I Hate Dialysis Message Board
Off-Topic => Political Debates - Thick Skin Required for Entry => Topic started by: Rerun on October 08, 2013, 05:51:44 PM
-
Just VOTE no 101 reasons to back up your vote.
:secret;
-
I'm winning so far! LOL
-
I'm winning so far! LOL
Way to go Rerun, guess what my votes was?
-
Who in government ISN'T to blame?
These kinds of questions don't help to unite us. The rest of the world is laughing at us while we are all pointing fingers at each other.
Actually, since this is government for the people and by the people, we are all to blame.
-
Who in government ISN'T to blame?
These kinds of questions don't help to unite us. The rest of the world is laughing at us while we are all pointing fingers at each other.
Actually, since this is government for the people and by the people, we are all to blame.
Sorry, I won't accept that. I am not at all to blame for this mess. This government especially since Obummer took over has not represented the people for quite a while. How's this for representing the people of the US:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/10/08/2013-battle-yorktown-restaurant-owner-defies-feds/
-
I have been on the record here on IHD as being a supporter of the existence of these political threads. I have enjoyed reading about people's views and have always been happy to engage in conversation with people who view the world very differently than I do. That's part of the fun of being in a community.
But I have now changed my mind and will take this opportunity to say so. The world feels so harsh these days, filled with people who so flippantly and casually speak in cutting tones, and I no longer want to participate.
Have fun in the echo chamber.
Take care, and pick up your socks! :)
-
Just VOTE no 101 reasons to back up your vote.
It isn't really an open question, this has been the plan for months http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/ryanriebe/joint-letter-on-sequester-savings (http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/ryanriebe/joint-letter-on-sequester-savings)
There is no mystery about this at all.
-
Just VOTE no 101 reasons to back up your vote.
It isn't really an open question, this has been the plan for months http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/ryanriebe/joint-letter-on-sequester-savings (http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/ryanriebe/joint-letter-on-sequester-savings)
There is no mystery about this at all.
No doubt Bill, just as the DEMS have been planning for months as well too. I thought the GOP hardline was a mistake, but now with Obama's really over the top tactics, the longer Obama punishes the nation, the better for the GOP. Let it continue. Let Obama continue to RULE. He is revealing his true colors.
-
No doubt Bill, just as the DEMS have been planning for months as well too. I thought the GOP hardline was a mistake, but now with Obama's really over the top tactics, the longer Obama punishes the nation, the better for the GOP. Let it continue. Let Obama continue to RULE. He is revealing his true colors.
Are you talking about the national parks being closed?
Bohner is the one person who could end the shut down, all he has to do is allow the House to vote, he's the only one with the power to allow the vote.
-
No doubt Bill, just as the DEMS have been planning for months as well too. I thought the GOP hardline was a mistake, but now with Obama's really over the top tactics, the longer Obama punishes the nation, the better for the GOP. Let it continue. Let Obama continue to RULE. He is revealing his true colors.
Are you talking about the national parks being closed?
Bohner is the one person who could end the shut down, all he has to do is allow the House to vote, he's the only one with the power to allow the vote.
Bill, it is FAR more than just closing the national parks. Include private parks, hotels on Fed lands and people kicked out of homes on Fed property to start. Then, Obama is allowing an illegal alien amnesty rally but kicked the WWII vets out of town so to speak. No, the more heavy handed Obama gets, the more that will take up the rally for the GOP as poorly thought out their resistance as well. He is spending a LOT more money keeping people out of places that are quite remote with absolutely no need including hunting lands keeping many hunters out in various states as well.
He closed down the Grand Canyon even though the state and private individuals offered to cover all operating expenses. These are deliberate decisions Obama is making to increase the impact of the shutdown just as he did with the sequester. How well did closing the White House go for him a few months back? No, let it continue and let Obama get more heavy handed every day. Hopefully people will finally realize who this man really is.
-
How about this OBAMA decision to deny death benefits to active duty troops killed since the shutdown. No need for this evil act at all. Just Obama making it "hurt."
http://www.today.com/news/shutdown-denies-death-benefits-families-fallen-soldiers-8C11355842
This is NBC. Messing with the military that has broad bipartisan support is simply stupid. Let Obama show his true colors.
-
I have been on the record here on IHD as being a supporter of the existence of these political threads. I have enjoyed reading about people's views and have always been happy to engage in conversation with people who view the world very differently than I do. That's part of the fun of being in a community.
But I have now changed my mind and will take this opportunity to say so. The world feels so harsh these days, filled with people who so flippantly and casually speak in cutting tones, and I no longer want to participate.
Have fun in the echo chamber.
Take care, and pick up your socks! :)
It really is sad when people willingly surrender to ideology.
How about this OBAMA decision to deny death benefits to active duty troops killed since the shutdown.
Right. Obama decided... LOL.
House Republicans need to decide what's more important to them now: acting like a bunch of petulant children or getting back to work and putting a stop to the needless suffering of innocent people. I think I already know their answer.
The new meme among Republicans now is that default isn't going to be all that bad. I guess we'll all see if and when they fail to raise the debt ceiling. One thing's for sure -- this is a PR disaster for Republicans.
John Podhoretz, speechwriter for Reagan and Bush I, is calling it Republican suicide (http://nypost.com/2013/10/08/suicide-of-the-right/).
Every piece of evidence we have so far on the government shutdown shows the public is blaming Republicans most of all for the standoff.
snip
...
If ObamaCare had been as unpopular as conservatives believed, their plan for the shutdown — that there would be a public uprising to force Democratic senators in close races in 2014 to defund it — would’ve worked. It didn’t. Not a single senator budged.
Their tactic failed, and now what they are left with is House Speaker John Boehner basically begging the president of the United States to negotiate with him.
-
Yes, yes, yes, petulant children indeed, but it is Obummer that is the petulant child my friend. Now, just "looking" at Mt. Rushmore is not allowed. Obummer shut down the viewing sections on the road. Yes, a petulant child indeed.
Now gov’t trying to block people from looking at Mt. Rushmore (seriously)
Posted by William A. Jacobson Sunday, October 6, 2013 at 8:30am
Not satisfied shutting the monument even though the State offered to pay to keep it open, the feds placed cones to block viewing areas in the distance.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/10/now-govt-trying-to-block-people-from-looking-at-mt-rushmore-seriously/
Bring the hurt as many liberals are calling and you will see a movement in this nation never seen before. I wonder who Obummer's PR folks are? He is NOT helping his cause at all with his heavy handed tactics.
DOD could with the Commander in Chief solve this issue which THEY created with a stroke of the pen. He has the power to come up with $500,000 for funeral obligations for active duty service folks in HIS OWN HANDS ALONE. In fact, as commander in chief, he is the ONLY one that can do such a thing. Good grief, yes, yes, yes, the GOP really is a terrible group of petulant children. Anyway, bring it on, bring on the hurt as so many libs are calling today! Yes, yes, bring it on. Let them eat cake!!
-
The Republican House shut down the government. That's not a fact that's in dispute. And this all ends when the House Republicans get back to work.
-
The Republican House shut down the government. That's not a fact that's in dispute. And this all ends when the House Republicans get back to work.
Sorry, you are wrong again. The GOP is ready to discuss a political compromise, but Obummer won't even talk to them, but he will talk to Iran. Go figure.
-
The Republican House shut down the government. That's not a fact that's in dispute. And this all ends when the House Republicans get back to work.
Sorry, you are wrong again. The GOP is ready to discuss a political compromise, but Obummer won't even talk to them, but he will talk to Iran. Go figure.
He shouldn't compromise. "I didn't get what I wanted through the legislative process, so I'm gonna shut down the government and hurt people until I do! Wah!" The president would be a fool to compromise with that.
-
The Republican House shut down the government. That's not a fact that's in dispute. And this all ends when the House Republicans get back to work.
Sorry, you are wrong again. The GOP is ready to discuss a political compromise, but Obummer won't even talk to them, but he will talk to Iran. Go figure.
He shouldn't compromise. "I didn't get what I wanted through the legislative process, so I'm gonna shut down the government and hurt people until I do! Wah!" The president would be a fool to compromise with that.
Hmmm, elections matter. Obummer doesn't own both houses of congress and he failed to fund his ObummerCare when he did. Congress has the power of the purse. Obummer I guess forgot that part of the constitution. Clinton understood this concept and went to the center in his second term. Obummer forgot about that. In any case, bring it on Hober, increase the pain.
-
Hmmm, elections matter. Obummer doesn't own both houses of congress and he failed to fund his ObummerCare when he did. Congress has the power of the purse. Obummer I guess forgot that part of the constitution.
"Controlling spending" and "shutting down the government because I didn't get my way" are two different things.
The trouble with Republicans is that compromise is another word for "give me everything I want or you're not compromising!" Senate Democrats already compromised by agreeing to Republican-proposed spending levels. What did Republicans agree to compromise on?
This is not going well for the Republicans. And just wait until they don't raise the debt ceiling...
EDIT: Oh, boy (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-ted-yoho-government-shutdown-is-the-tremor-before-the-tsunami/2013/10/04/98b5aa8c-2c3c-11e3-8ade-a1f23cda135e_story.html).
“I think we need to have that moment where we realize [we’re] going broke,” Yoho said. If the debt ceiling isn’t raised, that will sure as heck be a moment. “I think, personally, it would bring stability to the world markets,” since they would be assured that the United States had moved decisively to curb its debt.
Yes, because nothing says "I'm serious about debt," like "I'm not going to pay my bills."
-
Wrong again my friend. Obama shoved this bill down our throats through Senate shenanigans after Scott Brown was elected in MA of all states. ObamaCare is not nearly as popular as you portray it. Charles Krauthammer had a very interesting op-ed on this issue. His contention, no other major societal legislation ever passed without any bipartisan support. Never before. The GOP was shut out of this bill entirely which came out of secret back room pacts by the Harry Reid and Palosi. The GOP was not involved at all because they were shut out of the room.
The current stalemate is a direct result of that according to his post.
http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/opinion/krauthammer-who-shut-down-mount-rushmore/article_5aa744a4-963b-520f-ab95-e77c5ec84b2b.html
-
Yet Obama was re elected by a wide margin after campaigning on his health bill while Romney advocated its repeal. Congress acted on it, the Supreme Court reaffirmed it and the people spoke with their votes. Its time to move on. If down the road congress makes changes to it through the process so be it. What the Republicans have tried to pull off here driven by fear of the Tea Party is shameful.
-
Yet Obama was re elected by a wide margin after campaigning on his health bill while Romney advocated its repeal. Congress acted on it, the Supreme Court reaffirmed it and the people spoke with their votes. Its time to move on. If down the road congress makes changes to it through the process so be it. What the Republicans have tried to pull off here driven by fear of the Tea Party is shameful.
Obama should have thought of that when he rammed it through without any consideration of the GOP which does represent about half the nation. Bill Clinton understood these issues and got things done his second term. Obama has not. Oh well. Don't expect GOP support when you shut them out completely. I guess Obama forgot that the GOP has the House. Oh well. Let him play hard line with everyone.
-
Wrong again my friend. Obama shoved this bill down our throats through Senate shenanigans after Scott Brown was elected in MA of all states. ObamaCare is not nearly as popular as you portray it. Charles Krauthammer had a very interesting op-ed on this issue. His contention, no other major societal legislation ever passed without any bipartisan support. Never before. The GOP was shut out of this bill entirely which came out of secret back room pacts by the Harry Reid and Palosi. The GOP was not involved at all because they were shut out of the room.
The current stalemate is a direct result of that according to his post.
http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/opinion/krauthammer-who-shut-down-mount-rushmore/article_5aa744a4-963b-520f-ab95-e77c5ec84b2b.html (http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/opinion/krauthammer-who-shut-down-mount-rushmore/article_5aa744a4-963b-520f-ab95-e77c5ec84b2b.html)
Bohner admitted to Stephanopoulos (http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/week-exclusive-interview-john-boehner-20486985) that he reneged on the deal he struck in July with Reid (see the ~3:15 minute mark). It all comes down to the ACA, all the rest is just the day's talking point, and the fact is what the Republicans in Congress are doing is an undemocratic, anticonstitutional attempt to get their way even though the Constitution does not give them a constitutional path to their preferred policy outcome. The Congressional republicans are not conservatives they are neo-Jacobins.
-
Bohner admitted to Stephanopoulos (http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/week-exclusive-interview-john-boehner-20486985) that he reneged on the deal he struck in July with Reid (see the ~3:15 minute mark). It all comes down to the ACA, all the rest is just the day's talking point, and the fact is what the Republicans in Congress are doing is an undemocratic, anticonstitutional attempt to get their way even though the Constitution does not give them a constitutional path to their preferred policy outcome. The Congressional republicans are not conservatives they are neo-Jacobins.
"Even when it comes to something as basic, and apparently as simple and straightforward, as the question of who shut down the federal government, there are diametrically opposite answers, depending on whether you talk to Democrats or to Republicans.
There is really nothing complicated about the facts. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted all the money required to keep all government activities going — except for ObamaCare.
This is not a matter of opinion. You can check the Congressional Record.
As for the House of Representatives' right to grant or withhold money, that is not a matter of opinion either. You can check the Constitution of the United States. All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives, which means that Congressmen there have a right to decide whether or not they want to spend money on a particular government activity.
Whether ObamaCare is good, bad or indifferent is a matter of opinion. But it is a matter of fact that members of the House of Representatives have a right to make spending decisions based on their opinion.
ObamaCare is indeed "the law of the land," as its supporters keep saying, and the Supreme Court has upheld its Constitutionality.
But the whole point of having a division of powers within the federal government is that each branch can decide independently what it wants to do or not do, regardless of what the other branches do, when exercising the powers specifically granted to that branch by the Constitution.
The hundreds of thousands of government workers who have been laid off are not idle because the House of Representatives did not vote enough money to pay their salaries or the other expenses of their agencies — unless they are in an agency that would administer ObamaCare.
Since we cannot read minds, we cannot say who — if anybody — "wants to shut down the government." But we do know who had the option to keep the government running and chose not to. The money voted by the House of Representatives covered everything that the government does, except for ObamaCare.
The Senate chose not to vote to authorize that money to be spent, because it did not include money for ObamaCare. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says that he wants a "clean" bill from the House of Representatives, and some in the media keep repeating the word "clean" like a mantra. But what is unclean about not giving Harry Reid everything he wants?
If Senator Reid and President Obama refuse to accept the money required to run the government, because it leaves out the money they want to run ObamaCare, that is their right. But that is also their responsibility.
You cannot blame other people for not giving you everything you want. And it is a fraud to blame them when you refuse to use the money they did vote, even when it is ample to pay for everything else in the government.
When Barack Obama keeps claiming that it is some new outrage for those who control the money to try to change government policy by granting or withholding money, that is simply a bald-faced lie. You can check the history of other examples of "legislation by appropriation" as it used to be called.
Whether legislation by appropriation is a good idea or a bad idea is a matter of opinion. But whether it is both legal and not unprecedented is a matter of fact.
Perhaps the biggest of the big lies is that the government will not be able to pay what it owes on the national debt, creating a danger of default. Tax money keeps coming into the Treasury during the shutdown, and it vastly exceeds the interest that has to be paid on the national debt.
Even if the debt ceiling is not lifted, that only means that government is not allowed to run up new debt. But that does not mean that it is unable to pay the interest on existing debt.
None of this is rocket science. But unless the Republicans get their side of the story out — and articulation has never been their strong suit — the lies will win. More important, the whole country will lose."
