ignorant (the literal ignorant, not insult ignorant, she doesn’t know what she’s talking about) and I make my facts known first and foremost.
Your post was insults, no facts, to hide that you don’t have any.
I’m going to enjoy playing with you Stan.
I admit it is a weakness of mine to crush high and mighty stupid people.
You don’t know what you’re talking about to do with the collapse.
You sound like trailer trash,
durh durh durh, dem dere deregulations!!!! That dem dere did it!
And then when I ask, “really? which law or deregulation?”
You reply saying absurd tar. It really actually is something that even though I insult you while you do it,
I like it. I admit I like to watch you stumble over your two left feet, metaphorically, inside your own brain, trying to tie your shoes and pull up your pants like a big boy.
How cute.
Dipshit McGee wasnt an insult. It was a suggestion. I am sorry you misinterpreted.
Also, I am not sure how you “wipe the floor” with someone on the internet. I guess it starts with lying about your age? Then posting links. Then research.
Bobbi, since youre on here fighitng with me, and youre my own age, why on earth are you a republican since youre presumably not rich. Are your folks? Or are you some country bumpkin who thinks that its manly to hate democrats and priuses and have some truck with big wheels to compensate?
please share your backstory. or at least make one up to go with your age.
And Stan,
When I say I lied about my age, I mean I didn’t correct you when you called me an old geyser or when someone else implied I was 50.
We have different standards for lying.
I have never said my age. But I know it’s roughly the same as you. I’m not in my 50’s.
Stan,
Your insult types, are that of someone I wipe the floor with because you have nothing to stand on.
Basically showing a person in my age, they don’t know anything.
Which you don’t. Why am I republican? I know how the collapse happened. I looked up FDR. Japanese internment camps, and burning food because he thought it would increase the cost of food. He thought that was a good idea in a depression. And he was so powerful, we still remember him as a great guy. If that was Bush W, it would be remembered as worse than Hoover.
Civil rights bill of 1957 goes ignored, made by republicans, republicans are called racist. Civil rights bill of 1964, a greater percentage of republican minority voted for it than democrats, and democrats are still racist.
Democrats as percentage voted for segregation more than republicans. Republicans spear headed the right to vote for women.
Democrats have been for power a long time.
On tax rates, Clinton showed lower is better than higher. Yet your side still argues that Reagan’s lower taxes (which is what lead to Clinton’s Lower taxes) was trickle down. What exactly was Clinton’s then Stan? That was still about half the rate as before Reagan.
On government issues, how do you think people win over the small guy like you? I know when someone is fluffing me.
Hey look here! See that big wig! We will take his money for you because we are nice!
Right Stan? Did you really buy into that? I’m not dumb…That’s why. You just said why is a guy like me who isn’t rich republican? It’s because of bull like what you just said, how you were sold.
Putin says he needs to be in control of wealth.
So does Kim Jung Il (SP)
So does every leader of nations whose real goal is power.
Your knowledge is amateur, and you have a good degree. Another reason I am republican. Watching my peers, disregard common sense in favor of slogans, and class warfare over actually looking at policies and laws.
Show me one. ONE LAW. Just ONE. I put the gay rights bill in Washington up, and then I put up the REPUBLICAN (yes one existed) back a few years ago. Then I went over how the republican one was superior. Democrats framed it as republicans wanting to take away rights.
No. The republicans supported the gay rights.
What they didn’t support was two provisions. One that allowed the governor to pass alterations without public approval.
Bad right?
One that made it so the government could fine churches that charged for ceremonies.
The democrats only put that in to be able to say they fought the church.
They even said it in public. It was solely to get the churches.
It shouldn’t be about “getting” anyone. They intentionally made a non issue a problem to have a dominated class they needed to protect.
The birth control issue. No one cared. It was $15 dollars. Then it became a battle of epic proportions. They needed an enemy. They only put it in for that reason. To battle the church.
I could go on, but you don’t read laws.
Show me one. Just one, law that you disagree with on republicans and why.
You are a graduate!
You should be able to thesis this out.
But I have NEVER seen a democrat in my age group do that.
THAT is why I am republican. People who act stupid who aren’t because of a mighty D who will take care of them, whereas the R will support the rich!
What a crock of crap. How the hell were you sold that with a degree?
Do you read political laws? Or do you read pundits commentary on political laws? I already know based on your commentary.
Don’t be an idiot. Learn to read.
Libby, Clinton was a good president because he knew how to work with the Republicans who held the purse strings. We actually has a surplus of money in that term. Obama spends money like it grows on trees. Here is a link to the national debit clock. We are approaching 19 TRILLION dollars. That is sickening.
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
There are more people then ever on food stamps with this administration and yet they boast that the economy is doing better. Tell that to the people getting Welfare who don’t want to be but have no choice.
WEll, AA. On whose watch did the economy fall in the tank? Enough said.
Obama was just handed a giant pooper scooper and told to get to work.
Being president when an economy fails does not make you responsible.
Point out how George W Bush caused the recession.
I need specifics. I am tired of your childish one liners when it comes to politics.
We have had this debate, and when I showed you the CRA ratings of WAMU, and that they needed them to expand, you finally said George W could have changed them or removed them.
I said, really? He tried in 2003 to do some changes, and people said he was taking houses from the poor (democrats).
So what could he have done? What did he do?
Laws passed please. Time to put up or shut up. And if you have nothing, then don’t repeat it like a parrot, and admit you are wrong.
Bobby, Bush removed regulatory requirements permitting subprime mortgages to run rampant. He also fabricated pretenses to take America to war. He permitted the NSA to turn their powers of observation on the american people, against the 4th amendment of the constitution. He destroyed the national debt with two unfunded wars and medicare part d, not to mention he was just a poor reflection of this nation with his idiotic one liners and texas gumption (prob why Agent likes him).
So yes, I admit that youre wrong.
Show me the Law Stan, that deregulated. Bush W did not deregulate. That is a lie.
I take it you’re talking about the patriot act which Obama resigned. He resigned all of the most controversial sections.
I warned you Stan, that I have researched this more than you. You have read blog sites, never .gov, not research papers. So let’s play, this out.
By the way:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act#Predatory_lending
“In a 2002 study exploring the relationship between the CRA and lending looked at as predatory, Kathleen C. Engel and Patricia A. McCoy noted that banks could receive CRA credit by lending or brokering loans in lower-income areas that would be considered a risk for ordinary lending practices.”
A bank that gave low income loans would be given a high CRA rating. Having a high rating removed your need to have as high of a debt to net capital ratio.
Now let’s have fun, you little child!
WAMU exploded by 20 locations in a few years, part of this was expanding their CRA rating. Let’s see what theirs said!
http://www.csrwire.com/press_releases/24193-Washington-Mutual-wins-2003-CRA-Community-Impact-Award
“Washington Mutual’s Community Access program is a combination of loan products and services that make it easier for low- to moderate-income (LMI) borrowers to achieve homeownership. The program, launched in 2002, combines a flexible menu of loan products that can be personalized to meet the unique financial needs of customers, even when their loan may fall outside typical credit, income or debt constraints. Last year, more than 5,000 loans totaling more than $795 million were originated. ”
Emphasis on “d to meet the unique financial needs of customers, even when their loan may fall outside typical credit, income or debt constraints”
Let’s look at the rating itself:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/933136/000104746908002083/a2182890z10-k.htm
“One such statutory provision requires the Board to have received notice from the Massachusetts Housing Partnership Fund (the “MHPF”) that satisfactory arrangements have been made by Lehman Brothers consistent with statute and the MHPF’s various affordable housing loan programs. The Board received notice from the MHPF that arrangements satisfactory to it had been made for this transaction in a letter dated January 11, 2007″
What do you notice? In order to buy, expand, etc, you needed to meet the CRA regs showing you gave loans to low income housing.
http://www.mass.gov/ocabr/banking-and-finance/laws-and-regulations/opinions-and-decisions/2007-dob-decisions/february-13-2007-1.html
This allowed Leahman brothers to buy companies. They could not if they did not meet these requirements.
