American Politics during the Obama Presidency

Mongers,

Let's just all agree on one thing: Jackson and Rush Limbaugh are actually twins separated at birth and El Queso is Glenn Beck's soulmate.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

[QUOTE=Miamipro]I hope they let the bush tax cuts expire. It will help pay the deficit. And I find it hilarious how not one Republican when asked if the the Bush Tax Cuts where to continue how they would be paid for. Not one could give a straight answer they just tried to politicize it. Its to bad we can't post Video up here. Some of its priceless.

BTW someone who refers to Healthcare reform as Obamacare has been watching to much FOX NEWS other wise known as FAUX NEWS. Unfair and extremely Unbalanced.

I can't afford Healthcare at its current prices and as a middle class American. I am glad Obama took a baby step to address this problem. I say baby step because it should have been a single payer program like the rest of the sane world has. Case in point. I have gone to Medellin Colombia to get all my dental work done and had some other medical things done at a FRACTION of the cost. Why? Because they don't think health care is a privilege. Its a necessity. But at the end of the day its not the politicians running this country into the ground its the corporations.[/QUOTE]If you've been following this thread for any length of time you probably know I agree with pretty much everything you said. It is indeed hilarious how Repubs are up in arms about fiscal responsibility, but can't articulate what specific spending cuts they propose to offset tax cuts, balance budgets and address the debt. Mitch McConnell repeatedly dodged questions on this topic last week on Meet The Press, it was classic.

As far as not being able to afford US healthcare though, I would have to agree with Stan. He's not an idiot, though I disagree with him on a number of things. It does sound from the information you provided, that (for now) you can afford US healthcare but simply choose to get it cheaper elsewhere so you have money left over for other things like mongering (which is totally understandable...). But you should acknowledge you mis-spoke, it's not a big deal. You'll always earn respect by acknowledging errors or mis-statements, something many on the right here have difficulty doing.

BTW, I have all the US healthcare coverage I need, and would still be willing to pay more in taxes for universal health care (that would mostly benefit others). Because like you I believe it is something that a truly great country would provide for all its citizens. This would be a case of "my own money" rather than "other people's money". Part of the reason you got challenged here is that you appear to provide a good example of what Republicans despise the most... a low income individual benefitting (or who wants to benefit) from a government program funded by taxes. What Republicans forget is that many people across all income brackets support such programs based on their [I]values[/i], not on the benefit they might personally gain. I'll post more on this later.

[QUOTE=Rock Harders]Mongers,

Let's just all agree on one thing: Jackson and Rush Limbaugh are actually twins separated at birth and El Queso is Glenn Beck's soulmate.

Suerte,

Rock Harders[/QUOTE]I know that it amuses you to make this comparison, but aside from superb public speaking abilities, Rush Limbaugh and I have very little in common, to wit:

I am [u]NOT[/u] a Republican, and I am [u]NOT[/u] a conservative.

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

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

Of course, in today's political environment, I wouldn't underestimate anyone with strong public speaking talent, as this is apparently the only qualification one needs to become the President of the United States.

[size=4][b][i]Zing![/i][/b][/size]

Thanks,

Jackson

[size=3][I]Obama: the [strike]dumbest[/strike] most inept President ever![/i][/size]

[QUOTE=Sysco234]I find the debate on news reporting interesting because to me the real problem is the blurring (ok, outright smearing) of a line that used to be very solid between Op Ed (Opinion) and the reporting of "facts. "[/QUOTE]Yes, there was a more obvious demarcation between what was advertised as OPED and "hard news." However, it was merely a false premise. Look into the history of the Pulitzer Prize. Pulitzer was a yellow journalist with a terrible reputation. The creation of the prize was a marketing gambit to try to elevate the perception of journalists and his papers.

[quote]Articles themselves were very neutral.[/QUOTE]Despite the above-mentioned delineation, the wholesale integration of opinion into "hard news" was alive and well 30+ years ago. Walter Cronkite, any one?