~~ Thomas Sowell, Ph.D. - Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
"Who Shut Down the Government?" Oct. 4, 2013
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell100413.php3
-
Wrong again my friend. Obama shoved this bill down our throats through Senate shenanigans after Scott Brown was elected in MA of all states. ObamaCare is not nearly as popular as you portray it. Charles Krauthammer had a very interesting op-ed on this issue. His contention, no other major societal legislation ever passed without any bipartisan support. Never before. The GOP was shut out of this bill entirely which came out of secret back room pacts by the Harry Reid and Palosi. The GOP was not involved at all because they were shut out of the room.
The current stalemate is a direct result of that according to his post.
http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/opinion/krauthammer-who-shut-down-mount-rushmore/article_5aa744a4-963b-520f-ab95-e77c5ec84b2b.html (http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/opinion/krauthammer-who-shut-down-mount-rushmore/article_5aa744a4-963b-520f-ab95-e77c5ec84b2b.html)
Bohner admitted to Stephanopoulos (http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/week-exclusive-interview-john-boehner-20486985) that he reneged on the deal he struck in July with Reid (see the ~3:15 minute mark). It all comes down to the ACA, all the rest is just the day's talking point, and the fact is what the Republicans in Congress are doing is an undemocratic, anticonstitutional attempt to get their way even though the Constitution does not give them a constitutional path to their preferred policy outcome. The Congressional republicans are not conservatives they are neo-Jacobins.
Too funny. The Jacobins are quite different than how the term is misapplied today.
A Jacobin (French pronunciation: [ʒakɔbɛ̃]) is someone who supports a centralized Republic, with power made at the federal level in contemporary usage. At its inception during the French Revolution, the term was popularly applied to all supporters of revolutionary opinions. Specifically, it was used to describe members of the Jacobin Club, a revolutionary, far-left political movement that had been the most famous political club of the French Revolution.[1] The club was so called from the Dominican convent where they originally met, in the Rue Saint-Jacques (Latin: Jacobus) in Paris.
Today, many refer to the Tea Party folks as neo-Jacobins. They also applied it to the Bush administration. I will not for one minute defend the grandson of one of the founders of the CIA, but the Tea Party folks are not all Jacobins. Far opposite. They simply want government to get out of their face and let them exercise their God given liberties in faith and practice. That is true conservatism and the exact opposite of Jacobins. Just one more left wing attempt at defamation.
The power of the purse is the power of Congress starting in the House which is completely constitutional. Remember, separation of powers into THREE spheres, one of which has the HOUSE and the other half the Senate. It was NOT designed to operate without any opposition. Far from it. Opposition and resistance is DESIGNED into the constitution to prevent tyranny. Funny that you make that accusation while defending the most anti-constitutional
-
It's the Jacobin's commitment to theory over practice that I see in the tea party wing of the republican Congressional caucus, and the Jacobin's dynamic that required membership in the group to be sifted by ever finer purity screens.
Come on, Thomas Sowell knows that the Constitution does not support one part of one branch, the House of Representatives, to just not do the basic paper work of keeping the government operating and our borrowing capacity sufficient. Thomas Sowell can not possibly want to live in a United States that has go through a debit limit fight every three months with the House offering some new demand each time. Maybe he does. Maybe he is so worried about a Justice from the conservative side of the court needing to be replaced in the next two years that the idea is to establish the debt ceiling and/or CRs as points where a policy goal can be achieved that normal constitutional means denies. But I doubt it. It is too unworkable a model. It is not the one we have now and that has served us very well.
There is a budget process, taking tough votes and muddling through, and in his heart Thomas Sowell knows that is, in fact, good enough.
-
It's the Jacobin's commitment to theory over practice that I see in the tea party wing of the republican Congressional caucus, and the Jacobin's dynamic that required membership in the group to be sifted by ever finer purity screens.
Come on, Thomas Sowell knows that the Constitution does not support one part of one branch, the House of Representatives, to just not do the basic paper work of keeping the government operating and our borrowing capacity sufficient. Thomas Sowell can not possibly want to live in a United States that has go through a debit limit fight every three months with the House offering some new demand each time. Maybe he does. Maybe he is so worried about a Justice from the conservative side of the court needing to be replaced in the next two years that the idea is to establish the debt ceiling and/or CRs as points where a policy goal can be achieved that normal constitutional means denies. But I doubt it. It is too unworkable a model. It is not the one we have now and that has served us very well.
There is a budget process, taking tough votes and muddling through, and in his heart Thomas Sowell knows that is, in fact, good enough.
How many budgets has Obama passed? Yeah, some budget process Bill.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/feb/4/obama-misses-budget-deadline/
No purity tests Bill. Just plain old common sense that we are headed for bankruptcy. That is the solidifying element of the Tea Party. In fact, the Tea Party folks are a very small group in congress that are opposed by the majority GOP folks. Boehner is NOT a Tea Party man. There is much more diversity of opinion in the GOP than the DEMS ranging from very conservative to quite liberal such as the good senators from Maine for some reason, especially the previous senator from Maine. There used to be a very conservative element with southern Democratic folks, but not so much any longer. No, the GOP has much more diversity than the DEMS today. Sorry Bill, your theory really doesn't hold water.
-
Here is one more Obamanation in the Great Smokey Mts. They closed a Federal highway through the middle of the park and the school kids in one area could not get home but by dangerous mt roads that a school bus could not pass. Great job commander in chief. Great job making it hurt.
http://www.thedailytimes.com/Local_News/story/Mayor-Ed-Mitchell-Blount-County-could-step-up-to-reopen-the-Great-Smoky-Mountains-National-Park-id-041546
-
Come on, Thomas Sowell knows that the Constitution does not support one part of one branch, the House of Representatives, to just not do the basic paper work of keeping the government operating and our borrowing capacity sufficient. Thomas Sowell can not possibly want to live in a United States that has go through a debit limit fight every three months with the House offering some new demand each time. Maybe he does. Maybe he is so worried about a Justice from the conservative side of the court needing to be replaced in the next two years that the idea is to establish the debt ceiling and/or CRs as points where a policy goal can be achieved that normal constitutional means denies. But I doubt it. It is too unworkable a model. It is not the one we have now and that has served us very well.
There is a budget process, taking tough votes and muddling through, and in his heart Thomas Sowell knows that is, in fact, good enough.
I posted Dr. Sowell's essay in response to the following quote of yours: "...the fact is what the Republicans in Congress are doing is an undemocratic, anticonstitutional attempt to get their way even though the Constitution does not give them a constitutional path to their preferred policy outcome..." which is not FACT. Just as the democrats pushing through Obamacare, with major opposition, by parliamentary maneuver — reconciliation — to get around Sen. Brown's election. As Dr. Krauthammer stated, "nothing illegal about that. Nothing illegal about ramming it through without a single opposition vote. Just totally contrary to the modern American tradition — and the constitutional decency — of undertaking major social revolutions with only bipartisan majorities." If you don't believe that then go to the Congressional Record to read what the votes were for Medicare/Social Security/Part D Medicare. ALL had bipartisan support.
I can't speak for Dr. Sowell - and you can't either - but his writings over the years have shown him to be a believer in the Constitution and in the meaning of separation of powers. Each branch must live by and take responsibility for its decisions. However, what makes this system work is the ability and willingness for all sides to come together and compromise. Right now, we have a senate leader, being led by the executive, to say no to anything the other side offers INCLUDING not authorizing ANY spending bills put forth by the House.
What is even more disgraceful is the President's outright agenda to make the partial government shutdown "as painful as possible" on citizens to get the House to acquiesce to HIS demands. Not much love of the people there.
You want to blame the "extremist" Tea Party for this mess? Fine. I put it on the shoulders of leftist/socialist ideologues like yourself for taking hostage of the democratic party, a party that is no longer welcoming to moderates like former Senator Evan Bayh III, and at times, those like myself.
-
Cruising the Web
It amazes me that a president who has chosen to selectively enforce laws that he approves and not enforce ones that he disapproves is now being so very literal in how his administration has chosen to interpret the Pay Our Military Act signed as the shutdown was beginning to fund the troops. They have taken an extremely literal interpretation to decide that newly bereaved families of those soldiers who die during the shutdown will not get a trip to Dover to meet their loved one's arrival back in the United States and will not receive their bereavement benefits. The House insists that the bill they passed would have included paying those benefits. The Pentagon insists otherwise. As David French explains, this is just a matter of how the Department of Defense has chosen to interpret the law:
"Second, because the Pay Our Military Act did not provide a specific appropriation for “benefits,” it was left ambiguous enough that the Department of Defense
has room to interpret the terms “pay and allowances” to include certain benefits while excluding others. For example, military families are still receiving the bulk of their TriCare health-
insurance benefits and beneficiaries are still receiving SGLI life-insurance payments. These sums, by the way, are much larger than the death benefits at issue with the families of
those who recently fell in Afghanistan. It’s hard to discern the legal logic behind these payment choices.
Thus, through a rather simple, good-faith drafting error, Congress gave the secretary of defense room to maneuver on the delivery of benefits to military families, and the
Department of Defense’s civilian masters have made an incredible choice, one that no line unit in the military would ever make if it had control over funding for its own soldiers and
their families: to exclude death benefits from the “pay and allowances” appropriated by Congress."
So the administration that unilaterally ignored the provisions of the Affordable Care Act couldn't stretch their interpretation to send funds to bereaved families. Sure.
Oh, and now the Pentagon is forbidding army chaplains from performing their duties to counsel the military during the shutdown. Catholic soldiers who die in battle may be denied their last rites because of the administration's stubbornness. Chaplains can't perform services and are not even being allowed to volunteer their efforts. There is something terribly wrong with an administration that is willing to threaten arrest to a minister volunteering his or her services for free. And once again, this administration decision is totally a result of how the Defense Department has chosen to interpret the Pay Our Military Act. Once again, David French explains,
"Finally, regarding the news that contracted Catholic priests are barred from ministering to soldiers during the shutdown? Well, that’s also the secretary of defense’s call. The Pay
Our Military Act did clearly provide appropriations for “contractors of the Department of Defense” whom the “Secretary concerned determines are providing support to members of
the Armed Forces.” In other words, appropriations exist for these chaplains, but they’re not even permitted to volunteer. Inexcusable.
For nine days, the civilian federal bureaucracy has broken faith with the American people, working to maximize suffering to exert leverage in a political battle when they are law- and
honor-bound not only to remain neutral but to exert their utmost efforts to accomplish their mission in spite of funding limitations. The stain of their misconduct will not be easily
cleansed."
As the Union Tribune San Diego editorializes (http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/oct/09/denial-of-death-benefits-shame-on-president-obama/),
"This is ridiculous and perverse. President Barack Obama has used an expansive — and some legal scholars believe extreme — interpretation of his powers to unilaterally rewrite key
provisions of the No Child Left Behind law, the sweeping 2002 measure that drastically reshaped federal education policies. In similar fashion, the president has unilaterally rewritten
key provisions of the Affordable Care Act, his sweeping 2010 measure that is drastically reshaping federal public health policies. His administration has also essentially rewritten
federal laws governing illegal immigration and penalties for drug possession.
Just this month, the federal government has authorized the spending of billions of dollars since the partial shutdown began without explicit congressional approval. Contrary to the
Obama administration’s representations, there are not hard, definitive rules governing how the executive branch must act during these budget fights. That is reflected in the
amazingly arbitrary ways that the federal government has shuttered some services and agencies but not others — often with the barely hidden goal of making people suffer to
build pressure on House Republicans to give in to the White House. For one of hundreds of examples, the Armed Forces Network serving U.S. military personnel abroad still shows
news — but it has stopped showing NFL games, blaming the shutdown.
This is obnoxious enough. In denying death benefits to the relatives of fallen U.S. soldiers, however, the Obama administration has broken new ground in its budget theater. This
decision is accurately described as depraved."
The administration is pretending that they just learned of this aspect of the shutdown, but that claim doesn't bear scrutiny.
"But the outrage should remain. On Wednesday, CNN reported that on Sept. 27, days before the shutdown began, the Pentagon was already telling reporters it planned to
suspend death benefits.
So for two weeks, the Obama administration has been anticipating this nightmare would come to pass — and did nothing to pre-empt it. Only when the Pentagon began denying
death benefits and the backlash began did the White House realize this ploy was a political misstep and seek a fix.
It is an appalling commentary on the president and his administration that they chose to bully the families of dead American soldiers for perceived political gain.
Shame on Barack Obama."
Check out this list of seven things that the federal government has shut down that aren't saving any money. - http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/08/7-things-government-shut-down-that-saved-practically-nothing/
Jake Tapper opens up quite honestly on why the press is biased and the uselessness of White House press briefings. - http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/10/09/jake-tapper-acknowledges-media-bias-says-white-house-press-briefings-#ixzz2hJHPxell
Intransigence and petulance is no way to go through a presidency. As Peter Wehner writes,
"Which leads me to a final point. The president, always a distant, somewhat withdrawn, and imperious figure, now seems encased in a world all his own. One senses that Mr.
Obama has surrounded himself with courtiers whose jobs are to affirm his greatness and his glory. He and they live in a bubble. The president is acting as if America is comprised
solely of people who host, appear on, or watch MSNBC. Disagree with Republicans? Don’t engage with them and by all means don’t negotiate with them. Instead drop rhetorical
acid on their heads. Describe them as jihadists, terrorists, anarchists, arsonists, gun-to-the-head hostage takers, and (to quote White House aide Dan Pfeiffer) “people with a bomb
strapped to their chest.” And all of America will cheer.
But it turns out that Americans don’t precisely align their views with Chris Matthews, Lawrence O’Donnell, and Rachel Maddow. And they don’t much like their president acting as if
he is the deputy communications director of the DNC. "
Even when confronted with puff-ball questions from a quiescent press corps, President Obama's remarks the other day, as Seth Mandel notes, were quite revealing (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/10/08/obama-stumbles-despite-friendly-press/).
"When Obama opposed raising the debt ceiling, he was just posturing the way people do “frequently.” In other words, when Obama makes a speech on policy he doesn’t actually
believe what he’s saying; he just thinks enough of the voters will like his message. Obama is not, Obama says, to be taken literally. They are just words.
The other interesting nugget in that paragraph was the part where Obama said that in the past the debt ceiling was easier to sneak through without the public noticing until it
was decoupled from omnibus spending bills. The thought process of America’s elected politicians, Obama explained approvingly, was: “I don’t want to take a bunch of tough
votes to cut programs or raise taxes and then also have to take a debt ceiling vote.”
The Obama campaign seems to have calculated correctly that “Obama: Change we can believe in” would make a snappier bumper sticker slogan than “Obama: I don’t want to
take a bunch of tough votes.” (The latter would also draw attention to his predilection as senator to vote “present.”)
This exchange took place after CBS’s Mark Knoller asked the president why he doesn’t support passing bills to fund important priorities while these non-negotiations drag on.
Aren’t you tempted, Knoller asked Obama, to sign bipartisan bills that fund programs you support? “Of course I’m tempted,” Obama responded, “because you’d like to think that
you could solve at least some of the problem if you couldn’t solve all of it.” Well yes, that does seem to be the point. This may seem reasonable, Obama said, but don’t be
fooled. It’s a trap:
But here’s the problem. What you’ve seen are bills that come up where wherever Republicans are feeling political pressure, they put a bill forward. And if there’s no
political heat, if there’s no television story on it, then nothing happens. And if we do some sort of shotgun approach like that, then you’ll have some programs that are
highly visible get funded and reopened, like national monuments, but things that don’t get a lot of attention, like those SBA loans, not being funded.
You see, by funding uncontroversial and broadly popular programs while not automatically funding everything else, the Republicans are trying to trick the government into
setting priorities, building bipartisan coalitions, and engaging the public in how to spend their tax money. Obama seemed to think this was self-evidently foolish, which tells you
much about what the president thinks of the taxpayers.
Then the president added, almost as an afterthought: “And you know, we don’t get to select which programs we implement or not.” Since Obama chooses which parts of
which laws he wants to implement and enforce at will, as if Congress were a supercommittee brainstorming ideas rather than a coequal branch passing laws, I’m guessing he
would explain that he is again being take too literally when he’s obviously just posturing. Now he tells us."