This is only to show regulation caused the collapse. Regulation required banks and financial institutions in growth to give loans. They tracked it. WAMU collapsed. Leahman Brothers collapsed.
A little history on CRA Regs, just a research paper, but it would do you good.
Now on to the sweet spots:
WAMU, Leahman Brothers, all were given high CRA ratings in 2006 and 2007 for providing loans to consumers with “little to no proof of income documentation”‘
http://www.swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/arbeitspapiere/The_Negative_Impact_of_Credit_Rating_Agencies_KS.pdf
The most important part, which I’m sure you will say from wikipedia, is that most democrats say that CRA regs don’t apply to all loans, and that it didn’t cause the crises.
I can show how it did with Leahman and Wamu. They both made CRA commitments to get a higher rating. One to buy companies, and one to expand their locations. Wamu to expand, Leahman to buy.
WAMU made a commitment I already showed you above. It earned them a higher CRA rating. They then expanded past their breaking point. They collapsed.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/countrywide-expands-commitment-to-1-trillion-in-home-loans-to-minority-and-lower-income-borrowers-54027497.html
Country wide also collapsed. Why did they make a $1 trillion dollar commitment? If they knew it would hurt them why?
They knew the government would help for one, but for two, it was the only way to earn the CRA ratings they needed to conduct business. If they didn’t have the high CRA rating, they couldn’t buy companies, they couldn’t have higher debt to net capital ratings, etc.
You are a two point mind. I am not.
You have not looked into this.
I have.
To call me ill researched, I laugh at the infantile amount of research you have done into this, and your two sentence comment about what George W Bush did to cause this is nothing short of insulting to humanity. You offered no proof, no law, nothing!
Ignorance astounds me in our age group Stan, you have a degree, learn to research on important matters, kid.
What is a two-point mind?
Someone who grabs two points, to make a point.
See your comment prior.
You said Bush W deregulated, then you said he passed the greatest security threat to privacy, which Obama re passed all the most controversial sections.
Two points of reference data to make a point.
I just used what…10? All showing the same point.
The fact that I can show 3 firms that made CRA commitments to low income housing, totaling over 1.5 trillion, shows that they did do this to get high CRA ratings and expand, DUE to regulation. Not because of a lack of it.
It shows directly how they collapsed. They aren’t the only ones. Then we have the companies that insured those types of loans, or bought them from the companies that made them. They did this WITH government assistance, guarantee, and regulations, not against them.
Libby and I already had this debate, and eventually after I showed her some 50 companies, she finally admitted that I was right about the banking side of the collapse, but that it didn’t matter. Bush W could have fixed it was how she finally argued. Then I pointed to the fact he did, and instantly people said he was against low income housing (the poor) and he never would have had the support to stop banks from giving loans to low income earners with little to no proof of earnings documentation.
So you can admit you were wrong about how the economy collapsed now.
Or I can show you more of these companies if you prefer.
How about Obama and other Lawyers suing Citi Bank for redlining against low income earners? They also collapsed.
Every time someone even said the words CRA, whether to sue a company, or to get a commitment to CRA loans, that firm collapsed.
Really Stan.
Citibank is the best example, because they were sued specifically for not giving low income loans.
Then about ten years later they went bankrupt for giving low income loans.
The government is exactly why they were pressured into that.
These companies had the government forcing a path of business that would never have worked out.
Check your facts, Bob. Law professor Michael S. Barr, a Treasury Department official under President Clinton, stated that approximately 50% of subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA, and another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates. Barr noted that institutions fully regulated by CRA made “perhaps one in four” sub-prime loans, and that “the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight”.
So much for CRA causing the crash. Next?
Libby,
The government says a lot of things. Check my links.
It doesn’t make what they say correct. Not every loan is CRA. As I told you before. But every company is bound by CRA regulations to not red line if they are to buy companies, sell, merge, or exceed certain debt to net capital ratios.
Leahman brothers did fail for what I put above. WAMU did as well. So did Country, so did Citibank.
You are the one who needs to fact check. Again: Not all loans are CRA. Not all CRA loans even are regarding low income. That’s obviously a true statement Libby. You are so blind you don’t look at what is relevant truth.
I don’t disagree with the comment you just said.
Your comment however does not disprove mine.
The loans that did fail, which were not always CRA loans, came from trying to expand loans to low income earners, and to have the government sign off on it.
It is very clear that nearly every company who made this commitment failed. And they always referenced the CRA when they did it, even though the loans they were making were NOT CRA.
We have Leahman, WAMU, Citibank, and Country. Do I need to pull more who failed?
Fannie and Freddie both also worked in these markets.
There is 6. Do you want more?
The commitments to low income housing caused this collapse. Those commitments were done to be given higher ratings in order to expand.
Ok, seeing as you don’t know this Libby:
CRA regulations are not the same as CRA loans.
You say the statement that the loans that failed were not CRA so CRA had nothing to do with the collapse.
Every company that has FDIC insurance, (most the whole industry) is subject to CRA loans, especially to grow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act
“The Act mandates that all banking institutions that receive Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insurance be evaluated by Federal banking agencies to determine if the bank offers credit (in a manner consistent with safe and sound operation as per Section 802(b) and Section 804(1)) in all communities in which they are chartered to do business”
“An institution’s CRA compliance record is taken into account by the banking regulatory agencies when the institution seeks to expand through merger, acquisition or branching. ”
Everyone says what CRA was “intended” to do when they say the law isn’t meant to force low income loans.
However, firms had to have a high CRA rating to merge, buy, expand, etc.
What ended up happening is banks who were not making a lot of CRA loans, who had FDIC insurance, (most) started making agreements to make low income loans to expand their CRA rating.
CRA ratings are available online. The government signed off on this. They graded it by the median loan, vs the median income. If you had a low median income and gave them loans, they said your record was outstanding in the low income neighborhoods and gave you a high rating.
Due to this, companies began giving out these loans. The government would back them, they were FDIC insured, they had the blessing. There was no risk. This caused the collapse.
It is a fact.
Bob you love links, and Libby sends you one with your preferred .gov domain, and your response is a wikipedia link, Bro?
What happened to all that lofty research that you were toting earlier? Cant you break it down into sheep and baseballs for us?
“It is very clear that nearly every company who made this commitment failed. And they always referenced the CRA when they did it, even though the loans they were making were NOT CRA.” Huh?
They can reference whatever they want, that doesn’t make it so. The fact that 50% of the loans were given by mortgage companies NOT REGULATED BY CRA speaks for itself. If they aren’t regulated by CRA, how can they blame the CRA for their crappy loans? It was greed, not the CRA that caused this glut.
That should read that every company that is FDIC insured is subject to CRA regulations, not CRA loans.
You take these governments at face value when a democrat sponsored person says it.
Then when a republican says it they most be lying.
You listen to pundits, and politicians. I look up the ratings for myself, and then I find out why they gave the loans by piecing together facts to make a sound theory.
You need to start doing this.
I gave you the tools. CRA ratings, and CRA commitments, of firms that failed. Proof that they needed high CRA ratings to expand, buy, and merge.
Proof of companies that did it. WAMU did do this. It is not an opinion. Do you disagree? If you don’t, you agree with my methodology. I gave you 6 examples.
If you want I can pull the records for any company that failed. Just give me the name. CRA ratings are available on-line, and then you simply google if the company made low income commitments prior to their expansion.
Think on your own two feet.
Stan,
WIKI itself was only to show two comments.
Do you dispute the two comments I put up?
Stop going after the source and the character. Do you dispute the two comments I used Wikipedia to state?
If you do, you’re wrong. That easy.
I ignored Libby’s piece because it is irrelevant. Any FDIC insured bank is subject to CRA regulations.
Not all loans are CRA loans. This is what Libby isn’t seeing. That is why her info is incorrect.
NPR is known for being democrat.
Most if not all banks are FDIC insured.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2009/04/do_banks_need_the_fdic.html
That means most if not all banks were subject to CRA regulations when it came to growth, expansion, etc.
Again,
Give me bank names that failed. I showed you 6 that used the CRA to grow without risk.
Each of the 6 I showed you did not primarily give CRA loans. They made commitments to loans for the poor, which were not majority CRA loans.