[quote]Today, every piece is full of opinion mixed with facts, no matter what the outlet.[/QUOTE]Agreed, there are very few individuals who can remove their own personal biases from any interpretation of events unfolding in front of them. The impact of this human trait on the US news industry has been further exacerbated by generations of indoctrination and reinforcement by the leftist (not left-leaning) main stream media. There are several excellent books on left wing bias in the media that cite reams of historical examples of how the media's perspective paints the left in rosy hues and the right in negative tones, even when the two agree.

[quote] every news source is tainted and has an agenda.[/QUOTE]Every kernel of news, that you do not witness firsthand, has been processed and delivered to you by other human beings, all of whom have their own biases (doesn't matter what they are) which, despite their respective efforts (if any) to keep them out of their reporting, find their way into the coverage. Some times the bias lines up on the "correct" side (I. E. Contempt for a convicted murder, whose crime was caught on video and delivered a full confession) and sometimes it is not.

[quote]Assume otherwise at your own peril. Read them all, filter heavily for facts, and make your own conclusions.[/QUOTE]Yes. Knowledge is king.

[quote]The concept of a "trusted source" for news is long gone.[/QUOTE]That is all it ever was, a concept.

[QUOTE=Esten]If you've been following this thread for any length of time you probably know I agree with pretty much everything you said. It is indeed hilarious how Repubs are up in arms about fiscal responsibility, but can't articulate what specific spending cuts they propose to offset tax cuts, balance budgets and address the debt. Mitch McConnell repeatedly dodged questions on this topic last week on Meet The Press, it was classic.

As far as not being able to afford US healthcare though, I would have to agree with Stan. He's not an idiot, though I disagree with him on a number of things. It does sound from the information you provided, that (for now) you can afford US healthcare but simply choose to get it cheaper elsewhere so you have money left over for other things like mongering (which is totally understandable. But you should acknowledge you mis-spoke, it's not a big deal. You'll always earn respect by acknowledging errors or mis-statements, something many on the right here have difficulty doing.

BTW, I have all the US healthcare coverage I need, and would still be willing to pay more in taxes for universal health care (that would mostly benefit others) Because like you I believe it is something that a truly great country would provide for all its citizens. This would be a case of "my own money" rather than "other people's money". Part of the reason you got challenged here is that you appear to provide a good example of what Republicans despise the most. A low income individual benefitting (or who wants to benefit) from a government program funded by taxes. What Republicans forget is that many people across all income brackets support such programs based on their [I]values[/i], not on the benefit they might personally gain. I'll post more on this later.[/QUOTE]Ok Agreed. Stan your right I can afford Health insurance. Maybe I should have worded it differently. Lets just say I cancelled my policy due to the fact I didnt agree with the principals BCBS and how they are sticking it to me for no reason. I mean eventually if I stayed with them, there would be a point where I couldn't afford it. But simply put I don't feel we should have only 2 choices. Which is either going with a health Insurance provider like BCBS or going with out. Its like your doomed either way. Sorry for calling you an idiot. We are obviously both very passionate about our likes and dislikes in the system today.

[QUOTE=Miamipro]Ok Agreed. Stan your right I can afford Health insurance. Maybe I should have worded it differently. Lets just say I cancelled my policy due to the fact I didnt agree with the principals BCBS and how they are sticking it to me for no reason. [/QUOTE]Boy, you sure showed them. They will probably file bankruptcy as a result of losing your premiums. I do not know what type of policy you had but those rates (before and after the increase) actually sound pretty good.

While you may not agree with BCBS' principles, by dropping coverage, you are only endangering yourself. You are not necessarily buying a service, you are buying protection from the potential need for services. With coverage, if you have no significant health problems during the year, the insurance company wins. If you demand more than $4,000 in healthcare services, you win. Without coverage, if you encounter less than $4,000 in covered costs, you win, however, if you encounter major health care problems, you could be looking at tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs that you must bear.