A South Carolina man has volunteered to be a single clean-up crew on the National Mall. He's been out there for a week mowing, raking, and cleaning to keep this national treasure clean. It's amazing what one man is willing to do. And, of course, a park ranger wants to stop him.
The National Park Service has decided to prevent people from even taking pictures of our national monuments and natural wonders, but they have money to send park rangers to a conference at the end of the month. As Michael Rubin writes (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/10/09/shutdown-wont-stop-park-ranger-meeting/),
"Alas, it’s not inconvenience that most annoys Americans about their government and some federal workers, but rather the hypocrisy. As I blogged here on Monday, the
government is throwing septuagenarians and octogenarians out of their homes on federal land, but allowing President Obama’s mother-in-law to reside in a federal building
during the shutdown. It is funding Sesame Street, but delaying cancer research. And it temporarily closed down the Amber Alert main page, while letting Michelle Obama’s pet
project remain up and running. The problem Americans face—and the reason why leading figures from both Democrats and Republicans are seeing their poll numbers plummet—
is simply because the government seems increasingly hostile to the notion of equal application of the law.
Most park rangers are good people, and many probably dislike the policies which the National Park Service chooses to enforce. But, it is hard to claim to be an essential
employee and then jet off to St. Louis for a conference."
http://betsyspage.blogspot.com/
-
You want to blame the "extremist" Tea Party for this mess? Fine. I put it on the shoulders of leftist/socialist ideologues like yourself for taking hostage of the democratic party, a party that is no longer welcoming to moderates like former Senator Evan Bayh III, and at times, those like myself.
Total right-wing talk radio fantasy. Obama and Senate Democrats are moderate Republicans. Unless, however, you think in a socialist country corporations pay no taxes, universal healthcare is unavailable, and wealth is concentrated among the top few percent.
-
Here is help from our neighbors to the north dealing with the government shutdown.
https://scontent-b-pao.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/q71/599393_10151889003382716_203115450_n.jpg
-
Republicans are getting hammered in polls on this matter. The American public is fed up and places the blame primarily on the GOP. 2014 and 2016 may be ugly for the GOP.
-
Republicans are getting hammered in polls on this matter. The American public is fed up and places the blame primarily on the GOP. 2014 and 2016 may be ugly for the GOP.
So be it. If America wants to self implode, I will at least be in the group that tried to keep it from that self destruction. The Obama heavy handed tactics are just a preview. If that is what you want, just be careful what you ask for.
-
Republicans are getting hammered in polls on this matter. The American public is fed up and places the blame primarily on the GOP. 2014 and 2016 may be ugly for the GOP.
So be it. If America wants to self implode, I will at least be in the group that tried to keep it from that self destruction. The Obama heavy handed tactics are just a preview. If that is what you want, just be careful what you ask for.
A dissenting view from a prominent, deeply religious conservative commentator:
“Better a live dog than a dead lion...” - Ecclesiastes 9:4
Romance with Fake Martyrdom
Michael Medved - October 8, 2013
In the course of back-to-back confrontations over funding the government and raising the debt ceiling, the conservative base has become intoxicated with visions of glorious martyrdom.
On the eve of the federal shutdown, as House Republicans agreed to insist on defunding Obamacare at the price of keeping the government open, Representative John Culberson of Texas rallied his colleagues by invoking the doomed heroes of United Flight 93. Declaring that the moment somehow reminded him of September 11, the Congressman cheered his colleagues with the words: “Let’s Roll!”
Meanwhile, Senator Ted Cruz likes to cite Braveheart to inspire his loyal followers, urging beleaguered conservatives to “Hold! Hold! Hold!” against the on-rushing enemy in the spirit of Mel Gibson’s version of the 13th Century Scottish warrior, William Wallace.
Every day during the crisis, excited callers to my radio show draw parallels between today’s GOP stalwarts and the doughty band who fought to the last man at the Alamo or the 300 Spartans who perished at Thermopylae in 480 BC. Is it merely coincidence, I’ve been asked, that the number of Republicans in today’s House and Senate comes to a combined total of just about 300? (Actually, 278 – but close enough).
It does little good to point out the obvious problem with invoking such fierce examples as role models for today’s conservatives. United Flight 93 crashed and burned in a field in Pennsylvania, killing all on board; “Braveheart” died in awful style when drawn and quartered by his English enemies; the slaughtered defenders of the Alamo offered only short-lived resistance to their Mexican attackers and the 300 Spartans found themselves overwhelmed by invading Persian hordes, who preceded to occupy much of Greece for more than a year thereafter. The problem with doomed, hopeless struggles, in other words, is that the participants are, in the end, hopelessly doomed.
In response to such common sense observations, enthusiasts and activists snarl imprecations about gutless RINO’s (Republicans In Name Only), milquetoasts and panty-waists, cowards and appeasers and turncoats. According to this logic, all who dare question a laughably impractical and self-destructive strategy selfishly place their own safety above commitment to a worthy cause. Sometimes, according to common convictions, decent men must take a selfless stand against the odds and prepare to sacrifice themselves for higher principle.
Such arguments rest uneasily on two faulty assumptions regarding the current situation.
First, today’s impassioned conservatives most committed to fighting an unending but impossible battle against Obamacare hardly sacrifice their own interests in this effort. In most cases, they gain rather than suffer for their self-righteous theatrics. Consider the obvious example of Senator Cruz (R-The Alamo) who has made himself a household name and a presidential front runner after just nine months in public office through his strident refusal to let go of the fantasy of instant-uprooting of the Affordable Care Act. As late as the second day of the government shutdown, he insisted that Tea Party conservatives were “winning” their struggle and could achieve final victory over Obamacare “now.” Such pronouncements win him bedazzled cadres of eager admirers together with mountains of campaign cash.
As for the House conservatives who deride all notions of compromise or cooperation, the redistricting in 2010 leaves them with little chance of serious liberal or moderate challenge in their lopsidedly GOP districts. According to leading handicappers of the upcoming 2014 campaign only two of the 232 House Republicans represents a district currently listed in the “toss-up” or “leaning Democrat” category.
And as to right wing organizations like The Club for Growth, Heritage Action, Tea Party Patriots and many more, they risk nothing at all with their demands for a fight to the bitter end on pain of primary challenge and insults to a dissenter’s manhood. Current confrontations provide the activists and entrepreneurs who run these operations with surges in publicity, membership and donations, while they make no plans to return the dough when the present non-strategy inevitably collapses in frustration and embarrassment.
Similarly, the loudest voices in conservative media hardly count as courageous or altruistic by urging their favorite politicians to take the most unbending and ideologically pure positions. In the world of talk radio, for instance, any hosts who regularly win as much as 5% of the available audience in major markets count as wildly successful, while professional consultants frequently suggest that the angriest, most emotional rhetoric reliably attracts the needed niche following. While Braveheart and his fearless Scots earned death and dismemberment for their unbending determination to resist, media figures who claim to follow that example earn million dollar contracts.
The second problem with the analogy between today’s Washington brawls and some of the most fateful battles in human history involves their long-term impact. We remember the little band of Spartans and the Alamo defenders only because their sacrifice proved so consequential. According to many historians, the ferocious defense of Thermopylae delayed the Persian invaders just long enough so that other Greeks could rally and prepare to win the decisive battle of Salamis. Similarly, Colonel Travis and his Texans held off the Mexicans and gave Sam Houston (who chose to avoid a sacrificial confrontation of his own) the chance to surprise and defeat Santa Ana’s over-confident troops at San Jacinto. Most poignantly, the heroes of United 93 stormed the cockpit and brought down a plane headed for the Capitol building, arguably saving hundreds if not thousands of other lives. Fearless commitment to advance a righteous cause counts as heroic; a pointless, losing fight that brings you no closer to your goal might better be described as self-destructive. “Standing up for principle” only amounts to a noble spectacle when your stand advances the principle you care about, rather than damaging it.
Despite the super-heated rhetoric comparing today’s conservative dead-enders to military heroes of history, what we see today hardly counts as selfless nobility. There’s no sacrifice when individuals and organizations advance their own interests with no real risk, and no nobility when you assure both short term and long-term victories for the other side.
“Better a live dog than a dead lion,” isn’t the sentiment of some mushy-moderate, GOP squish; it’s the advice of the Bible in the Book of Ecclesiastes. Unfortunately, the unedifying melodrama in the nation’s capital doesn’t provide Profiles in Courage but offers, rather, Profiles in Crazy.
http://www.michaelmedved.com/column/romance-fake-martyrdom/
-
Dear Noahvale, do you REALLY wish to discuss the biblical admonitions for government????
No, I didn't think so since that is all that the Tea Party folks are seeking. No theocracy. Just the rule of law which if you are interested, I can show in great abundance. Even if the GOP loses in 2014, or 2016 which could certainly happen the way America is turning its back on God. If you folks wish to walk off the deep end and put into place a tyrannical government so be it.
It appears you missed the point of my post completely. I sincerely doubt that we have the ability to slow down what God has ordained for a people that does not want God in their lives any longer. I would advise a look at the nation of Israel from which that quote from Solomon emanates. If you follow the history of Israel, there came a point where even God turned His back on them. I suspect we are at that point here in the US. So, do you REALLY wish to discuss the biblical admonitions God gave to run a government???? More than happy to oblige, but the problem with your analogy is that the lion is already dead. We are just kicking the dog a bit that is all.
Now, the IHD poll is 50/50 which more likely reflects the reality across the US. You have yet to see the outrage from Obamacare when it fully impacts our economy over the next 4 years and fundamentally changes us from a 40 hour week to a 30 hour work week. The French have a 35 hour work week so it looks like we will take the lead over Europe. Couple that with the amnesty that is coming and the MILLIONS of illegals who will come in and bring their families, Obama will have transformed us from a prosperous nation to a that much closer to our neighbor to the south. So, no lions to save here any longer, just trying to kick the dog for a bit longer my friend.
-
Here is the full quote in context:
Ecclesiastes 9:4 ¶ For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion.
5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.
Whether the GOP survives or not politically is truly inconsequential in the long run. It is the will of the American people that God will bless or remove blessings. There is another verse you may be interested in from Ecclesiastes:
Eccesiastes 12:13 ¶ Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.
Jeremiah presided prophetically over the demise of Israel. God DID NOT tell him the advice of the man you quoted above. Far from it. He sent Jeremiah to tell the people to repent. He also told them to submit to the authority of those who God gave power over them, specifically, the King of Babylon. We are not quite at that point, but perhaps close. Remember, Jesus walked the earth under the authority of the Romans who in the end put Him to death. We are indeed heading back in that direction. For the church, the fleeting glimpse of freedom given to this great nation is now long since nearly completely evaporated. We are seeing the last vestiges of that freedom. Obamacare will enslave the entire nation in January 2014 with the largest single tax increase in the history of this nation. If we cannot keep from going over the precipice, so be it. But if God wills a little more reprieve which He gave to Josiah, then even better.
-
I've seen the joke about Canada seeing the backsides of Mt. Rushmore. Thing is, Mt. Rushmore is in South Dakota, which is not a border state. North Dakota is. The joke isn't all that funny given the facts. It just shows me how clueless some Americans are when it comes to our own geography. I say this and I'm not all that great about our geography, either. Just sayin'.
KarenInWA
-
I've seen the joke about Canada seeing the backsides of Mt. Rushmore. Thing is, Mt. Rushmore is in South Dakota, which is not a border state. North Dakota is. The joke isn't all that funny given the facts. It just shows me how clueless some Americans are when it comes to our own geography. I say this and I'm not all that great about our geography, either. Just sayin'.
KarenInWA
Just sayin, it was just a joke. Are we going to critique jokes to show how stupid conservatives are now at IHD. Its a joke and actually quite funny thank you. That is why I posted it, but it is also satirical of the way Obama is "making it hurt." It is just a joke. Too funny, now a geography lesson at IHD.
In addition, Obama has taken great pains to make it impossible to see Mt Rushmore even from highways spending a lot of money to close off scenic views of the Mt. Nothing funny about that. The satire of the picture speaks for itself. Seeing Mt Rushmore from the backside is the only view Obama is allowing.
http://www.argusleader.com/article/20131004/UPDATES/310040047/Rushmore-blockage-stirs-anger-in-S-D-?nclick_check=1
-
Here is one more Obamanation in the Great Smokey Mts. They closed a Federal highway through the middle of the park and the school kids in one area could not get home but by dangerous mt roads that a school bus could not pass. Great job commander in chief. Great job making it hurt.
http://www.thedailytimes.com/Local_News/story/Mayor-Ed-Mitchell-Blount-County-could-step-up-to-reopen-the-Great-Smoky-Mountains-National-Park-id-041546
Peter,
You are simply mistaken about your claim that the federal highway through the park was closed. Foothills Parkway is closed, as is Cades Cove (which is a loop road specifically for the tourists and not a through road at ALL). You are not familiar with this area and you did not read the article carefully. It clearly states that US Highway 441 is NOT closed.
In the Smokies, with the exception of the U.S. Highway 441 (Newfound Gap Road) between Gatlinburg and Cherokee, N.C., “The Spur” between Pigeon Forge and Gatlinburg and the Gatlinburg Bypass, the entire Park is closed.
I also notice that you are using immature name-calling when referring to President Obama. It doesn't become you to do so.
Aleta
-
Now, the IHD poll is 50/50 which more likely reflects the reality across the US.
You are absolutely ridiculous. It is obvious that you know nothing about polls and sampling. 16 people on IHD in NO way reflects the country. My Business Statistics professor would certainly give you an F based on your comment.
-
Here is one more Obamanation in the Great Smokey Mts. They closed a Federal highway through the middle of the park and the school kids in one area could not get home but by dangerous mt roads that a school bus could not pass. Great job commander in chief. Great job making it hurt.
http://www.thedailytimes.com/Local_News/story/Mayor-Ed-Mitchell-Blount-County-could-step-up-to-reopen-the-Great-Smoky-Mountains-National-Park-id-041546
Peter,
You are simply mistaken about your claim that the federal highway through the park was closed. Foothills Parkway is closed, as is Cades Cove (which is a loop road specifically for the tourists and not a through road at ALL). You are not familiar with this area and you did not read the article carefully. It clearly states that US Highway 441 is NOT closed.
In the Smokies, with the exception of the U.S. Highway 441 (Newfound Gap Road) between Gatlinburg and Cherokee, N.C., “The Spur” between Pigeon Forge and Gatlinburg and the Gatlinburg Bypass, the entire Park is closed.
I also notice that you are using immature name-calling when referring to President Obama. It doesn't become you to do so.
Aleta
No problem Aleta, but you didn't read my post well did you. is stated that they closed the SCENIC VIEW points, I never stated that Obummer closed the highway. Have a great night.
-
Now, the IHD poll is 50/50 which more likely reflects the reality across the US.
You are absolutely ridiculous. It is obvious that you know nothing about polls and sampling. 16 people on IHD in NO way reflects the country. My Business Statistics professor would certainly give you an F based on your comment.
Nope, I never stated the IHD poll was scientific. What I stated YL is that the poll probably reflects accurately the reality. Never stated it was scientific YL, but yes, it probably does reflect the sentiment of the entire population better than the left wing media polls for sure. In other words, YL, it was a comment about the veracity or lack thereof of the so called polls you see in all the left wing media. Folks are not happy with ObummerCare and getting less and less happy with it as the details come out in reality.
Anyway, always good to hear from you and Aleta.
Have a great night,
Cheers,
Peter
-
Left wing media polls? Wake up! You really are ridiculous.
ObummerCare: How old are you?
-
Left wing media polls? Wake up! You really are ridiculous.
ObummerCare: How old are you?