NPR is known for being democratic, but you use NPR links?
Bobby, get back to what you know man, baseball, sheep, and seeing sound.
Stan,
You’re like a Labrador puppy. Only you have spikes. It’s actually hard for me to insult you. That’s why I have backed off. I feel sorry for you. I get why you act the way you do. I really do, but you’re wrong.
You can’t focus very well can you?
Look at my facts, then look them up.
Do you dispute that all FDIC loans are regulated by CRA?
Rather than saying to argue things I know as if to insinuate I don’t know what I’m talking about, and then throwing out character insults to disregard my facts, look at the facts.
FDIC loans are regulated by the CRA. True statement or not?
Most if not all banks are FDIC regulated. True statements or not?
In order to expand, merge, buy, etc, banks must have a high CRA rating. True statement or not?
Leahman bros, WAMU, Country, Fannie & Freddie, and most banks that failed made commitments to expand their CRA rating to expand.
They all failed.
Citibank was sued for redlining. Do you deny that? Why did they then fail 10 years later for giving low income loans?
Maybe that law suit that cited red lining (CRA) was part of it?
Bob, why a labrodor? And why a puppy? I was unaware of any dog with spikes, much less labradors specifically, and even then only very young ones. or were you referring to a spiked collar?
Also, I am sorry for being unclear. I 100% did not mean to insinuate that you didnt know what you were talking about. I mean to explicitly say that. So here, ill help:
Your rhetoric is incoherent, emotional, delusional, unorganized, and sophomoric (highschool sophomore, not college). In short, you have no idea what you’re talking about.
There is a silver lining though. I dont want you to stop talking because you do more to damage the Republican brand than I ever could. Please continue.
Your friend,
Stanley
Bob – Citigroup and Countrywide had brokerage arms that were not subject to FDIC or CRA regulations. These are the entities that made these bad loans.
Whether CRA made it possible for greedy bankers become more greedy is really a moot point.
It was GREED that caused all of these subprime loans to be made, the majority of which were not new home loans but were refi’s, 2nd mortgages, or HELOCs. Nothing to do with the CRA.
You’re right, we have had this debate before. It’s all coming back to me. I stand on my original position.
Greed not CRA.
Stan,
You being a sheep, and being a ball, is a bad thing.
I’ll stick to facts and logic. Here I have a democrat telling me I’m basically too stupid to think and shouldn’t try.
Yes. If I don’t think what you think I should just cease to exist, not think at all and focus on seeing sound.
Don’t insult my intelligence when I quote things you clearly don’t understand.
When someone has no argument, they go after character instead of content. I gave you content.
You have given me nothing but grade school replies. Another reason I am not democrat.
When I show how this collapse happened, that’s what I hear back. At least Libby has facts and details (though wrong) for why she believes what she believes,
And at least her and I did debate the wording of the patriot act.
She had info. You just don’t. It is disappointing.
I actually like to see these details.
Stan,
Rhetoric is not at all putting together a methodology for how a collapse happened.
Emotional and erratic are your comments. You haven’t debated the points at all. Rhetoric includes your comments. You haven’t at all debated my facts or provided counter-info.
You’re a funny guy. Delusional, but funny.
Libby,
Country and Citi still expanded their operations to low income borrowers to comply with CRA.
Even if you aren’t CRA “regulated” you are still breaking the law, subject to CRA laws, to be sued, as Citibank was.
And the companies still made loans to get a higher CRA rating to expand. Country had a CRA rating.
I can see if your argument was that they had one division to get a higher CRA rating, and one to make crap loans, that the CRA was not in whole responsible. That is sound logic.
However it ignores why they had the separate division to begin with, and ignores that separate division can still be sued for redlining.
If they had separate divisions, one was to get the rating they needed to make loans, and one was to make the loans. This would mean they gave bad loans to get a better rating to expand, and had a secondary part of itself try to sell loans that made sense.
From there, it is a matter of which loans caused them to fail, their secondary or their primary.
Judging on the fact of how many firms did this and failed, I’m going with the low income loans were the driving factor.
And Greed is not a cause when it comes to regulations. So you’re going to have to show HOW not WHY. That means more facts. Though I’m impressed you had the research to know what you knew about Citi.
Also Stan:
If you have owned a Lab puppy, you would know why on both accounts.
If you’re done calling my research rhetoric and talking points, I’m about done talking with you, though I have some degree of interest into Libby’s commentary on the matter.
She’s actually giving points. Unlike you.
Bob – you blew by my best point. Most of these bad loans were not for new home purchases (CRA) they were for re-fi’s, seconds, and HELOCS. Some financial institutions were giving people personal loans for up to 125% of their home valuations.
That is unmitigated greed. They knew these loans couldn’t be sustained, yet the closed them anyway to make a quick buck. Then turned around, packaged them, and sold them. Only to pass go, collect $200, and do it all over again.
Libby,
Greed is a motivator, not a means.
Every loan is subject to the CRA. If you red line against low income consumers, CRA regulations are quoted for why you are being sued, even if you made zero CRA loans, and Zero loans with the regulations of how to make a CRA compliant loan. You keep forgetting that CRA are also a set of banking protection regulations, which apply to ALL banks. If you use the CRA program, which is set up in a way that doesn’t fail (which is why CRA loans didn’t fail as often) then you are writing a CRA loan under CRA regulations as to how to write a CRA loan. However, any loan you write, is subject to the discriminatory laws in the CRA. Any deal you do, is subject to showing you follow the discriminatory laws in the CRA. As such, you cannot red line, period, against low income borrowers, whether or not you are doing a CRA loan, and whether or not the loan itself is CRA rated, when you are sued you broke a CRA law. No matter what, you are still subject to the discriminatory sections of the CRA law. There is no such thing as a loan that is not subject to the CRA.
So on to the refi etc, and the quick buck:
Explain how deregulation allowed that. Regulation encouraged it. By giving the refi or other aspects they appeared in compliance with CRA, and the more loans they gave the higher a CRA rating they received.
The higher the CRA rating, the more they could loan. Regardless of whether they were writing CRA loans or not.
Huh? I can’t make heads or tails of your response. I’ll just say this, my company has a completely unsecured stock room. This makes it very easy for me to go in and steal office supplies. Is it may company’s fault for not securing the stock room or mine for stealing their stuff?
Just because a law may have encouraged bad behavior does not excuse the bad behavior.
It didn’t just encourage.
The laws strong armed the firms who didn’t give the loans and wouldn’t let them give loans.
It would be more like this:
You need a pen. In advance, your company puts all the pens to do your job inside an open room. Whenever you grab a pen from this room, it triggers a bowling ball to fall on someone’s head who is walking down below.
They didn’t “encourage” They forced the companies to make bad loans in order to buy, sell, grow, and use capital freely.
It is not an opinion that regulation caused this. It is a fact.
You are acting like in your example that there should have been a block to stop the supply stealing. It isn’t equivalent. The government would have sent you in there forcing you to use the supplies.
And when you say “huh” several times it shows you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Everything I have posted is true.
You are quite lost as to what CRA regs are for. There are no loans that are not subject to CRA discriminatory regulation. None. Zero. Even if they don’t write CRA loans.
That is what is flying over your head.
They put a gun up to the heads of the banks and said “You will write loans to low income housing, we won’t tell you how, but you will do it. By the way, if you want you can do it your way, but here is our way”.
If you knew the law, even though what I put above makes no sense, it is what they did.
This is how Citibank was sued. You said yourself, they had a side that didn’t do CRA loans. They were still sued for red lining against low income borrowers through CRA laws. All, 100%, every loan, is subject to CRA laws.
There is a CRA loan, in order to make a CRA loan you have to follow the regulations for what a CRA loan is. These loans would be “CRA regulated”. This is how people twist this.
They can then say, that 50% of all loans that failed were not under CRA regulations (the parameters that the government set so that people could fulfill the amount of people they had to give loans to,) this did not dismiss the fact that no matter what, banks have to give low income loans. The government doesn’t really care how, but they offer a regulated method for those who follow it.