[quote=]I mean eventually if I stayed with them, there would be a point where I couldn't afford it.[/QUOTE]That's when you start shopping for another carrier.

[quote=] But simply put I don't feel we should have only 2 choices. Which is either going with a health Insurance provider like BCBS or going with out.[/QUOTE]Why can't you use another carrier? There are thousands in the US.

[quote=] Its like your doomed either way.[/QUOTE]Depends on your idea of doomed

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]Boy, you sure showed them. They will probably file bankruptcy as a result of losing your premiums. I do not know what type of policy you had but those rates (before and after the increase) actually sound pretty good.[/QUOTE]I wasn't trying to prove anything to them. Yea I am sure they will file for bankruptcy. I think they already did actually. I guess most of the political responses here can only be as smart ass remarks. If I don't agree or like how a company is treating me or charging me. I don't keep using them.

Do You?

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]While you may not agree with BCBS' principles, by dropping coverage, you are only endangering yourself. You are not necessarily buying a service, you are buying protection from the potential need for services. With coverage, if you have no significant health problems during the year, the insurance company wins. If you demand more than $4,000 in healthcare services, you win. Without coverage, if you encounter less than $4,000 in covered costs, you win, however, if you encounter major health care problems, you could be looking at tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs that you must bear.[/QUOTE]I am aware of the risks I take by not being covered. Thanks for sharing that.

I am also aware that if something traumatic were to happen to me, there still wouldn't be any guarantees.I did shop for other carriers. Not, much to choose from. Sad thing is I think, if I remember correctly that BCBS was the cheapest on the market. If you want to call that cheap. Yes thousands in the US. Only a couple in Florida. You can't get it across state lines. Not sure about now. But then. No.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]Depends on your idea of doomed[/QUOTE]Certain to suffer death, failure, or a similarly negative outcome.

En.wiktionary.org/wiki/doomed

Miamipro,

Perhaps you noticed a new poll out by Gallup regarding which administration the folks would prefer to be in power today: 55% said Bush and 43% said Obama. Wow what a "change" in just 20 months!

While you did notice the reductions in government programs under Clinton which resulted in a surplus you seemed too completely ignore 9/11. What was Bush to do, just say shit-happens? You seem appalled by Bush spending less than a Trillion in 8 years on 2 wars but don't seem at all offended by Obama spending more in just one year which done nothing for the economy and may yet lead to a double dip recession.

Please don't pander to the Democrat's talking point of "well it would have been much worse if we had not acted" BS, these are the same guys who sold the Stimulus Package telling us if we did not act unemployment would reach (gasp) 8.5%. Based on the Dem's claims we would have been better off doing nothing and getting 8.5% unemployment instead of acting and ending up with 10 to 9.5%!

Just read an interesting article in one of my trade journals regarding the 99 weeks of unemployment courtesy of the Obama Admin, guess what the findings were? The majority of unemployed found work within 30 days of losing unemployment benefits at 99 weeks. Gee isn't that just amazing?

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]Miamipro perhaps you noticed a new poll out by Gallup regarding which administration the folks would prefer to be in power today: 55% said Bush and 43% said Obama. Wow what a "change" in just 20 months![/QUOTE]What makes you think I am so Pro Obama? I mean I will admit he was the best choice out of the selection we had to vote for. And while I did buy into his "Change We Can Believe In" It turns out he just another run at the mouth politician. I am a Independent but lean towards the left. But the progressive left. Obama is not Progressive enough for me and he only has provided some change but not true change I can believe in. Not yet anyway.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]While you did notice the reductions in government programs under Clinton which resulted in a surplus you seemed too completely ignore 9/11. What was Bush to do, just say shit-happens? You seem appalled by Bush spending less than a Trillion in 8 years on 2 wars but don't seem at all offended by Obama spending more in just one year which done nothing for the economy and may yet lead to a double dip recession.[/QUOTE]The wars should have never taken place. After 9/11 we went on the right path by going after Al Queda. Should have just focused on them and getting Bin Laden. But GW Bush wanted to go after Saddam and Iraq. And while you may get instant gratification by seeing the Death of Saddam. It has not been worth everything we have lost there. Specifically the death of our soldiers for a war of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" Here is a clip of Cheney himself saying how it would be a quagmire to invade Iraq. This is 1994. He knows whats up. But later down the year can't seem to follow his own advise. Probably because he was to make a lot of war time profits from Halliburton. [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I[/url]