I am 55 my friend. ObummerCare is how it will affect many of us, in fact all of us. The largest tax in the entire history of our nation shall indeed be a true downer which is a real bummer. It accurately sums up what the effect of this horrible bill will have on the US.
Yes, left wing media polls by such independent organizations as NBC. Yup, I am ridiculous all right. Have a great day.
I am closing on a house today and signing the docs and then hanging out with my wonderful little granddaughter.
Have a great day YL. Always great to hear from you.
Take care,
Peter
-
It appears you missed the point of my post completely.
I think not. I went back to reread your posts on this topic. You place the blame on the current situation with Obama and the democrats. For the most part I agree with you. However, Medved's main contention (which makes a great deal of sense to me) is that the Republican reaction and strategy has been completely flawed. By "helping" to allow for the partial government shutdown, it gave the MSM - who are an extension of Obama and the Democratic party - the opportunity to keep the failure of the ACA implementation out of the headlines. The MSM would play up all the misery the Republicans are causing by shutting down the government. The ACA will implode on its own without the help of Republicans. I even posted a topic on this a couple of months ago when the Obama administration waived patient out-of-pocket caps until 2015.
Now, the IHD poll is 50/50 which more likely reflects the reality across the US. You have yet to see the outrage from Obamacare when it fully impacts our economy over the next 4 years and fundamentally changes us from a 40 hour week to a 30 hour work week. The French have a 35 hour work week so it looks like we will take the lead over Europe. Couple that with the amnesty that is coming and the MILLIONS of illegals who will come in and bring their families, Obama will have transformed us from a prosperous nation to a that much closer to our neighbor to the south. So, no lions to save here any longer, just trying to kick the dog for a bit longer my friend.
I agree with this except for your comment, "no lions to save here any longer, just trying to kick the dog for a bit longer." In fact, I'm surprised it is even 50/50 since the vast majority of IHD members are reliant on government programs/services in one way or another - more than the average American.
Dear Noahvale, do you REALLY wish to discuss the biblical admonitions for government????
Quite frankly, not at all. The reference to Ecclesiastes did catch my attention when reading Medved's essay - as do most biblical quotes in political commentary. I went to the Bible to read the full passage (well, Ecclesiastes 9:4-6) to see if he did take it out of context and thought it appropriate. To be quite honest, the only reason I even added the verse above Medved's essay header was to read your reaction. Would that one sentence towards the end of Medved's essay be the focal point of your response or would you actually comment on the heart of his argument? However, your opinion that this whole situation comes down to biblical prophesy is just as valid as any other. Again, I posted Medved's response to show that folks who have deeply held religious convictions can feel otherwise.
-
Here is one more Obamanation in the Great Smokey Mts. They closed a Federal highway through the middle of the park and the school kids in one area could not get home but by dangerous mt roads that a school bus could not pass. Great job commander in chief. Great job making it hurt.
http://www.thedailytimes.com/Local_News/story/Mayor-Ed-Mitchell-Blount-County-could-step-up-to-reopen-the-Great-Smoky-Mountains-National-Park-id-041546
Peter,
You are simply mistaken about your claim that the federal highway through the park was closed. Foothills Parkway is closed, as is Cades Cove (which is a loop road specifically for the tourists and not a through road at ALL). You are not familiar with this area and you did not read the article carefully. It clearly states that US Highway 441 is NOT closed.
In the Smokies, with the exception of the U.S. Highway 441 (Newfound Gap Road) between Gatlinburg and Cherokee, N.C., “The Spur” between Pigeon Forge and Gatlinburg and the Gatlinburg Bypass, the entire Park is closed.
I also notice that you are using immature name-calling when referring to President Obama. It doesn't become you to do so.
Aleta
No problem Aleta, but you didn't read my post well did you. is stated that they closed the SCENIC VIEW points, I never stated that Obummer closed the highway. Have a great night.
Actually Peter, I read the news release that you used as your source of information, as well as your post. In your post you stated:
Here is one more Obamanation in the Great Smokey Mts. They closed a Federal highway through the middle of the park and the school kids in one area could not get home but by dangerous mt roads that a school bus could not pass. Great job commander in chief. Great job making it hurt.
I have no idea where you got this misinformation. First of all, the highway THROUGH the middle of the park is not and never was closed for the government shut down, as YOU stated it was (even though you said that you never said it). It was closed earlier this year when a landslide removed a major part of the road. It is also sometimes closed in the winter due to impassible conditions. We locals know that if we need to use the route through the park during bad weather, a simple call to park headquarters will advise of closure.
The hype about school children is completely bogus. There are no school children riding buses through the park. Blount County, where I live is on one side of the park. The schools near the park in Blount and even Sevier Counties do not use park roads for busing children to school. There is no need to go INTO the park and then back out for children who do not live in the park. Ridiculous. Now, the Foothills Parkway may be another issue, but it is closed in the winter anyway. Families living in Happy Valley, which is located between Foothills Parkway and the Great Smoky Mountains National Park must traverse a different route than Foothills Parkway anyway.
The news article that you linked to was primarily talking about the huge economic impact to local citizens based on the loss of tourist traffic. Fall with the color change is a prime income season for many businesses near the park. And yes, that is going to affect this area significantly. the same story is happening around all of the national parks.
But your blaming the president for these closures is quite one sided. And using slurs is rather petty.
Aleta
-
So why doesn't a vote come to settle this shutdown?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/13/house-republicans-rules-change_n_4095129.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/13/house-republicans-rules-change_n_4095129.html)
Interesting.
-
Well said Aleta!
-
Dear Aleta, read the article and several others. They did INDEED shut down the Foothills parkway which is what I was referring to and left kids in an isolated part of the county in great difficulty getting home on dangerous roads.
The National Park Service also closed the Foothills Parkway, a major thoroughfare in the county. The closure came without warning and left the local school district scrambling to get children back to their homes./
The children live in the eastern Tennessee community of Top of the World – serviced by School Bus 49. Normally, the bus travels along the Foothills Parkway. Other roads leading to the isolated mountain community are impassible by bus.
“It’s dangerous,” said Nancy Kemp, the spokesperson for Blount County Schools.”It’s very curvy and straight up the mountain. It’s just not a safe route.”
One local resident told Knoxville television station WBIR that the alternative roads are “white knuckle routes.”
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/10/07/all-about-power-and-leverage-feds-shut-down-major-roadway-block-access-to/
I guess you don't know what is going on in your neck of the woods by our residing dictator in chief.
-
The federal government reopens tomorrow on terms that have been acceptable to Congressional democrats since the shutdown started, so in the end what do supporters of the republicans in Congress take away from this experience?
-
The federal government reopens tomorrow on terms that have been acceptable to Congressional democrats since the shutdown started, so in the end what do supporters of the republicans in Congress take away from this experience?
Now Bill, don't gloat.
8)
-
The federal government reopens tomorrow on terms that have been acceptable to Congressional democrats since the shutdown started, so in the end what do supporters of the republicans in Congress take away from this experience?
Now Bill, don't gloat.
8)
It wasn't my success and the misfortune was mostly borne by federal workers and people who depend on a functioning government, there is nothing to gloat about. It's a serious question, was anything accomplished? Was anything learned from the republican perspective? My guess is this whole three week period will never be spoken of again by republican officials and their supporters other than as part of some stabbed in the back narrative. Starting tomorrow the only thing anyone on the right will want to talk about is the crappiness of the federal healthcare exchange computer system. The legislative failures of the last three weeks will just be another wound, another grievance for republicans to air on Festivus.
-
Not really sure. My take away is that the T Party is a bunch of wackos.
-
Lessons learned? No, this is just business as usual in Washington D.C.
As the IHD poll on this issue shows in a very left leaning website, Obama did not come out smelling like a rose. He gave the GOP some great 2014 ads on abuse of power. When this is coupled with over 10 months of ObamaCare, your gloating today will not be evident at that time. ObamaCare is a complete unmitigated disaster. By excluding the GOP entirely in this monstrous takeover of the health care industry, ownership of this bill will belong entirely to the DEMS since it is their own little baby.
Even with the left wing media propaganda machine, the impact on unions, small business and unskilled workers will be swift, destructive and noticed. For the GOP to simply8 fund Obamacare without any fight would have been far worse. Granted, this nation is leaning further and further left which is not so much a measure of the success of Obama at all, but rather the historic trend of all democracies coupled with human nature of wanting something without working for it.
The GOP and the Tea Party specifically has much more to overcome than simple politics. Overcoming historical trends and human nature to raid the treasury more and more is probably a losing battle for anyone to engage in as history demonstrates, but it is one worth engaging given the consequences are that democracies end in totalitarian dictatorships. One thing we did learn is that Obama enjoys tactics that increase the pain to the common people of America if they oppose him in any manner. That is the hallmarks of a man who would be king. That is not the hallmarks of a true leader.
-
So why doesn't a vote come to settle this shutdown?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/13/house-republicans-rules-change_n_4095129.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/13/house-republicans-rules-change_n_4095129.html)
Interesting.
I noticed HD completely ignored this despicable GOP move. I am so tired of the bologna they get away with. Between the gerrymandering so they have the House and trying to block the vote like in NC. It is disgusting and anyone who supports this should be ashamed.
-
Agreed. Hopefully they will pay a price in 2014 and 2016. I spent some time reading Ryans budget plan yesterday. Hopefully it will never see the light of day. The GOP has lost its way. They are the party of extorsion.
-
Dear Aleta, read the article and several others. They did INDEED shut down the Foothills parkway which is what I was referring to and left kids in an isolated part of the county in great difficulty getting home on dangerous roads.
The National Park Service also closed the Foothills Parkway, a major thoroughfare in the county. The closure came without warning and left the local school district scrambling to get children back to their homes./
The children live in the eastern Tennessee community of Top of the World – serviced by School Bus 49. Normally, the bus travels along the Foothills Parkway. Other roads leading to the isolated mountain community are impassible by bus.
“It’s dangerous,” said Nancy Kemp, the spokesperson for Blount County Schools.”It’s very curvy and straight up the mountain. It’s just not a safe route.”
One local resident told Knoxville television station WBIR that the alternative roads are “white knuckle routes.”
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/10/07/all-about-power-and-leverage-feds-shut-down-major-roadway-block-access-to/
I guess you don't know what is going on in your neck of the woods by our residing dictator in chief.
All right, Peter. You still didn't acknowledge a couple of things. First you claimed that you never said that the highway through the park was closed. You did. Secondly, you ignored that I said that Foothills Parkway is another issue. Yes, it was closed, and yes, the children had to use another route (a white knuckle road I have traversed many times). You failed to understand that Foothills Parkway is FREQUENTLY closed. When it is, those poor posturing politicians, parents and school personnel don't have any cause to whine to the media in an attempt to make it seem that the administration in Washington is deliberately causing them discomfort.
Your condescending tone is not becoming, but I doubt an apology will be be forthcoming.
I notice that you also continue to use derogatory language when referring the President Obama. That is not very becoming either. Nor does using immature language strengthen your arguments in any way. It seems to be your style, though.
-
I am so tired of the bologna they get away with. Between the gerrymandering so they have the House and trying to block the vote like in NC. It is disgusting and anyone who supports this should be ashamed.
Hate to disillusion you, YLG, but "gerrymandering" is used equally by Republicans and Democrats in state politics, depending on which party has control. Each wish to either hold on to or expand its party's advantage. The SCOTUS has even acknowledged that reapportionment is a legislative and political process and that political parties may, "seek partisan advantage to their heart's content as long as they do it within constraints [of the law].” Ideally, the most logical way to do state reapportionment would be to let a computer draw the lines based on population, prohibiting political or demographic considerations. However, in the vast majority of states, BOTH parties are against this - too nonpartisan. They would rather play the political game with "to the victor go the spoils."
It will ultimately end up with the Supremes to decide if NC's Voter ID laws are discriminatory. However, take heed...SCOTUS, on a 6-3 decision, found Indiana's Voter ID laws to be constitutional, on which NC's are based. Plus, Section 4 of the Voters Rights Act, which NC had to abide by, is no longer valid.
-
Dear Aleta, read the article and several others. They did INDEED shut down the Foothills parkway which is what I was referring to and left kids in an isolated part of the county in great difficulty getting home on dangerous roads.
The National Park Service also closed the Foothills Parkway, a major thoroughfare in the county. The closure came without warning and left the local school district scrambling to get children back to their homes./
The children live in the eastern Tennessee community of Top of the World – serviced by School Bus 49. Normally, the bus travels along the Foothills Parkway. Other roads leading to the isolated mountain community are impassible by bus.
“It’s dangerous,” said Nancy Kemp, the spokesperson for Blount County Schools.”It’s very curvy and straight up the mountain. It’s just not a safe route.”
One local resident told Knoxville television station WBIR that the alternative roads are “white knuckle routes.”
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/10/07/all-about-power-and-leverage-feds-shut-down-major-roadway-block-access-to/
I guess you don't know what is going on in your neck of the woods by our residing dictator in chief.
All right, Peter. You still didn't acknowledge a couple of things. First you claimed that you never said that the highway through the park was closed. You did. Secondly, you ignored that I said that Foothills Parkway is another issue. Yes, it was closed, and yes, the children had to use another route (a white knuckle road I have traversed many times). You failed to understand that Foothills Parkway is FREQUENTLY closed. When it is, those poor posturing politicians, parents and school personnel don't have any cause to whine to the media in an attempt to make it seem that the administration in Washington is deliberately causing them discomfort.
Your condescending tone is not becoming, but I doubt an apology will be be forthcoming.
I notice that you also continue to use derogatory language when referring the President Obama. That is not very becoming either. Nor does using immature language strengthen your arguments in any way. It seems to be your style, though.
So, what is the justification for abruptly closing the highway which is not even IN the National Park itself? That is even more troubling and it was shut down to increase the pain of the shutdown. If it is not inside the park, what justification do they have? That is an even worse scenario. I see it is open again and the closure was not a weather related issue at all. This is even more troubling. But if you want a dictatorship, so be it. Be careful what you ask for.
-
All my friends who work for USDA got 2 weeks off with Pay. WOW Most of them are happy but think it is BS to the tax payer!
We cannot afford this!! :stressed;
-
Peter, you said:
So, what is the justification for abruptly closing the highway which is not even IN the National Park itself? That is even more troubling and it was shut down to increase the pain of the shutdown. If it is not inside the park, what justification do they have? That is an even worse scenario. I see it is open again and the closure was not a weather related issue at all. This is even more troubling. But if you want a dictatorship, so be it. Be careful what you ask for.
Since you are not from this area, you don't know the geography. The Foothills Parkway, while not technically part of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, is managed by the Park System. When the Park System (along with the government) is closed, Foothills Parkway will also be closed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foothills_Parkway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foothills_Parkway)
I wonder why you keep adding snippets like this: But if you want a dictatorship, so be it. Be careful what you ask for.
I have never wanted a dictatorship, nor did I want a shutdown of the government.
-
take a 3 month vacation folks,you can meet back then ,to do it all again
-
If we had a dictatorship the government would not have shut down. It was a failed GOP plan driven by the right wing Tbaggers that caused the government to shut down. Even GOP long term politicians are publicly admitting it was a mistake that cost the GOP politically. The GOP is badly brocken imo.
-
If we had a dictatorship the government would not have shut down. It was a failed GOP plan driven by the right wing Tbaggers that caused the government to shut down. Even GOP long term politicians are publicly admitting it was a mistake that cost the GOP politically. The GOP is badly brocken imo.
No my friend, this nation is badly broken into conservatives, independents and progressives. Forget the GOP and DEMS, that doesn't tell the entire story. The progressives completely dominate the DEMS and are the quite distinct majority of the GOP. Most of the GOP in congress today would have fit in quite well with the DEMS of 10-15 years ago.