Also: If 50% that failed were CRA regulated, then how in the hell do you consider that not aiding the collapse? It shows that 50% that even the government regulated with laws failed. 50% that they told the banks to just write failed. So 100% of the failed loans were low income loans, made foolishly, half even when they used the path the government gave.
That doesn’t show greed. That shows that the plan the government set up didn’t work, even with the government’s path. The business fared about equal in the end result to the government.
Do you get it yet?
It is indeed complicated, and you don’t understand it clearly.
You’re right, I don’t understand it as you are explaining it. If 50% of the loans that failed were not subject to CRA – how does that make them low income? How does that make the CRA 100% responsible. Maybe if you tried bullet points or step by step taking me through your logic, I could understand better. But I don’t understand what you are trying to say here. That’s why I said huh?
Ok,
So Libby the reason I said you add 50% to 50% is that 50% of the loans that were made were within CRA guidelines set up by the state for low income loans.
The other 50% were also low income loans, that businesses took their own path to give the loans. The federal government still requires those banks to give low income loans. They can take the path given by the government or not, but they still have to meet CRA requirements in not discriminating against low income borrowers.
So there are two sections at play there.
The section of CRA that requires banks to give loans.
The section of the CRA that gives a government method of giving loans.
You don’t have to take the CRA regulated path to fulfill your CRA requirements.
If 50% of the loans that failed were the CRA regulated ones, this shows a huge danger in the government’s path to make low income loans. But it also implies, that the other 50% was banks taking their own path to make the loans, and failing at an equal rate as the government’s path to low income loans.
The government would have made them make low income loans either way to be compliant with CRA laws.
The fact that they failed about equally shows the CRA requirements were the issue. Not necessarily how they made the loans and whether or not they followed the CRA regulations that were supposed to be a safer way of making loans to lower income groups. They shouldn’t have had requirements to hit certain numbers of low income loans to being with. What is more sloppy is that the government doesn’t even have a good way of giving a firm a high CRA rating. All they had to do is show they gave loans to people in typically poor neighborhoods. They didn’t have to show they were good loans. In that scenario, I guess better regulations in terms of specifying what a good low income loan was would have helped. But also, not having requirements based on how many low income earners you gave loans would have been a better path than that.
In the years prior to the ACA, the media commonly cited numbers starting at #0MM uninsured. Then the number went to 35, then 40 and by the time the ACA passed, it was close to 50 MM people who didn’t have insurance and who would now be able to get it.
Now we are talking about 7 MM. Either the libs and media lied in the numbers of uninsured to get this albatross passed or the law and the associated penalties and subsidies are not enough to entice people to buy it.
You can’t always make people do what they want, even if it might be for their own good. There was never an “availability” problem as their are many insureers willing to offer the coverage, then and now. And its not an affordability issue either, even with the carrot and sticks in the law.
Its about human nature and libs God love ’em think that they can play nanny over all of us and change everything about us that they don’t like or think is appropariate.
Let us run our own lives and quit trying to be our nanny and I can only hope that we repeal this monstrosity and use the proceeds to lowere the federal deficit.
blu, We have always said that the unhealthy that couldn’t be underwritten should be in Pools which could have been supplemented at a fraction of the cost, companies should have been allowed to sell across state lines to create competition which would reduce costs. These were Republican ideas that were dismissed by our Progressive President and his followers Pelosi and Reid. Instead, look what we got in the 2,700 law with 20,000 pages of regulations, numerous taxes etc. Gruber made it very clear what the agenda was and how it was executed by deception and outright fraud.
We will never see insurance sold across state lines. The population needs from state to state are too different.
KY, in this age of technology, I think you are off base on your assumption that insurance cannot be sold across state lines. If a company is home officed in one state, that doesn’t mean they don’t have offices to sell in another state. The products offered may be slightly different, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be done.
Agent – Of course they do that already. But Blue Cross Georgia can’t sell in Mississippi. They have to sell Blue Cross Mississippi in Mississippi. Boy are you dense.
Here is a Forbes article that includes Gruber’s American Voters are stupid comment.
By The way this was not the only time Gruber made the comment. There is now a second video according to the Washington Times.
One comment I saw is that Gruber was stupid for making the comments as now they can be used when he is deposed for trial and or used by the plaintiffs in the latest Supreme Court suit.
This guy has to be the dumbest MIT professor on the planet.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/11/10/aca-architect-the-stupidity-of-the-american-voter-led-us-to-hide-obamacares-tax-hikes-and-subsidies-from-the-public/
Sargeant, Michelle Malkin had the best comment on Gruber. She said this weasal’s s##t would make the bacteria in a septic tank gag. He went on the wonderful MSNBC and interviewed with one of their snot nosed hosts and said he regrets the statements he made. The only thing he regrets is being caught being brutally hones about what he did.
Actually, as with all liberals, you have to parse the sentence very carefully, as they’re very good at verbally weaseling out of responsibility. He said he “regrets making the statements,” not that he regretted the actual statements. Once again, it’s like “it depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”
Connie, Gruber is the gift that keeps on giving. He is up to three videos now saying the same thing about how it was necessary to deceive and lie to get Obamacare passed and calling the voters stupid. For this, we paid him $400,000 for his services. I wonder if John Roberts has been paying attention to these new revelations as he and the other court members weigh the issues of the subsidies in the law. A law that was passed by crooks lying and deceiving should not even be Constitutional. Perhaps if this information had come out before they made their ruling, we would have had a different outcome and the law could have been re-written and all the bad stuff taken out.
Yes Connie, our Impeached but not dismissed former President that everyone thinks is so great made that statement famous. His wife, on the Today show said that the prosecution was all the fault of the “vast right wing conspiracy”. Hmm, she changed her tune when the blue dress made its appearance. The Clinton’s are one nasty couple. Hopefully, Trey Gowdy will pin down her complicity on Benghazi. Stay tuned because he will begin questioning many more witnesses in the next few weeks that were told to keep their mouths shut and now they will be testifying.
Agent, I also appreciate your comment about Obama not having been vetted before he was elected. Libby seems to think he “passed the sniff test.” Well, the dictionary definition of “vetting” is “to investigate (someone) thoroughly to see if they should be approved or accepted for a job.” (Merriam Webster definition). We were not allowed to investigate this man thoroughly as so much pertinent about his background has always been kept under lock and key. We weren’t ALLOWED to “sniff” ANYTHING. I repeat that the man was elected because he is a glib talker who seems charismatic and captured the imagination of the people who weren’t even paying attention to how much they didn’t know about him, they only knew they liked him – a classic con man. Harold Hill couldn’t have done it any better. Sarah Palin may come across as a goofball to a lot of people, but we have always known a heck of a lot more about her background than we have EVER been allowed to know about Obama’s background. If someone came into my office and applied for a job, and gave the HR department nothing more to hire them on than “I am charismatic and a good talker,” but couldn’t give any definitive proof they could actually do the job they’re applying for, HR would never even call them back after the job interview!
Connie – We had access to all the information divulged for any other Presidential candidate. Nothing was under “lock and key.” There is no candidate in the history of presidential candidates that has been required to publish their college transcripts. Bush refused to do so. Why weren’t you up in arms about that? Maybe you should do some fact checking before spouting off about that which you know nothing.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/obamas-sealed-records/
Connie, Stan the Man was a professional student who acquired three degrees, made applications to various companies for the past two or three years, told them how wonderful he was, how good looking he was and they still didn’t call him back. Why hasn’t he found a worthwhile job yet?
Agent, I have seen a lot of people like him. Think they are the smartest person in the room. Then they shoot their mouth off without really thinking about what they are saying. Then get their As* stomped and made look stupid.
My biggest problem- 1 he speaks the truth about his party and 2- MIT allows him to actually teach kids who pay lot of money to go there and listen to his bullsh*t.
Sargeant, the smartest in the room comment fits a lot of Progressives, some on this forum. Ronald Reagan once said the problem with liberals is that a lot of what they know simply isn’t true. Truer words have not been spoken.
How many names have you and I been called in the past 3-4 years because we have a Conservative viewpoint? We were right and they were wrong all along on Obamacare. They just can’t stand it so they name call saying we are morons, idiots and that is just the nicer names. It is nice to see how this has blown up in their face.
Sargeant, did you see the info that came out this weekend that our favorite Progressive Socialist professor from MIT did a little better than the $400,000 than the HHS paid him? This guy has collected about $4million from Federal and State contracts to spread his poison. Lies and deception can be very lucrative and it is very easy to pull the wool over peoples eyes.
Connie:
What this is, on the part of the Democrat party, is the condemnation of their own voters. Here is a liberal Democrat, MIT professor who was touted by the Democrats, hired as a key ACA author and paid $400,000 to do it. He stands up and says what his other fellow Democrats think but won’t say. What is that? That their voters (Democrats) are not smart enough to take care of their own self. That government must decide what is good for them (not really for them but for their votes) and then enact legislation that they (Democratic party leaders)will be good for those stupid uninformed voters and in turn gets them elected.
Why do you think Obama made mention of the fact that only 36% voted when he gave his press conference? Why do Democrats criticize mid term voter turn out? why do Democrats reject voter ID laws? Because their own voters are apathetic? Or they are “low informed”?, the ignorant? or maybe it is to costly for the Dems to drive around, pick them up, drive them to the right polling place and tell them who to vote for? Or all of the above?
In my area the “get out the vote” initiative was just that- dig up as many “low informed”, breathing, that you could find, drive them to the polls and tell them how to vote. Then give them a little something on the side as a token of the Dems appreciation.
Then the city council wanted something for “delivering the city to Obama” as 97% of the city residents voted for him. Yes voter fraud and voting law violations were rampant.
Check this out
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI8HRGWKCRc
Good one Sargeant. Of course, those on the left are going to call you a racist for pointing out the truth. You should know all about Detroit since you are a resident. My question is, are these city council people still on office and particularly the one doing the speaking or have they been drummed out by now. I was glad to see the bankruptcy petition go through so Detroit can focus on re-building instead of sinking lower into the abyss with those unfunded pension plans.
Sargeant, it was brought out last night on O’Reilly that the major networks of CBS, ABC, NBC had not devoted one minute of air time on the Gruber scandal. CNN had one brief mention on an obscure program that no one watches. Do you think we have media bias in this country? The Internet and Fox are all over this story with now up to 3 videos by the now infamous Gruber about his lying, deceiving and calling voters stupid.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/11/13/3591850/jonathan-gruber-lying-obamacare/
Missing the point – Whether or not his comments were “true,” the overriding point is that they KNEW they were lying, they felt they HAD to lie to get this law passed because they felt it wouldn’t be passed UNLESS they lied, and this man’s comments, revealed in at least three videos now, reveal the overwhelming contempt and disdain that this administration has for the American people they are supposed to be serving. It demonstrates their arrogance.
Connie – Did you even read the article? It specifically says all of those issues were exposed ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS to both Congress and the American people.
If you don’t know how group insurance is rated, then you must be one of the voters they’re referring to. That’s what GROUP means. Community rating. Some pay more, some pay less. That was no big secret.
And whether the tax is called a tax or a penalty makes no difference, as it has the same effect. The individual will pay. Period.
You guys, as usual, are making a mountain out of a molehill. Ebola anyone???
Sorry Libby, but you can’t spin your way out of this by posting a leftist website “thinkprogress.org article. The facts are the facts and the American people have been lied to for 6 years to force the leftist agenda.
Agent – you wouldn’t know the facts if they came right up and bit you. You expect me to read Townhall articles, which I do, but you won’t give me the same courtesy. Your credibility on here is zilch.
Agent,
CBS is finally jumping on the band wagon. I wonder how those Progressives are going to feel when they hear how they got duped. Pretty stupid I would imagine. LOL.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/affordable-care-act-architect-on-camera-bashing-american-voters/
> The Internet and Fox are all over this story with now up to 3 videos by the now infamous Gruber about his lying, deceiving and calling voters stupid.
That is because that is what Fox does for a living. Not that it is an actual news story. Must be a slow day for the Benghazi bashing.
Guess CBS has run out of stories too, hummmmmmm?
Always, CBS is too busy hacking into their own reporters computers ala Sheryl Atkinson for doing truthful stories that were critical of Obama. Thank goodness she is out of there now.
Hey always, the major media like CBS is a little late to the table, don’t you think? Maybe they have decided they couldn’t beat us so they can join us now that Obama and Obamacare are toast.
Agent-
There will be a number of these because Gruber likes to get in front of a crowd and tell people how smart he is and how dumb everyone else is. He has a big ego, big mouth and he gets paid for it. I have seen many of these idiots.
I can’t wait to watch the Senate and congressional hearings when they subpoena him. That will be worth paid admission.
Sarge – for once you’re on the right track. He is an egotistical nerd that likes to hear himself talk.
Everything he spoke about was divulged to the public and Congress on numerous occasions in 2009-2010. Anyone with half a brain knows health insurance is “community rated.” Some pay more (younger/healthier), some pay less (older/sicker.) There was no lying about that to anyone.
And the tax v. penalty thing? Who cares what you call it? It has the same effect either way. And that was no secret either.
Can you guys get some REAL news to discuss instead of nitpicking every single thing spoken or written by a Democrat?
Well Libby, if Gruber’s statements had come out before the Supreme Court ruled on the Constitutionality, the opinion may have been different. The Ponzi scheme would have been revealed for what it is, just a redistribution of wealth scam.
You really are dumb, aren’t you? This twerp’s comments would have had no influence on the decision.
Libby, we will hold every Democrat accountable and even though you don’t think this is real news, it is for the country. It is too bad you don’t stay up with the “real news”. Yes, this election was all about Barack Obama’s policies which were on the ballot. The voters have spoken loud and clear. Voters: We don’t much like your policies or your governance and can’t wait until you pack your bags for Hawaii permanently.
Whatever, Agent. I’m not defending Obama. I’m ready for a change, too. That’s why I voted the way I did. But I certainly will be voting for my favorite couple in 2016! Billary!!! Two, two, two prez in one!
Libby, sorry the news is so bad for Democrats. I am sure you are exhausted trying to defend them. All you need to do is start posting the good news of the Republican victory and wishing them well to dismantle this garbage law and you will be ever so much more popular on this site.
Sargeant, you’re just making too much sense! Preach it!! LOL!
Connie-
Well, I guess the truth hurts even if the socialists won’t believe it. LOL
Hey, want to see another video of a prominent Democrat that was on the Detroit City Council? This woman is John Conyers wife. John has been in congress for 30 40 years and is about 80 years old. He marries this numbskull and she is put on the city council. One of the biggest crooks in the Midwest. She got nabbed by the FBI for taking bribes and extortion and her husband skates and is still in Congress. Good news? the State of Michigan took over the city and put it thru a managed bankruptcy, got rid of most of the city council (either ran them out of town or put them in prison) and guess what? there is more investment, building and renewal than since the Democrats took over in 1964! In fact it recently made two magazines as the place to invest and visit.
I love the statement in the video from her that says “I might have committed extortion but I didn’t take any bribes” Ha Ha Ha!!! She got 37 months in federal prison. She should have got life without parole LOL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GilnPpH02j4
Good one Sargeant. It is good to see that Detroit has taken action to recover. I was struck by the admission that her husband was no where to be found to support her when this came down. Perhaps he has a new honey to keep him company while she is in prison. It looks like the rat’s nest of corrupt Democrats has been cleaned out. Let’s hope that the “stupid voters” don’t start sending some more crooks to the City Council.
Well Sargeant, the fur and feathers are flying. Nancy Pelosi was asked about Gruber in a press conference and she said, Gruber??? I don’t know Gruber. He didn’t have anything to do with writing the law. So my question is, why pay a man $400,000 to do his thing messing with Healthcare and then brag about all the things he did to screw the American people and then insult them for being stupid. I think Gruber was front and center on every meeting with Pelosi & Reid putting this travesty together. Her Botox brain is working overtime to make this go away. Let’s just move on to the important business of government ala Bill Clinton after Lewinsky.