If you can't see the totalitarian nature of this administration, then I guess you won't see it as the pot slowly boils. Likewise, it isn't just Obama, look at all that Bush did to rescind freedoms in America during his 8 years in office. The constitution is under assault by both parties who are sold out to big money. Corruption is rampant in this nation. It appears that folks simply have no concept of liberty any longer. Sadly, by the time they know the pot is boiling, it will be too late if it is not too late already. You castigate the Tbaggers not understanding what their motivations are. If you cherish personal and individual freedoms, you would be right with them as well.
Even in the Bible, when the people wanted a king instead of God, God told Samuel the prophet to let them have what they wanted, but simply warn them what they were asking for. That is where we are at today in a very real sense. So, hang on, the pot is starting to simmer my friend, but just remember, it is what you want that is coming. You are the people asking for this and that is what you shall get.
-
Unfortunately, we will ALL get it.!!!
-
Woe is us. hehehe
-
Woe is us. hehehe
Hmmm, not very funny my friend, but so be it, that is the attitude of the majority in the US today. So be it.
-
Maybe to you not funny. To me very funny. That is what I call freedom oh pious one. Sheesh!
-
....
-
Maybe to you not funny. To me very funny. That is what I call freedom oh pious one. Sheesh!
Now that is funny, yes, freedom to be enslaved. Very funny indeed.
-
Maybe to you not funny. To me very funny. That is what I call freedom oh pious one. Sheesh!
Now that is funny, yes, freedom to be enslaved. Very funny indeed.
Enslaved??? Now I know you are completely ridiculous. I am done reading your complete dribble. Have a great life my friend!
-
hehehe I'm free free free! Except for four manuals a day. Thank God for my government and medicare or I guess I would just have to curl up in a corner and die.
-
hehehe I'm free free free! Except for four manuals a day. Thank God for my government and medicare or I guess I would just have to curl up in a corner and die.
It is interesting to read many of the quotes from the founding fathers. Ben Franklin made one of those interesting statements:
“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
There is a real cost with snuggling up to the government teat for all things. Funny thing, ObamaCare which so far is a complete implementation flop stole over 700 billion from Medicare. The 9.4% cuts coming to dialysis are real and they will be painful for all. When ObamaCare is fully implemented and Medicare gutted even further, I am not sure if you will be singing the same praises. And YL, I thought you quit reading my posts a long time ago. Oh well, go figure, but always good to hear from you YL of course.
-
Are you on medicare Peter?
-
I am on Medicare and would love to find out just how much higher our premiums will be in 2014. After all, we did get a 1.5% increase in Social Security. for most of us, that amounts to between $15 and $17 per month. Have already been to Medicare, gov and can find no info on this. Ideas, anyone??
-
Are you on medicare Peter?
Yes, but I didn't use my Medicare for about 2 years until Kaiser forced all on its coverage to turn over Medicare to them or pay very large co-pays for each dialysis session. Not much choice on the Medicare either since that is just about automatic with the ESRD diagnosis. My dialysis unit signed me up when I started in-center. Just the way it is. But I had private coverage for all of my dialysis without any medicare coverage and that is the way it was for a couple of years when I first started dialysis nearly 7 years ago.
-
Do you have a feasible answer for the healthcare crisis in America? You have some 40+ million folks that either can not afford coverage or are denied coverage because of pre existing conditions. Admittedly, ACA is messy but its a start. They should work on making improvements to it instead of trying to blow it up without a viable solution to the problem. Most of the uninsured are probably folks with little means. They deserve a solution and to deny that is wrong in the worlds richest nation. I think in time ACA will become a cornerstone of stability and security for the American public. Just like social security and medicare. We will see.
-
Do you have a feasible answer for the healthcare crisis in America? You have some 40+ million folks that either can not afford coverage or are denied coverage because of pre existing conditions. Admittedly, ACA is messy but its a start. They should work on making improvements to it instead of trying to blow it up without a viable solution to the problem. Most of the uninsured are probably folks with little means. They deserve a solution and to deny that is wrong in the worlds richest nation. I think in time ACA will become a cornerstone of stability and security for the American public. Just like social security and medicare. We will see.
A cornerstone of stability?? Sorry, but it is not designed to stabilize anything. It is instead designed to destabilize our economy and our health care industry to not only lead to single payor but also to European style socialism. Stability, not with this monstrous work.
-
How has it destabilized our economy? We have been in a slow growth mode for years since the great recession that GW ushered in. The markets are at record highs as are corporate earnings. ACA has been law since 2010 although key aspects of it are just now kicking in. The current economic conditions do not validate your claims. You are parroting the typical GOP gobbly gook. I think the conservative fear is that this program will become very popular and that the regret is that it was implemented by a black democratic president. As to employment, if the GOP would cooperate in building a budget that could lead to growth and stability, corporate America would hire again. If we had jobs and growth, consumer demand would increase and drive profits even higher as corporations could drive earnings with top line growth in lieu of expense management. Instead what we have had from the right is total obstruction of anything proposed by the president. The right wants him to fail even though his failure would hurt America. We have seen this multiple times. It is sick and I hope they will pay a political price for it.
-
How has it destabilized our economy? We have been in a slow growth mode for years since the great recession that GW ushered in. The markets are at record highs as are corporate earnings. ACA has been law since 2010 although key aspects of it are just now kicking in. The current economic conditions do not validate your claims. You are parroting the typical GOP gobbly gook. I think the conservative fear is that this program will become very popular and that the regret is that it was implemented by a black democratic president. As to employment, if the GOP would cooperate in building a budget that could lead to growth and stability, corporate America would hire again. If we had jobs and growth, consumer demand would increase and drive profits even higher as corporations could drive earnings with top line growth in lieu of expense management. Instead what we have had from the right is total obstruction of anything proposed by the president. The right wants him to fail even though his failure would hurt America. We have seen this multiple times. It is sick and I hope they will pay a political price for it.
Oh really, I guess a 30 hour work week will work for you, shifting your employees to the exchanges, part time job creation. Yes, yes, yes, that is just GOP propaganda alright. The markets usually are at record highs before the bubble bursts so that is not a predictor of good times to come for sure. GOP cooperation, baloney, how can they do anything in a rationale fashion with the current child in chief in office today. Sorry, I am not a republican and much of what they do is a bunch of garbage but you are quite deluded about what ObummerCare will do to this nation and it is NOT the cornerstone of stability. That truly is funny.
-
How has it destabilized our economy? We have been in a slow growth mode for years since the great recession that GW ushered in. The markets are at record highs as are corporate earnings. ACA has been law since 2010 although key aspects of it are just now kicking in. The current economic conditions do not validate your claims. You are parroting the typical GOP gobbly gook. I think the conservative fear is that this program will become very popular and that the regret is that it was implemented by a black democratic president. As to employment, if the GOP would cooperate in building a budget that could lead to growth and stability, corporate America would hire again. If we had jobs and growth, consumer demand would increase and drive profits even higher as corporations could drive earnings with top line growth in lieu of expense management. Instead what we have had from the right is total obstruction of anything proposed by the president. The right wants him to fail even though his failure would hurt America. We have seen this multiple times. It is sick and I hope they will pay a political price for it.
It can be quite successfully argued that your screed is nothing more than parroting typical leftist "gobbly gook" [sic].
So you truly feel that had a WHITE progressive, leftist leaning dem president come up with the ACA Republicans would have just rolled over and allowed for its implementation without dissent?
Are you so partisan that you can't even see the hyprocisy in the comment that, "what we have had from the right is total obstruction of anything proposed by the president," when the president nixed all proposals by the republicans followed by saying, "I will not negociate?"
You have no concept how a heavy handed government will destroy our country. Start with trying to understand the failure of Keynesian economics.
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell101513.php3
-
I am on Medicare and would love to find out just how much higher our premiums will be in 2014. After all, we did get a 1.5% increase in Social Security. for most of us, that amounts to between $15 and $17 per month. Have already been to Medicare, gov and can find no info on this. Ideas, anyone??
Medicare premiums are calculated based on a formula based on the Medicare cost of the previous year, the federal government pays 75 percent of Part B costs and beneficiaries pay 25 percent. Nothing in Obamacare changes this except in the sense that in general the growth of Part B spending is far lower than previously predicted so if I had to guess the increase in premiums will be minimal or it is possible that premiums could go down if as expected more people join Medicare Part B than die due to the Baby Boomers are now reaching 65 in force.
EDITED TO ADD: Do you mean January 2014? or the 2014 fiscal year: October 2014 to October 2015? January 2014 premiums, the Part B Medicare premiums for the 2013 fiscal year (http://www.medicare.gov/your-medicare-costs/costs-at-a-glance/costs-at-glance.html) will be a bit less than $105/month up about $5/month from the premiums in the 2012 Fiscal year. My guess posted above is what our premiums will be starting next October.
Funny thing, ObamaCare which so far is a complete implementation flop stole over 700 billion from Medicare. The 9.4% cuts coming to dialysis are real and they will be painful for all. When ObamaCare is fully implemented and Medicare gutted even further, I am not sure if you will be singing the same praises.
Peter, I know that you know that Affordable Care Act had nothing to do with the recent proposal to cut dialysis reimbursement - the rebalancing of the bundle. Whether or not the cuts are justified is debatable but the reason the cut happened is known to you just as it is known to me and it had nothing to do with Obamacare. In addition I assume you know that the 700 billion in Medicare savings captured by the Affordable Care Act, which were largely comprised of cuts to the GROWTH of Medicare Part A have had no impact on the health of the Medicare Part A program, despite your prediction that Medicare Part A would be significantly impacted and one assumes you know that every republican budget from Romney to each of Ryan's has kept those savings in place. I conclude that your purpose is to frighten and worry people who rely on Medicare for reasons known only to you.
-
I am on Medicare and would love to find out just how much higher our premiums will be in 2014. After all, we did get a 1.5% increase in Social Security. for most of us, that amounts to between $15 and $17 per month. Have already been to Medicare, gov and can find no info on this. Ideas, anyone??
Medicare premiums are calculated based on a formula based on the Medicare cost of the previous year, the federal government pays 75 percent of Part B costs and beneficiaries pay 25 percent. Nothing in Obamacare changes this except in the sense that in general the growth of Part B spending is far lower than previously predicted so if I had to guess the increase in premiums will be minimal or it is possible that premiums could go down if as expected more people join Medicare Part B than die due to the Baby Boomers are now reaching 65 in force.
EDITED TO ADD: Do you mean January 2014? or the 2014 fiscal year: October 2014 to October 2015? January 2014 premiums, the Part B Medicare premiums for the 2013 fiscal year (http://www.medicare.gov/your-medicare-costs/costs-at-a-glance/costs-at-glance.html) will be a bit less than $105/month up about $5/month from the premiums in the 2012 Fiscal year. My guess posted above is what our premiums will be starting next October.
Funny thing, ObamaCare which so far is a complete implementation flop stole over 700 billion from Medicare. The 9.4% cuts coming to dialysis are real and they will be painful for all. When ObamaCare is fully implemented and Medicare gutted even further, I am not sure if you will be singing the same praises.
Peter, I know that you know that Affordable Care Act had nothing to do with the recent proposal to cut dialysis reimbursement - the rebalancing of the bundle. Whether or not the cuts are justified is debatable but the reason the cut happened is known to you just as it is known to me and it had nothing to do with Obamacare. In addition I assume you know that the 700 billion in Medicare savings captured by the Affordable Care Act, which were largely comprised of cuts to the GROWTH of Medicare Part A have had no impact on the health of the Medicare Part A program, despite your prediction that Medicare Part A would be significantly impacted and one assumes you know that every republican budget from Romney to each of Ryan's has kept those savings in place. I conclude that your purpose is to frighten and worry people who rely on Medicare for reasons known only to you.
??? I am on Medicare as well. The 9.4% cuts are quite real. The best commentary I have read to date on how they will impact patients is from a professor at UCI, Dr. Kamyar Kalantar-Zade. The cuts are real, what part of scare is real Bill??? The reason that the budget by the GOP is because Obamacare is law. No mystery, they have to take account of what reality is. No matter how much folks may dislike it, that is the law.
http://www.renalbusiness.com/articles/2013/10/a-question-of-survival.aspx
You claim that Obamacare will generate "savings." Sorry, to date all that Obamacare has done is escalate health care costs. in addition, reduced payment to providers will force 15% of hospitals out of business in the next 5 years. Here is an excellent summary of the ACAs negative effects on the health industry.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/08/obamacares-impact-on-seniors-an-update
-
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1766772-what-happened-to-the-part-time-employment-issue
-
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1766772-what-happened-to-the-part-time-employment-issue (http://seekingalpha.com/article/1766772-what-happened-to-the-part-time-employment-issue)
For some reason this news isn't being embraced on the right, nor this: Wal-Mart Returning To Full-Time Workers-Obamacare Not Such A Job Killer After All? (http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/09/25/wal-mart-returning-to-full-time-workers-obamacare-not-such-a-job-killer-after-all/) After all people with concerns about how Obamacare will affect employment should be happy that their heartfelt concerns for workers aren't coming to pass. Not to even mention the buzz in entrepreneurial circles about the opportunity for people who have preexisting conditions or have family members with preexisting conditions to have a go at starting their own companies next year because they won't be chained to insurance providing employment.
-
Bill, it is all in the details. First, let's talk about this in July of 2014 after the law is in effect and see how accurate the projections are. Secondly, there could be a very logical reason why it may or may not have an impact on part time care. Simply Obama will count the effective hours instead of actual hours even in companies with seasonal employees for only 121 days as a full time year. If they are over for 121 days, it applies to the company for the whole year. The attention is in the details.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/08/05/Uh-Oh-Small-Businesses-Can-t-Avoid-ObamaCare-By-Switch-To-Part-Time-Workers
So with Obama a full time work week is 30 hours and a full year is 121 days. Go figure. Is there confusion on this issue for employers??? You betcha, just like the ObamaCare website disaster. Funny, no one on IHD is talking about that train wreck already in town right now. How is that ObamaCare working for you already???
-
Now, the IHD poll is 50/50 which more likely reflects the reality across the US.
You are absolutely ridiculous. It is obvious that you know nothing about polls and sampling. 16 people on IHD in NO way reflects the country. My Business Statistics professor would certainly give you an F based on your comment.
Marc, I agree (of course) that the IHD poll tells us nothing but the opinions of a few members, but really this sort of thinking from the far right helps Democrats in the end. The arrogant delusion that extremist Tea Partiers reflect the "real" America and that at least half the country agrees with them led to the shock and wailing when, to their utter surprise, Obama defeated Romney. This wasn't such a surprise to anyone with a sound grasp of stats and polling. I think you have the right idea in choosing to ignore the comments (or even encouraging them.... ;) :rofl;)
-
Now, the IHD poll is 50/50 which more likely reflects the reality across the US.
You are absolutely ridiculous. It is obvious that you know nothing about polls and sampling. 16 people on IHD in NO way reflects the country. My Business Statistics professor would certainly give you an F based on your comment.
Marc, I agree (of course) that the IHD poll tells us nothing but the opinions of a few members, but really this sort of thinking from the far right helps Democrats in the end. The arrogant delusion that extremist Tea Partiers reflect the "real" America and that at least half the country agrees with them led to the shock and wailing when, to their utter surprise, Obama defeated Romney. This wasn't such a surprise to anyone with a sound grasp of stats and polling. I think you have the right idea in choosing to ignore the comments (or even encouraging them.... ;) :rofl;)
Shock, sorry, NO ONE in the TEA party liked Romney at all with his history in MA with gun control, taxation and of course health care. No surprise at all. Weak GOP candidate against incumbent. GOP loses. Is that a SHOCK. Not at all.