Agent, yes I saw Pelosi and her Sargeant Shultz ” I know nothing” response. I thought to myself “she has got to be kidding”. You got to give it to her she has nerve to stand up in front of a mic and lie, deceive, cheat or what ever she has to do to deflect the issue from her. LOL
I think her face is pulled so tight from plastic surgery that it causes her to have brain malfunction, memory problems or has made her a pathological liar.
At least she stands up there even if she looks stupid. The community organizer in charge just blames it all on someone else. Remember he blamed the outcome of the mid term elections on his own voters- ” the 2/3s that did not vote”.
Sargeant, Obama promptly got out of town when the heat was ratcheting up and went to Asia to make a bad deal on C02 emmissions with China. Didn’t he look great in that monkey suit they provided?
Unlike you Libby, Supreme Court Justices do have some common sense and when fraud is perpetrated and exposed in a law, I don’t think it would be ignored when making an important decision on Constitutionality. Please give us one good reason why this law passes the smell test given the facts that have come out on it. In our view, it reeks with criminal behavior.
If you would read the FACTS presented in the link I provided from thinkprogress, you would have all the answers to your silly little questions, Agent.
No lies. No fraud. It was all out in the open for everyone to see. Regardless of the what this twerp, Gruber, says about it.
Gruber is the Democrat’s smoking gun and yet another video has just came out and is on C-Span at Holy Cross in Massachusetts. Thank God someone dug it out of the trash bin so we could see what came down and how he was a part of it all.
No lies, no fraud, nothing to this. We should just move on no matter what the evidence shows. Forgive me for not trusting Progressive websites for “facts” according to them. Since your computer doesn’t have sound, perhaps you should take a course in lip reading so you can understand what Gruber is saying and he is up to four videos now. You are about as hard headed as a liberal can be. You argue about everything that anyone has to say. I don’t know why Bob, Connie, Always and others even tries anymore.
Agent – Gruber is this weeks Ebola. There is nothing he says that wasn’t divulged to Congress and the American people had they been listening.
35 times the words “community rated” were found in Congressional records. What do you think that means, old wise one? It means some pay more and some pay less.
Gruber makes a big deal of using the word penalty v. tax. I’ve said all along, what difference does it make what you call it? A rose by any other name is still a rose.
But you guys spend your time jumping up and down, blogging, holding investigations, and basically doing much of the same things you’ve done for the past 4 years. Meanwhile, we’ll be working on 2016. See you there!
How could it be “all out in the open for everyone to see” when it was still in the process of being written? We all heard rumors about what would be in the law, but nobody had a chance to see it until it was rammed through. The only true thing Nancy Pelosi ever said in her life was “We have to pass the bill so you can see what is in it.” The lies and fraud were taking place while it was being written, before the public ever got a chance to see it. Gruber said one of the lies was to fool the CBO so they wouldn’t call it a tax. Yes, whether it’s a tax, fine, penalty, whatever, it all comes out to the same thing in the end – money taken out of people’s pockets – but their fear was if it was called one, it would pass, and if it was called the other, it wouldn’t pass, so they felt they needed to fudge everything in order to get the CBO to approve it. And they didn’t CARE – lying and obfuscation and lack of transparency meant ZERO to these people.
I see you STILL have not read the article in my link.
“The Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation scored the individual mandate as increasing revenue by $4 billion in 2016, and, on average, “an estimated $5 billion will be collected per year over the 2017–2024 period.” Whether they viewed the mandate as a “tax” or not would not have affected their analysis because the economic effect is the same whether it is called a tax or a penalty. That penalty is collected under the Internal Revenue Code and policy makers have always claimed — and detractors complained about — the fact that individuals would have report it on their tax returns “as an addition to income tax liability.”
That same office — which produced a flurry of cost estimates throughout the legislative process — was also plainly clear that healthy people would have to subsidize sick people in a larger health care insurance pool. In this letter dated November 30, 2009 to then-Democratic Senator Evan Bayh (IN): “some provisions of the legislation would tend to decrease or increase the premiums paid by all insurance enrollees, while other provisions would tend to increase the premiums paid by healthier enrollees relative to those paid by less healthy enrollees or would tend to increase the premiums paid by younger enrollees relative to those paid by older enrollees.”
That concept of healthy people subsidizing the sick was also widely covered in media reports. In a Sep. 29, 2009 story titled, “Age and higher premiums go together,” Associated Press reporter Erica Werner explained that the various reform bills making their way through Congress rely on a concept called “community rating,” in which insurers would only be allowed to vary premiums by certain factors such as age, geographic area and tobacco use, within certain limits. Tying the rates of younger and healthier people to the rates of older and sicker beneficiaries causes the former to pay more.”
Perhaps you’d like to do some RESEARCH before spouting off. BTW – are you Agent’s wife? You sound just as clueless as he is.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/11/13/3591850/jonathan-gruber-lying-obamacare/
Libby, you are STILL not getting my point. The point is, while the bill was being written, the people writing it were AFRAID of how the CBO would view it, and they feared that the semantics of words (“tax” or “penalty”) would increase or decrease the chances of it being passed depending on which way the CBO viewed it. They might very well have been wrong, but it was the way they FEARED the CBO would interpret it that caused them to indulge in lies and deceit to get it passed. And my point that I have been trying so hard to make has NOTHING to do with talking about community ratings, only with how the people writing the bill were trying so hard to get the frickin’ thing passed that they were nervous every step of the way that something would happen to derail their schemes. They were willing to do whatever it took, including lies and smoke and mirrors, to make sure it went through. I am not talking about healthy people subsidizing the sick, or what the CBO and Joint Committee on Taxation ultimately wound up doing, but what the people writing the bill were NERVOUS that they would wind up doing. What part of that is so hard to get through your noggin?? They didn’t KNOW for SURE ahead of time that “whether they viewed the mandate as a “tax” or not would not have affected their analysis because the economic effect is the same whether it is called a tax or a penalty” – what they were nervous about was “what if their decision goes against us? We better do everything we can and fudge the numbers just to be sure we get this thing through.”
Well, of course they did. It was their signature bill. They wanted to put everything in the best light to make sure it passed. That was their job.
That doesn’t mean they lied. That only means they had concerns about the perception and wanted to do all they could to address those concerns up front.
Any good salesperson will tell you that’s how you sell. Are you in the insurance business? Would you present your program any differently to a prospective client? If you say you would, you’re not being truthful.
Well, Libby, at least you finally got the point I was trying to make, that they “wanted to put everything in the best light to make sure it passed.” THAT was the point I was trying to make. However, I disagree that it wasn’t lies and fraud. Your opinion is “that’s how you sell” and asked me if I would do differently with a prospective client? Well, if I had a good or a service to sell, and I needed to use smoke and mirrors in order to sell it, I wouldn’t do it, even if I lost the sale. To me, “smoke and mirrors” is a euphemism meaning “not telling the entire truth.” Not telling the entire truth is a form of lying. You can’t be a little bit dishonest any more than you can be a little bit pregnant. If the good or service I’m selling is worthwhile, it wouldn’t need “smoke and mirrors” for me to sell it. I don’t believe in doing business via dishonesty. I do believe in karma – if you do something immoral or illegal, it will eventually come back to bite you. Maybe later and not sooner, but eventually it will. I was raised by my parents to be 100% honest in my dealings with people, not to try to tell half-truths or fudge facts or hide behind pretenses just to accomplish something or sell something. Jonathan Gruber openly admitted they lied – he’s PROUD of it, he’s BRAGGING about it – and you’re contradicting him by saying “no, they didn’t lie, no fraud here.” Are you saying he’s lying when he said he lied? He didn’t originally lie, but he’s lying now in admitting to lying back then? That doesn’t make sense!
Connie – I understood your point all along, I just didn’t think it was valid.
If the fact that the young/healthy were going to pay to subsidize the older/unhealthy was discussed 34 times in Congress, how is it now a lie that this was never disclosed?
And if I want something called a penalty instead of a tax, how is that dishonest or a lie? I’m not saying there will be no penalty or tax. That would be a lie.
I think Gruber is just an egotistical nerd that likes to hear himself talk and thinks he was instrumental in duping the American people, when all he did was assist in writing a complicated law. Was it intentionally complicated? Maybe. Is that a lie or disception? No.