Once again, I never stated the IHD poll was scientific, just that ObamaCare and other aspects of this tyrannical administration are not anywhere near as popular as the radical left wing media would portray in their own tainted polling and that the IHD probably has a fairer representation of the reality in this nation. This will be even more evident as tens of millions of people lose health insurance and will not be able to afford what is offered on the exchanges. Great job Obama.
-
Shock, sorry, NO ONE in the TEA party liked Romney at all with his history in MA with gun control, taxation and of course health care. No surprise at all. Weak GOP candidate against incumbent. GOP loses. Is that a SHOCK. Not at all.
Once again, I never stated the IHD poll was scientific, just that ObamaCare and other aspects of this tyrannical administration are not anywhere near as popular as the radical left wing media would portray in their own tainted polling and that the IHD probably has a fairer representation of the reality in this nation. This will be even more evident as tens of millions of people lose health insurance and will not be able to afford what is offered on the exchanges. Great job Obama.
Really, NO ONE in the TEA party liked Romney? I thought you said that the tea party as a group didn't exist. You speak for every last person who identifies as tea party? Interesting. You stated that the IHD poll "probably" reflects the rest of the nation when an NBC/WSJ poll stated that Republican approval was crashing and burning through the shutdown. Hmmm, what does the WSJ stand for again? Oh, that's right, Murdoch, that well-known liberal.
Here is one of literally a million links that will try to talk you through just how bad the shutdown was for Republicans: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/11/polls-show-the-gop-is-now-losing-their-faithful.html but you are always free to deny reality, just as Republicans like Karl Rove and Mitt Romney denied reality in 2012 and were publicly and hilariously stupefied when Obama earned 4 more years. Yes, there was plenty of shock to be witnessed, throughout the Republican party, including members who identify as tea party, and including the GOP candidate himself. Extrapolating the opinions of the American people from some silly little poll on IHD is a ludicrous thing to do.
-
Shock, sorry, NO ONE in the TEA party liked Romney at all with his history in MA with gun control, taxation and of course health care. No surprise at all. Weak GOP candidate against incumbent. GOP loses. Is that a SHOCK. Not at all.
Once again, I never stated the IHD poll was scientific, just that ObamaCare and other aspects of this tyrannical administration are not anywhere near as popular as the radical left wing media would portray in their own tainted polling and that the IHD probably has a fairer representation of the reality in this nation. This will be even more evident as tens of millions of people lose health insurance and will not be able to afford what is offered on the exchanges. Great job Obama.
Really, NO ONE in the TEA party liked Romney? I thought you said that the tea party as a group didn't exist. You speak for every last person who identifies as tea party? Interesting. You stated that the IHD poll "probably" reflects the rest of the nation when an NBC/WSJ poll stated that Republican approval was crashing and burning through the shutdown. Hmmm, what does the WSJ stand for again? Oh, that's right, Murdoch, that well-known liberal.
Here is one of literally a million links that will try to talk you through just how bad the shutdown was for Republicans: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/11/polls-show-the-gop-is-now-losing-their-faithful.html but you are always free to deny reality, just as Republicans like Karl Rove and Mitt Romney denied reality in 2012 and were publicly and hilariously stupefied when Obama earned 4 more years. Yes, there was plenty of shock to be witnessed, throughout the Republican party, including members who identify as tea party, and including the GOP candidate himself. Extrapolating the opinions of the American people from some silly little poll on IHD is a ludicrous thing to do.
You are too funny. Romney was one of the weakest GOP candidates ever. I guess you didn't hear all of the rancor and lack of enthusiasm for his candidacy. In any case, believe as you wish in your own little world. But you are quite wrong to believe the conservatives supported Romney. In fact, many that voted FOR Romney were actually voting against Obama and holding their nose doing so.
Romeny and Obama are almost indistinguishable in their political history. Both supported gun control measures. Both brought mandatory health insurance, in fact, Obamacare is modeled on Romneycare and both massively increased spending and taxation. So, really, SHOCK. Get real.
One other issue, if you look at the last hundred years of US presidential elections, incumbents almost always win a second term. The odds of unseating a president is very remote and only occurs rarely. So incumbent vs weak GOP candidate, where is it that you get some sort of SHOCK out of that.
I will tell you what the SHOCK is here in the US today. That is the shock of millions of Americans getting letters from their health care providers telling them that they will no longer be covered and to go to the exchanges for insurance that most cannot afford. That is the real SHOCK. Not sure if it will wake up America to the real Obama or not, but yes, that is a real SHOCK getting those letters in the mail. Romney losing to Obama, shucks, that was a settled issue for quite some time. Quite a few folks that would be labeled as TEA Party folks that I know didn't even bother watching the election with the foregone conclusion already known. But really, what is it that Romney would offer concervatives as a true distinct choice from Obama. Sorry, but your contentions are truly laughable.
-
You are too funny.
I find it amusing that sarcasm is dangerous to America when democrats use it, but you hypocritically use it all the time on this very site.
Romney was one of the weakest GOP candidates ever. I guess you didn't hear all of the rancor and lack of enthusiasm for his candidacy. In any case, believe as you wish in your own little world.
:rofl; :rofl; :rofl; :rofl; :rofl; :rofl;
But you are quite wrong to believe the conservatives supported Romney. In fact, many that voted FOR Romney were actually voting against Obama and holding their nose doing so.
We have video evidence of Karl Rove desperately pleading with statisticians to change reality. Regardless of *why* someone votes for a candidate, the goal is to elect that candidate and not the other, therefore it is support whether you like it or not. There are options when you don't support anyone in an election: write-in, 3rd party, abstention. I have cast votes for candidates that I was not at all excited about, so what? That is the nature of politics the world over.
Romeny and Obama are almost indistinguishable in their political history. Both supported gun control measures. Both brought mandatory health insurance, in fact, Obamacare is modeled on Romneycare and both massively increased spending and taxation. So, really, SHOCK. Get real.
Again, how similar or different they were is irrelevant. Yes, shock. Watch the video. A Republican much more connected with the feelings of the GOP couldn't contain his SHOCK on live television. You do not speak for all Republicans, conservatives, nor tea party members, Karl Rove, however, does speak for a sizeable number of Republicans.
One other issue, if you look at the last hundred years of US presidential elections, incumbents almost always win a second term. The odds of unseating a president is very remote and only occurs rarely. So incumbent vs weak GOP candidate, where is it that you get some sort of SHOCK out of that.
I love how you pull these random numbers out and earnestly claim that it proves something. Why 100 years? Why not look at all of them, there have only been 44, so I would argue that a president being elected at all is a rare event. Almost like it only happens, at most, once every four years!
Politics have changed so radically as new technology comes in to play, but I'll humour you and look at the past 50 years since it's a nice, round number, we all are pretty familiar with those elections, and it happens to roughly begin with the first televised debate. I'll even include Kennedy because it gives us nice round numbers to look at, and I'll even (very generously) let him stay in the column with the other winning incumbents (he wasn't) along with Johnson (who should really have been counted as a loss) and Nixon who cheated famously and horribly. Including Kennedy, there have been 10 presidents since the early 60s. THREE incumbents lost in that time frame. THIRTY PERCENT!!! In what universe is that a rare event? I guess in yours. But I'm the one in my own little world. I invite others to join me here, the sky is blue and math and science can tell us things about the world.
I will tell you what the SHOCK is here in the US today.
Wow. Now you speak for all in the US. You are a very important person, aren't you?
That is the shock of millions of Americans getting letters from their health care providers telling them that they will no longer be covered and to go to the exchanges for insurance that most cannot afford. That is the real SHOCK.
I would think the tens of millions of uninsured will be quite shocked that they can now get health insurance! I know being able to buy my own health insurance in America would have been the shock of a lifetime for me!
Not sure if it will wake up America to the real Obama or not, but yes, that is a real SHOCK getting those letters in the mail. Romney losing to Obama, shucks, that was a settled issue for quite some time. Quite a few folks that would be labeled as TEA Party folks that I know didn't even bother watching the election with the foregone conclusion already known. But really, what is it that Romney would offer concervatives as a true distinct choice from Obama. Sorry, but your contentions are truly laughable.
Peter, stop obsessing over the word shock.
Your hand-wringing and keening on this site following the 2012 election certainly could be fairly interpreted as evidence of shock. You know perfectly well the real issue is not your desperate attempt to turn this conversation into a discussion of the use of the word shock, but rather that you ridiculously used an IHD poll to generalize to the rest of the country. If anything is truly laughable, it is that.
-
Baloney, the election was long over before election night. It was a foregone conclusion months before November. Believe as you wish. Even the polls consistently for MONTHS stated the obvious. Sorry, you are just wrong on that issue.
Romney was one of the weakest GOP candidates we have ever had. You want to debate that? Really.
Conservatives did NOT like Romney one little bit. That is not news either.
3rd party candidates are interesting such as the third party candidate in 1992 that gave Clinton the election. However, they are NOT a viable alternative if you wish to see someone elected.
Ford was never elected so he is a bit of an anomaly already to start. The interesting thing about Ford is he NEVER won an election for president and had no experience or organization to do so. In addition, he lost the election in large part as a reaction against his pardon of Nixon. Elected incumbents Bush and Carter are the only two in the last 50 years. That is 20% in that period and that just goes to show that statistically, the incumbent has a huge advantage in second term election. Even if you include Ford who NEVER won any election in that mix of 50 years, the incumbents in the last 50 years have a 70/30 advantage right from the get go. You haven't helped your argument, instead you have simply confirmed the known political advantage of the incumbent as I stated. Going back a hundred years, it is an even higher advantage. Nothing random about these historical facts. Why would you call it random. Go figure.
Karl Rove is influental but also hated in many circles as well as an establishment Republican. There is a huge split in the GOP between the establishment group and conservative/libertarian republicans who have no choice but to go with the GOP since 3rd party candidates have very little viable chances of winning. It is not a happy marriage. The 2012 election did not cause this split, it has been here for quite some time.
Too funny, when have I EVER stated I speak for the GOP. That is truly funny. Anyway, thanks for the chuckle.
Math and science??? Huh, uhh, I have a B.S. degree in Biology, minor in math, minor in chemistry Summa Cum Laude and an M.D. I understand science quite well thank you. Not sure what blue cloud you picked that out of but, that is quite a chuckle a well.
There you go again saying I am speaking for everyone. Not at all, have you not seen the news on MSNBC of all places talking about the millions of people who are losing their health insurance. Many of these folks voted for Obama and believed his tragic lies that you could keep your insurance if you had it and wanted to keep it. What a monstrous lie and people today are waking to buyers remorse which is another headline as well.
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-admin-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lite
So where are your tens of millions of people getting health insurance right now??? I have agreed with Rand Paul for quite a while, let Obamacare fall on its own. The GOP doesn't have to do anything except let this train wreck come to town which it is doing. How is that website working for you???
"Handwringing" since the 2012 election. Not at all. Although it saddens me greatly to see this nation walking off into great darkness in many realms, political movements and politicians are not my source of comfort or security. The Bible told us 2000 years ago what we would see in these times. While it is indeed distressing to realize the amazing amount of personal freedoms lost since I was a child here in America, I accept that these things shall come to pass as I look onward for the blessed hope of my Lord's return. I am sure you will have great fun with that statement, but so be it.
-
Baloney, the election was long over before election night. It was a foregone conclusion months before November. Believe as you wish. Even the polls consistently for MONTHS stated the obvious. Sorry, you are just wrong on that issue.
Romney was one of the weakest GOP candidates we have ever had. You want to debate that? Really.
Conservatives did NOT like Romney one little bit. That is not news either.
3rd party candidates are interesting such as the third party candidate in 1992 that gave Clinton the election. However, they are NOT a viable alternative if you wish to see someone elected.
Ford was never elected so he is a bit of an anomaly already to start. The interesting thing about Ford is he NEVER won an election for president and had no experience or organization to do so. In addition, he lost the election in large part as a reaction against his pardon of Nixon. Elected incumbents Bush and Carter are the only two in the last 50 years. That is 20% in that period and that just goes to show that statistically, the incumbent has a huge advantage in second term election. Even if you include Ford who NEVER won any election in that mix of 50 years, the incumbents in the last 50 years have a 70/30 advantage right from the get go. You haven't helped your argument, instead you have simply confirmed the known political advantage of the incumbent as I stated. Going back a hundred years, it is an even higher advantage. Nothing random about these historical facts. Why would you call it random. Go figure.
Karl Rove is influental but also hated in many circles as well as an establishment Republican. There is a huge split in the GOP between the establishment group and conservative/libertarian republicans who have no choice but to go with the GOP since 3rd party candidates have very little viable chances of winning. It is not a happy marriage. The 2012 election did not cause this split, it has been here for quite some time.
Too funny, when have I EVER stated I speak for the GOP. That is truly funny. Anyway, thanks for the chuckle.
Math and science??? Huh, uhh, I have a B.S. degree in Biology, minor in math, minor in chemistry Summa Cum Laude and an M.D. I understand science quite well thank you. Not sure what blue cloud you picked that out of but, that is quite a chuckle a well.
There you go again saying I am speaking for everyone. Not at all, have you not seen the news on MSNBC of all places talking about the millions of people who are losing their health insurance. Many of these folks voted for Obama and believed his tragic lies that you could keep your insurance if you had it and wanted to keep it. What a monstrous lie and people today are waking to buyers remorse which is another headline as well.
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-admin-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lite
So where are your tens of millions of people getting health insurance right now??? I have agreed with Rand Paul for quite a while, let Obamacare fall on its own. The GOP doesn't have to do anything except let this train wreck come to town which it is doing. How is that website working for you???
"Handwringing" since the 2012 election. Not at all. Although it saddens me greatly to see this nation walking off into great darkness in many realms, political movements and politicians are not my source of comfort or security. The Bible told us 2000 years ago what we would see in these times. While it is indeed distressing to realize the amazing amount of personal freedoms lost since I was a child here in America, I accept that these things shall come to pass as I look onward for the blessed hope of my Lord's return. I am sure you will have great fun with that statement, but so be it.
Oh my god, do you actually expect me to read this overlong overwrought post?!
Let's do a skim, shall we? Romney.... you know what people expected in the election and how people felt about him better than anyone else.... Ford is an anomaly but somehow the others aren't despite equally bizarre things happening with all of the elections.... completely unrequested and unnecessary history lesson.... Not everyone likes Karl Rove, well there's a surprise.... you have way more impressive degrees than anyone else in the history of the world so you cannot be bad at statistics.... a mention of MSNBC and my viewing habits (inexplicably known to you) with a link to NBC news as if those two networks are the same.... and the usual freedom, Jesus, America.
Doesn't look like I'm missing anything by skipping this one entirely!
-
Too funny once again. You are certainly free to read and believe what you wish. Have a great day.
-
For those that would actually like to see the statistics of second term presidential elections, here are some stats to consider:
History Says Obama Likely to Win in 2012
By Alan Abramowitz - February 11, 2011
The 2012 presidential election is still more than 20 months away. While the early maneuvering for the Republican presidential nomination is already underway, the identity of President Obama's GOP challenger won't be known for more than a year. Economic trends will have a major impact on the President's reelection chances and unpredictable events, such as the recent political turmoil in Egypt, could also affect the public's evaluation of the President's performance.
But even without knowing what condition the economy will be in, whether a major international crisis will erupt, or who will win the Republican nomination, one crucial determinant of the outcome of the 2012 presidential election is already known. Barack Obama will be seeking reelection as a first term incumbent and first term incumbents rarely lose.
Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/02/11/history_says_obama_likely_to_win_in_2012_108859.html#ixzz2jY8MKPUH
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter
In the past hundred years, there have been ten presidential elections in which an incumbent president was seeking a second term in the White House for his party with the most recent being 2004. The key distinction here is the number of terms the incumbent's party has been in office, not the number of terms the individual incumbent has been in office. Incumbent party candidates have won nine of those ten first term elections. Jimmy Carter in 1980 was the only first term incumbent party candidate in the past century to lose and it took a devastating combination of recession, inflation, and public frustration over the seemingly endless Iran hostage crisis to bring him down.
Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/02/11/history_says_obama_likely_to_win_in_2012_108859.html#ixzz2jY8ciAoh
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter
So, you questioned my 90% reelection rate, but that is exactly what it is in the last 100 years. If you look at all of the second term elections, the number is 70% reelection rate with a higher rate in the last 100 years just as I stated earlier.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/In_the_27_elections_in_which_an_incumbent_president_sought_reelection_the_incumbent's_success_rate_was_about#slide2
So much for your false allegation of pulling out random numbers Cariad. Anyway, go figure.
-
Too funny once again. You are certainly free to read and believe what you wish. Have a great day.
Aw, thank you ever so much for reviewing my freedoms with me and concluding that I do in fact have some. I'll sleep better tonight knowing that you recognise my inalienable rights.
Not sure I can promise to have a great day, but it's looking quite promising. I'll let you know after I wade through the inevitable slew of replies that shall be waiting for me when I get back to this discussion.
-
For those that would actually like to see the statistics of second term presidential elections, here are some stats to consider:
History Says Obama Likely to Win in 2012
By Alan Abramowitz - February 11, 2011
The 2012 presidential election is still more than 20 months away. While the early maneuvering for the Republican presidential nomination is already underway, the identity of President Obama's GOP challenger won't be known for more than a year. Economic trends will have a major impact on the President's reelection chances and unpredictable events, such as the recent political turmoil in Egypt, could also affect the public's evaluation of the President's performance.
But even without knowing what condition the economy will be in, whether a major international crisis will erupt, or who will win the Republican nomination, one crucial determinant of the outcome of the 2012 presidential election is already known. Barack Obama will be seeking reelection as a first term incumbent and first term incumbents rarely lose.
Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/02/11/history_says_obama_likely_to_win_in_2012_108859.html#ixzz2jY8MKPUH
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter
In the past hundred years, there have been ten presidential elections in which an incumbent president was seeking a second term in the White House for his party with the most recent being 2004. The key distinction here is the number of terms the incumbent's party has been in office, not the number of terms the individual incumbent has been in office. Incumbent party candidates have won nine of those ten first term elections. Jimmy Carter in 1980 was the only first term incumbent party candidate in the past century to lose and it took a devastating combination of recession, inflation, and public frustration over the seemingly endless Iran hostage crisis to bring him down.
Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/02/11/history_says_obama_likely_to_win_in_2012_108859.html#ixzz2jY8ciAoh
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter
So, you questioned my 90% reelection rate, but that is exactly what it is in the last 100 years. If you look at all of the second term elections, the number is 70% reelection rate with a higher rate in the last 100 years just as I stated earlier.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/In_the_27_elections_in_which_an_incumbent_president_sought_reelection_the_incumbent's_success_rate_was_about#slide2
So much for your false allegation of pulling out random numbers Cariad. Anyway, go figure.
I cannot believe that you came back to this discussion 2 days later with no provocation from anyone. Is there anything you are able to let go, ever?
2012 was of course unique - as all presidential elections are - because there was unprecedented anti-incumbent sentiment toward all levels of government. I don't remember anything about you saying a 90% re-election rate, just that you said that "the odds of unseating a president is very remote" and "rare", and 30%, 20% and even 10% does not meet that definition. Then of course you go back and fiddle the rules so that Ford doesn't count and who the flip knows (or cares) how else you've tortured the data to get it to say what you WANT it to say. This sort of overworking the data is EXTREMELY frowned upon in statistics. However, it is exactly what led to Republican leaders ignoring statistician Nate Silver's spot-on prediction by using statistical terms that THEY clearly did not understand but Mr. Silver DID. Republican reaction to this election (including YOUR bitter chants of 'go rule') have made this the most amusing election in my own lifetime. Please stay the course!!
In the end, all of this just serves to ignore that your extrapolating the feelings of the general public from a silly IHD poll is ridiculous.
-
Yes, yes Cariad, 100 years of statistics with 90% reelection rates for second term elections is certainly "tortured" all right. A seventy to ninety percent incumbency advantage overall is a significant obstacle to overcome for any challenger.
Not tortured at all, just completely misunderstood by you I am afraid. Ford finished Nixon's second term and NEVER had his own first term election, thus it would be impossible to state that he was "reelected" since he was advanced to Vice President by appointment when Agnew resigned. Ford never did win any presidential election.
I would venture someone with only 10% chance of survival would be considered rare and remote.
-
Yes, yes Cariad, 100 years of statistics with 90% reelection rates for second term elections is certainly "tortured" all right. A seventy to ninety percent incumbency advantage overall is a significant obstacle to overcome for any challenger.
I never said that incumbents did not have an advantage.
Not tortured at all, just completely misunderstood by you I am afraid. Ford finished Nixon's second term and NEVER had his own first term election, thus it would be impossible to state that he was "reelected" since he was advanced to Vice President by appointment when Agnew resigned. Ford never did win any presidential election.
This is a favourite underhanded maneuver of yours:
1. Make a statement. "The odds of unseating a president is [sic] very remote".
2. Read replies from others refuting your statement.
3. CHANGE the contention to try to make your conclusion true. 10 incumbents have lost in the history of the presidency, 10 presidents were "unseated" regardless of the particulars of the presidency. 10 out of 44, over 20%! That shows that incumbents have an advantage but it is far from "very remote" that incumbents lose. In 2012 Romney himself thought he was going to win, as did many, many disillusioned Republicans, both insiders and average constituents. To argue that this was not a shock to many is to desperately wish to deny reality and rewrite history.
I would venture someone with only 10% chance of survival would be considered rare and remote.
What does this mean? A person with a 10% chance of survival is rare? Huh?
If you want to talk medical stats, when I research side effects of my own meds (or those of my family) rare side effects are normally those experienced by less than 1% of the population, at most. I just picked Prograf at random and this is what the patient info leaflet says:
Very common side effects (may affect more than 1 in 10)
Common side effects (may affect up to 1 in 10 people)
Uncommon side effects (may affect up to 1 in 100 people)
Rare side effects (may affect up to 1 in 1,000 people)
(Did you all know that a rare side effect of Prograf is blindness??!! Sh!te, if 10% of Prograf users were sent blind there is no way on this earth that anyone could have got me to swallow it for a year.)
In the end, to quote Barney Frank, I'd rather talk to a dining room table than discuss this further with you. You made a ridiculous assertion that an IHD poll reflected the country at large and are now trying to shift attention to some pointless argument about presidential incumbents. This is not even the first time you've taken an IHD poll far too seriously!! It's laughable and betrays a very, very weak understanding of statistics.
-
Yes, yes Cariad, 100 years of statistics with 90% reelection rates for second term elections is certainly "tortured" all right. A seventy to ninety percent incumbency advantage overall is a significant obstacle to overcome for any challenger.
I never said that incumbents did not have an advantage.
Not tortured at all, just completely misunderstood by you I am afraid. Ford finished Nixon's second term and NEVER had his own first term election, thus it would be impossible to state that he was "reelected" since he was advanced to Vice President by appointment when Agnew resigned. Ford never did win any presidential election.
This is a favourite underhanded maneuver of yours:
1. Make a statement. "The odds of unseating a president is [sic] very remote".
2. Read replies from others refuting your statement.
3. CHANGE the contention to try to make your conclusion true. 10 incumbents have lost in the history of the presidency, 10 presidents were "unseated" regardless of the particulars of the presidency. 10 out of 44, over 20%! That shows that incumbents have an advantage but it is far from "very remote" that incumbents lose. In 2012 Romney himself thought he was going to win, as did many, many disillusioned Republicans, both insiders and average constituents. To argue that this was not a shock to many is to desperately wish to deny reality and rewrite history.
I would venture someone with only 10% chance of survival would be considered rare and remote.
What does this mean? A person with a 10% chance of survival is rare? Huh?
If you want to talk medical stats, when I research side effects of my own meds (or those of my family) rare side effects are normally those experienced by less than 1% of the population, at most. I just picked Prograf at random and this is what the patient info leaflet says:
Very common side effects (may affect more than 1 in 10)
Common side effects (may affect up to 1 in 10 people)
Uncommon side effects (may affect up to 1 in 100 people)
Rare side effects (may affect up to 1 in 1,000 people)
(Did you all know that a rare side effect of Prograf is blindness??!! Sh!te, if 10% of Prograf users were sent blind there is no way on this earth that anyone could have got me to swallow it for a year.)
In the end, to quote Barney Frank, I'd rather talk to a dining room table than discuss this further with you. You made a ridiculous assertion that an IHD poll reflected the country at large and are now trying to shift attention to some pointless argument about presidential incumbents. This is not even the first time you've taken an IHD poll far too seriously!! It's laughable and betrays a very, very weak understanding of statistics.
Too funny, you have now ranted on a very simple statement of incumbents political advantage that is simply an historical fact. Amazingly, I do agree with you on debating anything at all with you. Yes, we are in complete agreement on that for sure since your fantasies of reality are quite entertaining. All this in response to your statement that Romney's loss was a "shock." Not at all.
After all, ALL of the polls stated this emphatically for months. Perhaps it was a shock to you it seems in some sort of Freudian aspect I suspect. For me, not a shock at all, but a foregone conclusion as Gallup stated for quite some time:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/156914/americans-predict-obama-win-2012-election.aspx
One last time on my comment on the IHD poll. Is it a scientific statistical poll? Absolutely not at all. However, my comment was this. I suspect that the real feelings on this issue are MUCH different than what is reported in the left wing media outlets. That is MY OPINION. I do believe that there are many more folks unhappy with Obama than all of these polls suggest. In fact, just a couple of weeks later, is it a big issue for the GOP? Not at all. But Obama's healthcare failures are very much and shall only grow worse with time. After all, the GOP objection was all about supporting Obamacare. As more and more people lose their insurance by design of Obamacare and see the sticker shock of the exchanges, the GOP tactics will likely be remembered in a much better tone than what you and the media present. So, it is NOT at all a comment about statistics which you continue to fail to understand but instead about the true underlying dissatisfaction with Obama in general and Obamacare specifically. Go figure.
Have a great night.
-
Dear Cariad, here is a bit of edurcashun on how weak Romney was during the entire campaign. His loss, no surprise at all to anyone paying attention.
APRIL 2012
Right now, Mitt Romney has the highest disapproval ratings of any presidential candidate in recent history. He’s 14 points behind Obama with independent women in swing states, nearly 60 points behind among Latinos nationwide, and he’s still clawing for the confidence of conservative voters. He has committed to a right-wing budget of deep cuts to social spending, and he will have to defend huge tax cuts for the rich, at the same time that he has to answer for his massive wealth and conspicuously low tax rates.
Yes, he’ll pick up steam in the fall, and yes, he’ll improve his standing with independents and other groups. What’s more, the two-party system means that Romney will always have a chance at winning, even if he’s behind. Still, even with those handicaps, I’m not sure how you can look Romney and come away with the view that he’s “strong.” Adequate? Yes. But nothing more than that.
http://prospect.org/article/sorry-republicans-mitt-romney-just-weak-he-looks
JULY 2012
Never has a winner looked so beaten
By John PodhoretzJanuary 11, 2012 | 5:00am
Perplexing but true: Mitt Romney is on the glide path to the most easily secured nomination a Republican presidential candidate has ever had — while being one of the weakest major candidates either party has ever seen.
http://nypost.com/2012/01/11/never-has-a-winner-looked-so-beaten/
Romney: Too Weak?
by David Frum Jul 15, 2012 8:45 AM EDT
But at every point, Romney has surrendered to the fringe of his party. Weak. And now in his first tough encounter with Barack Obama, Romney is being shoved around again. This is not what a president looks like - anyway, not a successful president.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/15/romney-weak.html
AUGUST 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aQgioiqtiM
SEPTEMBER 2012
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/was-mitt-romney-the-best-candidate-the-gop-had-this-year/
SHOCK? Only to the propaganda outlets we call the news.
-
Cariad,
Let's talk stats. Obama is now plummeting in the polls. Going with Gallup which most accept as one of the most reliable, his approval scores began to drop precipitously at the start of the Government shutdown. His heavy handed tactics were noticed. With the Obamacare failures, this man-child president has done much damage to this nation and people are beginning to wake up to that reality. So you want stats, start with this:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx
I would venture that Obama came out of the government shutdown much more damaged than the left wing media polls suggest.
-
Cariad,
Let's talk stats. Obama is now plummeting in the polls. Going with Gallup which most accept as one of the most reliable, his approval scores began to drop precipitously at the start of the Government shutdown. His heavy handed tactics were noticed. With the Obamacare failures, this man-child president has done much damage to this nation and people are beginning to wake up to that reality. So you want stats, start with this:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx
I would venture that Obama came out of the government shutdown much more damaged than the left wing media polls suggest.
I stopped reading at man-child. Mr. Obama is probably the most measured, intelligent, gifted leader to take the Presidential oath in my entire lifetime. You continually outdo yourself with your vile rhetoric. I can think of someone who proves that he fits the description of man-child perfectly but it is not Mr. Obama. The polls were very clear that the majority of Americans blamed the Republicans for the shutdown. You whimpering about that truth does not change it one iota.
Oh, surprise, surprise there are two posts prior to this one that you have obviously snarled and moaned your way through, but I won't be reading a single word. Three posts! You are once again showing a truly unhealthy obsession with me. It is beyond disturbing the way you talk to people on this site and how you are wholly incapable of ever admitting a mistake or recognising that someone else knows more about a subject than you do. My last stats professor wrote me an email thanking me for noticing an error he had made. I talk stats on an entirely different level than you and have no interest in talking to someone who doesn't even understand the basic concepts that he's pontificating about.
-
Cariad,
Let's talk stats. Obama is now plummeting in the polls. Going with Gallup which most accept as one of the most reliable, his approval scores began to drop precipitously at the start of the Government shutdown. His heavy handed tactics were noticed. With the Obamacare failures, this man-child president has done much damage to this nation and people are beginning to wake up to that reality. So you want stats, start with this:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx
I would venture that Obama came out of the government shutdown much more damaged than the left wing media polls suggest.
I stopped reading at man-child. Mr. Obama is probably the most measured, intelligent, gifted leader to take the Presidential oath in my entire lifetime. You continually outdo yourself with your vile rhetoric. I can think of someone who proves that he fits the description of man-child perfectly but it is not Mr. Obama. The polls were very clear that the majority of Americans blamed the Republicans for the shutdown. You whimpering about that truth does not change it one iota.
Oh, surprise, surprise there are two posts prior to this one that you have obviously snarled and moaned your way through, but I won't be reading a single word. Three posts! You are once again showing a truly unhealthy obsession with me. It is beyond disturbing the way you talk to people on this site and how you are wholly incapable of ever admitting a mistake or recognising that someone else knows more about a subject than you do. My last stats professor wrote me an email thanking me for noticing an error he had made. I talk stats on an entirely different level than you and have no interest in talking to someone who doesn't even understand the basic concepts that he's pontificating about.
Here is the thing. Even though you just told him that you are not reading his dribble he cannot let anyone have the last word. No matter how much he is proved wrong. Let us see if he is mature enough to let it go or will he be an immature man-child. I already know the answer. :urcrazy;
-
Cariad,
Let's talk stats. Obama is now plummeting in the polls. Going with Gallup which most accept as one of the most reliable, his approval scores began to drop precipitously at the start of the Government shutdown. His heavy handed tactics were noticed. With the Obamacare failures, this man-child president has done much damage to this nation and people are beginning to wake up to that reality. So you want stats, start with this:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx
I would venture that Obama came out of the government shutdown much more damaged than the left wing media polls suggest.