A million dollar question: Why won’t another tactic bounce the pin?
Huh?
Robert, I am afraid you are speaking a language that most on this forum won’t understand.
But you do?
Libby, I include myself in the list. No need to insult me. Maybe he will clarify his muddled statement.
No need to insult you? That’s rich coming from you. Ha!
Wise up Libby, according to Gruber, the young must be penalized with higher premiums to pay for the sick older citizens. Health rates have always been low for the young because they didn’t use much healthcare. It is no wonder they couldn’t get their numbers last year on enrollment. When the 11-15 enrollment starts, they will again have sticker shock. Young people don’t have any money even if they get one of those wonderful subsidies that may be overturned soon. After all, if they are in one of the 36 states that refused the exchanges and didn’t want to expand Medicaid, they are not “entitled” to subsidies.
Wise up, Agent. That’s what community rating means. It’s how group insurance is rated. That’s all the ACA is – a big group.
Nevertheless, I’m all for scrapping the ACA and instituting Universal care. How about you?
Wrong Libby again. The ACA is a big POS as has amply been pointed out in the past week. Uh yes, Obamacare should be scrapped as soon as possible with a workable bi-partisan plan of the Republicans which was totally trashed. Universal Care such as single payer, not so much. Too much for a dysfunctional government to handle. They cant’ even build a website that works and it cost $1billion+.
Friends, I responded to your comments above. I only tell you down here because I know how forgetful you old folks can be, whether its forgetting to pass along a functioning economy with affordable healthcare, housing, and education, or forgetting to check a previous comment thread, stuff can get away from you. No hard feelings on my part though, at least for the comment portion.
I will hand it to you Stan. You have mastered the art of the insult. It must be all that lawyer education you are so proud of. By the way, you can thank your Progressive government for handing you a government of disfunction and an economy going along with 1.5% to 2.0% growth and practically no good jobs created. That is what Progressives do since you believe like Hillary that businesses don’t create jobs.
That is ridiculous. I am at the older end of the Millennial generation and I have been able to vote in exactly 3 elections, two of which resulted in a Republican president with republican majorities in both houses. To blame anything on young people is just lunacy.
Face it, you guys ruined the economy, you know it, and now youre looking to pass the blame. Grow up, Agent.
Let’s see, Slick Willy for 8, Bush for 8 and now Obama for 8 if he avoids Impeachment. How is that two out of three Republicans? Obama had both houses his first two years before he made such a mess on Obamacare that he lost the House. Tell me how he had so much trouble passing the law when he had total control in 09-10? Please spare us with the Republicans blocked it tactic. We have heard that sad story too much from the President. Perhaps the Blue Dogs heard the rumors of what was going on behind the scene with Gruber, Pelosi & Reid and that caused their misgivings.
I wasn’t old enough to vote for Clinton, just Bush. And he crippled the housing market, the financial sector, medicare part D, the debt with two unfunded wars, and eroded privacy as we know it in this country. I challenge you to name a worse president. You cant.
Stan, Barack Hussein Obama followed closely by Jimmy Carter. Jimmy is breathing a sigh of relief now since he held the title since the 70’s.
Obama? Obama literally saved America. I thought that even you knew that?
Which two Republican Presidents did you vote for in the last three? Inquiring minds would like to know.
I didnt vote for either republican (I wont ever). But the only two presidents that have been elected in my voting lifetime have been Bush and Obama. So if youre holding young people to account for todays economy, recognize that half of our voting lives have been spent under republican rule (remember that, when Bush ruined the country?).
Bush didn’t ruin the country.
Though it is popular for the younger crowd to believe he did.
I will ask again:
How?
Just being president won’t cut it.
You use that same argument for Obama. Just being president isn’t why the economy is bad for Obama. It is his passed laws. QE, Stimulus, Twist, new housing regs which restricted the market, passed laws that taxed certain aspects of loans, so now the mortgage insurance rates have nearly doubled (I would know, I refinanced at a 3.15% rate and I barely saved money due mortgage insurance doubling) he passed laws specifically to ensure that housing costs would not drop (when there is a money issue and credit crunch and no one has money, you let the housing costs drop so the poor can afford a house. You don’t inflate them).
Etc.
What did Bush W do to ruin the economy?
Aside from two unfunded wars started on false pretenses, Medicare Part D, presiding over the near collapse of the financial system, not much.
“when there is a money issue and credit crunch and no one has money, you let the housing costs drop so the poor can afford a house. You don’t inflate them.”
Huh? Housing costs plummeted during the crash. No poor people were buying them. Many people were forced out of their home that was now worth a fraction of what they paid for it. You’re delusional.
Which was then gobbled up by the rich that had cash and re-sold to some other shmuck for a hefty profit.
The only ones benefiting from the crash are the rich.
Medicare part d is still in affect, and is not ruining the current economy. Including Medicare part d, which helped people, there were still years under 200 billion of a deficit under Bush W. Which would be considered good.
Two unfunded wars? Raising taxes would not have funded them. I always love that comment from liberals, but regardless, Iraq is not why we are having issues with spending in current day. Even with Iraq, Bush W’s “unfunded wars” lead to deficits that were as a percent of gdp low. It wasn’t until after the recession started that we had issues with funding, and that has nothing to do with Bush. Take Bush’s years including Iraq, and you will find that they aren’t the cause of our debt either.
However, military spending in Obama’s tenure continued to go up. There were years under 600 billion including Iraq for the DOD budget. There were years over 800 billion under Obama. Iraq spending didn’t put much of a dent into our debt. It was included in the DOD.
Presiding over the collapse does not equate to causing it.
Democrats said there were not issues of financial soundness with the system while republicans tried to fix the housing crises. They said that republicans hated the poor for trying to restrict loans to the poor. It was something the republicans could never have sold. Blame the people who made it impossible, not the ones who couldn’t get it done.
You have a lot of slogans, as I said, but you haven’t looked at the numbers.
Do you have any idea how many times I have heard that one liner?
“two unfunded wars!!!” comes from someone with the IQ of a baseball. I am the one however, who knocks that baseball out of the stadium. You can be the ball, or you can be the player. You seem to like being the ball. Being the sheep.
If you had an ounce the Independence I do (which most your type thinks they have)
You would know what freedom was.
Bob, could you please elaborate on the relative IQs of both baseballs, players of baseballs, and of course, sheep along with their relationship to baseballs and baseball players. After that, we can move onto the even more incredible premise that:
“Two unfunded wars? Raising taxes would not have funded them.” As I thought that taxes, not deficits, was the responsible way to fund government initiatives. Or are you a conservative who is all for raising the deficit now?
Please use more sheepy baseball analogies if possible. It should be pretty easy for someone with your mental prowess.
Libby, you just cant help the lazy. They either want to better themselves or sit around playing X Box. Some peoples opinions just are not relevant because they just want everything handed to them.
Yes, that is true. Sure, I paid 14x what you did for my education (in real 2014 dollars), but that shouldnt entitle me to a job any more than you should be entitled to the same tax bracket and regulatory framework of years past.
The world changed for both of us, FFA. Get used to it. Or do you just want “the old days” to be handed back to you?
FFA – I wouldn’t call getting 3 degrees lazy or not trying to better yourself. I think you are trying to compare Stan to others you know and that’s not fair. All he wants is a job so he can be independent and pay off his student loans. I don’t think that’s asking for too much.
I think FFA and I would call him a professional student Libby. All study and no work to succeed.
No work to succeed huh? Well let me ask you this, what should 100k new graduates competing for 50k entry level jobs do? Basic math says that only so many people can work their way into a seat at the table. Say it with me now, the.world.has.moved.on.
Ten Resumes and Ten interviews face to face a week. Squeaky wheel gets the grease. Nag your way in.
Libby, he don’t have a job, but yet he found his way into an insurance blog. Instead of posting in a forum for insurance professionals – he is not even a part of this industry- he should be out looking for a job. I am comparing him to him.
If he really wanted a job, the rule of ten is still valid. Instead, Career Builder supposed to be the magic bullet.
Oh and Stan, if you havnt noticed, the Good Ole days worked.
Sure if you were white, male, and affluent. Sucked pretty bad if you were a chick, or were black, or gay, or uneducated.
The kid’s got you on that one, FFA. I can attest to the woman part. Always made 2/3 what male counterparts made and were never part of the “club.”
Still do as a matter of fact. They just hired a thirtysomething in here on track to become a producer. Doesn’t even know how to spell insurance and isn’t interested in anyone helping him either (Daddy got him hired.) He make more than I do and I’ve got nearly 35 years in this business. I think he’s written maybe $4k in premium so far…
Wow Libby, that might only be one package policy written or a small WC which doesn’t pay much commission. I have seen plenty of born with a silver spoon young men that Daddy brought into the agency and at least 90% just want to be handed guaranteed income/book and all the benefits and don’t hit a lick. After all, they are “entitled”.
They worked, but they’re over. That’s what he’s complaining about. Not sure why he’s on an insurance forum. Thought he might have had a call center job at one point.
It also helps when you destroy the rest of the world in a massive war, thereby eviscerating the need to compete on a global scale. Face it, FFA. There never was a “good old days.” Youre nostalgic for a time that doesnt exist, much like a child wishing to once again believe in Santa Clause. Again, time to grow up.
FFA, since Stan has struck out on the job situation sending out resume’s on the internet, he could try a headhunter whose business is finding people jobs. However, if he started giving the headhunter the attitude and his sad life story about blaming Republicans for anything and everything, I think they would send him packing since employers don’t want to hear that every day of the week.
lol Agent, that is so cute, thinking that employers care about what their employees think. Hint: they dont. Employees exist to contribute as much and to take as little as possible. Anything outside of that and bam, bring in the next body. You really dont understand how a surplus labor market works do you?
Try the rule of ten. EVERYONE I know that has stuck to it is working. But your much too smart for the tried and true so stick to what your doing while mommy & daddy bring home the bacon. Try saying thank you to your mom for doing your laundry while you sit around with the x box your daddy went out and earned the money to buy it.
Me, I am in Southern Cali enjoying the perks of my hard work.
You have a serious attitude issue, that for sure.
Agent, never did the head hunter thing. 10 resumes ten interviews weekly – face to face may I add. Got a DM at a captive to take a chance on me. Handed me a stack of apps, some books and patted me on the back “Go Get Em Tiger”.
FFA, what DM of a company would take a chance on smart mouth Stan? I am sure the interviews are short if he has done any. He is uniquely unqualified for any type of sales position in a captive agency or independent agency. Perhaps a law firm would put him on as their in house ambulance chaser. That might suit him more to go after insurance companies on auto accidents.
Thanks for the congrats, Agent. I’m excited too. I don’t have a managerial position yet, but I think I really have what it takes to succeed.
I do my own laundry and my dad is dead. But I do enjoy the Xbox, so it could be worse.
Also, out of morbid curiosity, what year was it that the DM took a chance on you? I assume that there were calendars back then.
June, 1990. No Guarantees at all. Straight up Commission. In Sept, 1990 WORKED my way to a 1500 MONTHLY draw against commissions.
Sorry about your dad. Meant no disrespect to him.
It’s ok. It was a long time ago and there is no way that you could have known. You’re still wrong on your politics, but I learned long ago that life goes on without missing a beat. No sense holding a grudge.
Also, doing some quick math, that $1500 monthly draw is now roughly $2772 in today’s wages, or roughly $50k a year depending on your state’s tax rate.
Do you know what the starting wages are for entry level attorneys? I am not making this up. It’s $35k no benefits. Wages have actually gone down in the last 25 years.
The real disconnect is that in your world hard work was both necessary and sufficient. Today hard work is still necessary, but the sufficiency element is no longer there.
The world is littered with young people who have worked hard but cannot, literally cannot, get ahead because the jobs available just dont offer a future. Surely you can think of one person that you know who has worked extremely hard, yet has nothing to show for it despite their best efforts (perhaps an illness wiped out their net worth, or their industry collapsed, or their job was outsourced).
So dissect how far $1500 @ month went.
Rent, Phone, Auto Expense, Health Insurance, Tech Expense, Employee Wages. Even back then left me enough for Bowling Night, absolutely no social life at all.
I have no clue what starting wages in the legal profession are. I know that when my staff works hard, they get rewarded. Every year my producer gets something more out of me. Last year bumped him to $40K working 4 days a week. If your working for an outfit that hard work is not rewarded, then take the experience and move on as soon as you can.
I do know that the job market is terrible for you college grads. Wages are repressed. Way too many jobs out sourced. I don’t blame Obama for that, but the lack of anything to stop the flow of jobs the past 6 years is on his shoulders. Aside from ruining the Health Industry, that would be my top gripe with him. Nothing to bring jobs back home.
Best of luck with your new job.
In 1980, when I first started in insurance (as a filing clerk) I made $625 a month gross. I think I netted $100-$125 a week. (Not sure what that would be in today’s dollars.) I had an apartment ($200 rent), a car payment ($75), car insurance, gas, a dog, and a Montogomery Wards credit card. If I couldn’t find it at MW, I couldn’t buy it. After all the bills were paid, I had enough on payday to buy a six-pack of beer and go to the carwash with my dog. Of course, being a single 21 year old female helped out at the bars and back in those days, they always had free food on ladies night.
Not sure why I felt a need to share this, just reminiscing I guess…
Actually, you guys will be happy to know that I think I have a lead on a new job. Its a type of sales, but basically what I do is I call up old folks who are unhappy with the status quo and I solicit money from them for conservative candidates.
Granted, the money just goes to the admins of the PAC and doesnt actually further any causes, but luckily there are no regulations around this and its all totally legal! All I have to do is promise old people that we can Take Back America!
I guess you all were right all along. Lack of regulations does indeed lead to job growth. And sure, it may look like I am praying on the vulnerable: elderly constituents who cant possibly accept that the world has moved on and liberals are not to blame. But thanks to fox news, there is a market for this vitriol. And given what I have learned from you all here, I think my future is getting brighter by the day.
Yes We Can!
——
You all might think that I am making this up. I can assure you that I am not.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/tea-party-pacs-reap-money-for-midterms-but-spend-little-on-candidates/2014/04/26/0e52919a-cbd6-11e3-a75e-463587891b57_story.html
FFA, Bob, and Agent – – what are your phone numbers? I am representing tea party candidates across the US and we need your help defeating Obama and his cadre of liberal terrorists. Please do your part in rescuing this great nation!
I have no problem giving it to you. Not in public of course.
It would be interesting to see you stumble in verbal conversations.
Wouldnt you hear me stumble, or do you see sound?
Classic Bob.
Classic?
Are we going after intelligence because I said an expression that it would be interesting to see you stumble?
Don’t go after my intellect. I was forced to re take our WA state test in Highschool due to having a near perfect score. I have an IQ of 156.
My facts on the collapse of the government is more than “it was deregulation”
Instead,
I show the ratings and the commitments of each company that collapsed. I then show law suits, of firms who were fine but later collapsed.
My IQ shows in my comments.
Yours doesn’t. If you want to insult my intellect, you will be crushed in every single way, boy.
Bobby, I hate to tell you this, but High Schools dont give IQ tests. Its SAT or ACT. You are one old millenial.
That being said, you are correct, your IQ does indeed show in your commentz. You dont have to have perfect ears to see that.
Bob — “I then show law suits, of firms who were fine but later collapsed. My IQ shows in my comments. Yours doesn’t. If you want to insult my intellect, you will be crushed in every single way, boy.”
You have horrible grammar, punctuation and sentence structure.
This does not seem to be indicative of someone with an IQ of 156.
Just sayin’….
Stan, did you not see the results of the last election? The Tea Party, in conjunction with other Conservative Republicans and a lot of moderate Democrats totally rejected Obama and his minions in the House & the Senate. It truly made the 2010 shellacking look miniscule by comparison.
So you won’t mind ponying up some moolah for their next campaigns? Should I give Stan your phone number?
Leave it to you Stan to go to work for a Ponzi scheme ripping off people. You are no better than Gruber with all his lies and deception about Obamacare. My prediction is you will not do well at this.