I stopped reading at man-child. Mr. Obama is probably the most measured, intelligent, gifted leader to take the Presidential oath in my entire lifetime. You continually outdo yourself with your vile rhetoric. I can think of someone who proves that he fits the description of man-child perfectly but it is not Mr. Obama. The polls were very clear that the majority of Americans blamed the Republicans for the shutdown. You whimpering about that truth does not change it one iota.
Oh, surprise, surprise there are two posts prior to this one that you have obviously snarled and moaned your way through, but I won't be reading a single word. Three posts! You are once again showing a truly unhealthy obsession with me. It is beyond disturbing the way you talk to people on this site and how you are wholly incapable of ever admitting a mistake or recognising that someone else knows more about a subject than you do. My last stats professor wrote me an email thanking me for noticing an error he had made. I talk stats on an entirely different level than you and have no interest in talking to someone who doesn't even understand the basic concepts that he's pontificating about.
Here is the thing. Even though you just told him that you are not reading his dribble he cannot let anyone have the last word. No matter how much he is proved wrong. Let us see if he is mature enough to let it go or will he be an immature man-child. I already know the answer. :urcrazy;
Great to hear from you again YL with another set of insults as always. Perhaps one day you might just stick to the topic at hand. I will ignore you telling me simply to shut up and sorry, where did someone "prove" me wrong? I have heard a bunch of opinions without supporting facts, but that by definition is not proof.
In any case, have a great day YL.
-
Cariad,
Let's talk stats. Obama is now plummeting in the polls. Going with Gallup which most accept as one of the most reliable, his approval scores began to drop precipitously at the start of the Government shutdown. His heavy handed tactics were noticed. With the Obamacare failures, this man-child president has done much damage to this nation and people are beginning to wake up to that reality. So you want stats, start with this:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx
I would venture that Obama came out of the government shutdown much more damaged than the left wing media polls suggest.
I stopped reading at man-child. Mr. Obama is probably the most measured, intelligent, gifted leader to take the Presidential oath in my entire lifetime. You continually outdo yourself with your vile rhetoric. I can think of someone who proves that he fits the description of man-child perfectly but it is not Mr. Obama. The polls were very clear that the majority of Americans blamed the Republicans for the shutdown. You whimpering about that truth does not change it one iota.
Oh, surprise, surprise there are two posts prior to this one that you have obviously snarled and moaned your way through, but I won't be reading a single word. Three posts! You are once again showing a truly unhealthy obsession with me. It is beyond disturbing the way you talk to people on this site and how you are wholly incapable of ever admitting a mistake or recognising that someone else knows more about a subject than you do. My last stats professor wrote me an email thanking me for noticing an error he had made. I talk stats on an entirely different level than you and have no interest in talking to someone who doesn't even understand the basic concepts that he's pontificating about.
Yes, yes, yes Cariad. Your insultfest continues but you do very poorly keeping to the debate at hand. In any case, have a great day and when did I ever state that the IHD poll was scientific or statistical? In addition, you continue on your diatribe about statistics no matter what I say. My statement was simply my own opinion on the IHD poll. But you have continued post after post asserting something I never stated. WHY? False allegations are meaningless. But go ahead and quote how wonderful you are at statistics. Perhaps a course in English comprehension would have served you better. In any case, Have a great day.
-
Dear Cariad, if your reply is an implication for one party control of congress and the presidency, you are quite wrong. Both parties and the president took hits. It is not at all one sided as you portray. Here from Gallop:
Bottom Line
One might think that after Americans witnessed this month's spectacular display of political gridlock in Washington, their desire to have one political party control both the presidency and Congress would have surged. But one would be wrong.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/165410/amid-shutdown-americans-not-calling-one-party-gov.aspx
It would seem that many Americans would rather have gridlock than either party having unlimited control. In other words, gridlock means less is done by the government to interfere. You keep stating you are really good at statistics, well, I have listed links to two sets of stats, yet to date, you have deliberately refused to comment on this objective data. Go figure, I guess you would rather simply stick to false accusations and insults instead. If you really are good at statistics, show us please.
-
Right again, Marc. I am shaking my head in disbelief.
-
Here some updated statistics from Gallup today that you might wish to comment on Cariad. Obama's approval rating continues to drop sharply. This started at the beginning of October with the shutdown. As the Obamacare sticker shock becomes reality, even the DEMS won't stick with him just to save their own positions.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx
-
http://www.gallup.com/poll/165317/republican-party-favorability-sinks-record-low.aspx
-
http://www.gallup.com/poll/165317/republican-party-favorability-sinks-record-low.aspx
According to the latest from Gallup (NOVEMBER 5, 2013), President Obama's approval rating has plummeted into the 30s as millions of people continue to lose their health insurance.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx
Plus, this proves the Republicans were right all along about Obama's "untruthfulness." Don't be surprised to see their poll numbers begin to rise.
-
http://www.gallup.com/poll/165317/republican-party-favorability-sinks-record-low.aspx
As millions of people lose the health insurance coverage that they now enjoy, the GOP stand on Obamacare that led to the shutdown won't look anywhere as bad as last months polls as time goes on. Folks simply don't understand the search and destroy mission that Obamacare really is. It destroys the employer based markets and the individual insurance markets. The sticker shock and the big lie that you can keep your health insurance if you like it will come back to bite the entire DEM party and Obama supporters. The GOP was on the right side of that fight as unpopular as it was at the time. Once folks get a full taste of Obamacare reality, I suspect the GOP stand will gain more respect.
-
Peter and NV I'm glad to know you give Gallup polling so much credibility and that the majority opinion carries so much sway ... does this mean you have reconsidered your position on marijuana legalization? For First Time, Americans Favor Legalizing Marijuana (http://www.gallup.com/poll/165539/first-time-americans-favor-legalizing-marijuana.aspx)
The Obamacare insurance exchanges need to be able to sign people up and clearly the federal internet site is not making that easy if it is allowing it at all. But that is no the same thing as illustrating a problem with the legislation. I think one thing that is clearly been demonstrated is that insurance companies do not have your best interests at heart. Insurance companies are trying their hardest to capitalize on the fear and confusion that opponents of the ACA are gleefully sowing by steering people who were in the individual market into costly alternatives that do not access the subsidies that are one leg of the ACA's three legged stool.
the GOP stand on Obamacare that led to the shutdown
Glad to see that you agree that the Republicans created the shutdown. Did you change your vote in the IHD poll?
-
Peter and NV I'm glad to know you give Gallup polling so much credibility and that the majority opinion carries so much sway ... does this mean you have reconsidered your position on marijuana legalization? For First Time, Americans Favor Legalizing Marijuana (http://www.gallup.com/poll/165539/first-time-americans-favor-legalizing-marijuana.aspx)
The Obamacare insurance exchanges need to be able to sign people up and clearly the federal internet site is not making that easy if it is allowing it at all. But that is no the same thing as illustrating a problem with the legislation. I think one thing that is clearly been demonstrated is that insurance companies do not have your best interests at heart. Insurance companies are trying their hardest to capitalize on the fear and confusion that opponents of the ACA are gleefully sowing by steering people who were in the individual market into costly alternatives that do not access the subsidies that are one leg of the ACA's three legged stool.
the GOP stand on Obamacare that led to the shutdown
Glad to see that you agree that the Republicans created the shutdown. Did you change your vote in the IHD poll?
Marijauna Bill? That is quite a stretch isn't it. If folks want marijuana, that is up to them, I choose to not support that. I must admit, you really have lost me on what analogy you are juxtaposing.
As far as Gallup and Obama, it is just one of many indicators that Obamacare is the unmitigated disaster DEMS have been fearing for quite some time. In fact, it is much worse than anyone envisioned.
As far as the GOP stand against Obamacare, stating that their stand led to the shutdown is not the same as asking who was responsible for all of the havoc created by Obama's heavy handed policies to increase the pain. Obama share's that blame alone. I see the DEMS scrambling right now to lessen the pain of Obamacare but it may be a bit too little too late. It is not looking pretty at all right now and that is simply the reality that we all should have known was coming.
-
Your posts suggest that polling numbers from Gallup should be a persuasive reason to consider the Affordable Care Act a failure which suggests you give Gallup polling not only a high degree of credibility you also find poll results a reason to reevaluate previous support. If you don't believe that, what was the reason to bring up the Gallup polling?
The poll that started this thread could not be clearer "Government shut down ... who is responsible?" you agree it was the republicans so you should change your vote. Just saying.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/05/us/for-uninsured-clearing-a-way-to-enrollment.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/05/us/for-uninsured-clearing-a-way-to-enrollment.html)
The woman, a thin 61-year-old who refused to give her name, citing privacy concerns, had come to the public library here to sign up for health insurance through Kentucky’s new online exchange. She had a painful lump on the back of her hand and other health problems that worried her deeply, she said, but had been unable to afford insurance as a home health care worker who earns $9 an hour.
Within a minute, the system checked her information and flashed its conclusion on Ms. Cauley’s laptop: eligible for Medicaid. The woman began to weep with relief. Without insurance, she said as she left, “it’s cheaper to die.”
This is why the Affordable Care Act was needed. This illustrates a widespread problem for which republicans offer no solution. The republicans can scream all they like about the fear and confusion they have worked so hard to support but at the end of the day, when the dust settles, it will no longer be cheaper to die. When it is no longer cheaper to die I will rest easy. How about you?
-
Observation:
http://ihatedialysis.com/forum/index.php?topic=65.msg470731;topicseen#msg470731
Look at all the stupid things doctors have said. You would think with all their advanced degrees they would know everything. At least they think they do. Clearly they make uninformed comments that are ridiculous. These comments are in the field of medicine. Imagine if they started commenting on something outside their field of expertise. wait...
:rofl;
-
Observation:
http://ihatedialysis.com/forum/index.php?topic=65.msg470731;topicseen#msg470731
Look at all the stupid things doctors have said. You would think with all their advanced degrees they would know everything. At least they think they do. Clearly they make uninformed comments that are ridiculous. These comments are in the field of medicine. Imagine if they started commenting on something outside their field if expertise. wait...
:rofl;
d
YL, thanks for calling me stupid one more time. Sadly, I don't expect anything better from you at all. Some Christian I guess, go figure. Perhaps you might one day actually venture an intelligent comment related to the topic at hand, but sadly, I don't expect that either any time soon.
-
Math and science??? Huh, uhh, I have a B.S. degree in Biology, minor in math, minor in chemistry Summa Cum Laude and an M.D. I understand science quite well thank you. Not sure what blue cloud you picked that out of but, that is quite a chuckle a well.
Proves this argument does not hold water. :bandance;
:rofl;
Laughing at you not with you.
-
Your posts suggest that polling numbers from Gallup should be a persuasive reason to consider the Affordable Care Act a failure which suggests you give Gallup polling not only a high degree of credibility you also find poll results a reason to reevaluate previous support. If you don't believe that, what was the reason to bring up the Gallup polling?
The poll that started this thread could not be clearer "Government shut down ... who is responsible?" you agree it was the republicans so you should change your vote. Just saying.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/05/us/for-uninsured-clearing-a-way-to-enrollment.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/05/us/for-uninsured-clearing-a-way-to-enrollment.html)
The woman, a thin 61-year-old who refused to give her name, citing privacy concerns, had come to the public library here to sign up for health insurance through Kentucky’s new online exchange. She had a painful lump on the back of her hand and other health problems that worried her deeply, she said, but had been unable to afford insurance as a home health care worker who earns $9 an hour.
Within a minute, the system checked her information and flashed its conclusion on Ms. Cauley’s laptop: eligible for Medicaid. The woman began to weep with relief. Without insurance, she said as she left, “it’s cheaper to die.”
This is why the Affordable Care Act was needed. This illustrates a widespread problem for which republicans offer no solution. The republicans can scream all they like about the fear and confusion they have worked so hard to support but at the end of the day, when the dust settles, it will no longer be cheaper to die. When it is no longer cheaper to die I will rest easy. How about you?
Uhhh, WOW Bill, that is a bit of quite discordant logic if logic is the right word at all.
1) Gallup is a neutral, accepted poll by liberal and conservative pundits. Why not use Gallop results to show how Obama is slipping in the polls?
2) One issue is how the government shutdown affected both political parties. The lies Obama stated about Obamacare are coming back to roost with him. The stand the GOP took could quite likely become accepted more so with time as the true effect of Obamacare reaches the people who voted for him. After all, I remember a meeting with Lori Hartwell that we both attended if I remember correctly praising Obamacare but at the same time stating effectively she would never want to give up her own insurance with Cedar Sinai and other top providers in LA. With millions of people losing their current insurance, the shock will only spread.
3) Obama is 100% responsible for increasing the pain in shutting down those entities he directed, once again to increase the pain.
http://www.examiner.com/article/park-ranger-admits-being-told-to-make-life-as-difficult-for-people-as-possible
4) The GOP has presented several options which Obama won't even discuss with them choosing instead to employ strong arm tactics. The problem of Obamacare is that there was no debate. It was done behind closed doors with the GOP completely excluded when the DEMS controlled both the house and senate. The lack of debate is the biggest reason he is running into such resistance today even within his own ranks.
5) Great source from the NYT that is anonymous. Great, I can really believe that one can't I. By the way, how did she get through when no one else in the entire country was able to? Yup, I truly believe that story meets journalistic criteria Bill.
-
Math and science??? Huh, uhh, I have a B.S. degree in Biology, minor in math, minor in chemistry Summa Cum Laude and an M.D. I understand science quite well thank you. Not sure what blue cloud you picked that out of but, that is quite a chuckle a well.
Proves this argument does not hold water. :bandance;
:rofl;
Laughing at you not with you.
Grow up YL, one more report to the moderators.
-
BTW, I never called you stupid. Stating that ones arguments are not based in fact is saying just that. Yes, sometimes what you say really sounds stupid. That is not calling you stupid. There is a difference and I am sorry you do not know the difference. I feel sorry for you.
Based on your posts I know that you do not act like a Christian. You can quote the bible all you want but you certainly do not act like a Christian.
James 1:26
If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless.
-
Math and science??? Huh, uhh, I have a B.S. degree in Biology, minor in math, minor in chemistry Summa Cum Laude and an M.D. I understand science quite well thank you. Not sure what blue cloud you picked that out of but, that is quite a chuckle a well.
Proves this argument does not hold water. :bandance;
:rofl;
Laughing at you not with you.
Grow up YL, one more report to the moderators.
Grow up. If you are going to dish it out then take it like a man. Not an immature man-child.
-
Math and science??? Huh, uhh, I have a B.S. degree in Biology, minor in math, minor in chemistry Summa Cum Laude and an M.D. I understand science quite well thank you. Not sure what blue cloud you picked that out of but, that is quite a chuckle a well.
Proves this argument does not hold water. :bandance;
:rofl;
Laughing at you not with you.
Grow up YL, one more report to the moderators.
Grow up. If you are going to dish it out then take it like a man. Not an immature man-child.
One more report to moderators. I am sure everyone is sick of personal attacks on the political section. Perhaps IHD should just get rid of all political threads if personal attacks are all that happens which sadly is the case.
If you really believe you are throwing me some sort of heat that I "can't take", you are just wrong.
Once again, you pop up on political threads over and over again just insult. Perhaps giving an opinion of the topic at hand would be appropriate.
-
You reported me?
Let me show my tattoos.
-
Your lucky day YL, looks like IHD no longer moderates political threads.
Have a great day YL.
-
Being a single dad of 3 with kidney failure. Ya, that is what I was worried about. Lucky day :rofl;
Get over yourself.
-
:thumbup; Hopeful trend for the future: http://news.msn.com/us/voters-in-virginia-new-jersey-leave-tea-party-reeling
-
Thread Locked due to undue name calling and plain meanness. No personal name calling like "stupid"!
Rerun, Moderator