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]Please don't pander to the Democrat's talking point of "well it would have been much worse if we had not acted" BS, these are the same guys who sold the Stimulus Package telling us if we did not act unemployment would reach (gasp) 8.5%. Based on the Dem's claims we would have been better off doing nothing and getting 8.5% unemployment instead of acting and ending up with 10 to 9.5%![/QUOTE]I don't need to Pander to anyone. And if you knew any history of the Initial Stimulus. You should know it was a Bush Policy.

The only Bailout I don't agree with is Bailing out the big Banks and Wall Street, Goldman Sachs (Rolls Eyes) that I didn't agree with.

[QUOTE=Miamipro]I guess most of the political responses here can only be as smart ass remarks.[/QUOTE]One of my specialties.

[quote=] If I don't agree or like how a company is treating me or charging me. I don't keep using them.

Do You?[/QUOTE]It depends on what I am buying from them. I would not drop an insurance carrier or policy (life, car, home, health or medical evacuation) without first securing an alternative and understanding the pros and cons of switching. Years ago my car insurance went from 1,300 to 3,500 (two cars) virtually over night. I called and asked why and discovered that they no longer wanted to do business in my state and were going to jack up the rates on everyone until they left for other carriers. I got on the phone, found a broker and found a better deal and switched, without having any period of no coverage. Protecting oneself from the financial implications of health issues is not a right, just prudent risk management (in my opinion) While I don't like paying premiums, I don't like complete exposure to all the risks.

[quote=]I am also aware that if something traumatic were to happen to me, there still wouldn't be any guarantees.[/QUOTE]In the past 25 years I have been on probably a dozen different plans and don't recall more than one or two claims that were ever denied or challenged. Had I not had coverage, my aggregate, family healthcare bill would be several hundred thousand dollars. I can assure you that I have not come close to paying that in premiums, co-pays and deductibles.

[quote=]Certain to suffer death, failure, or a similarly negative outcome.[/QUOTE]Dying ain't cheap either but, if you are going to do it in the near future, I advise doing it before the end of 2010.

Stay thirsty my freind

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]One of my specialties.

It depends on what I am buying from them. I would not drop an insurance carrier or policy (life, car, home, health or medical evacuation) without first securing an alternative and understanding the pros and cons of switching. Years ago my car insurance went from 1,300 to 3,500 (two cars) virtually over night. I called and asked why and discovered that they no longer wanted to do business in my state and were going to jack up the rates on everyone until they left for other carriers. I got on the phone, found a broker and found a better deal and switched, without having any period of no coverage. Protecting oneself from the financial implications of health issues is not a right, just prudent risk management (in my opinion) While I don't like paying premiums, I don't like complete exposure to all the risks.

In the past 25 years I have been on probably a dozen different plans and don't recall more than one or two claims that were ever denied or challenged. Had I not had coverage, my aggregate, family healthcare bill would be several hundred thousand dollars. I can assure you that I have not come close to paying that in premiums, co-pays and deductibles.

Dying ain't cheap either but, if you are going to do it in the near future, I advise doing it before the end of 2010.

Stay thirsty my freind[/QUOTE]The most interesting man ever. If he punched you in the face, you would have a sudden urge to go thank him.

Well at least we can agree on something. I am also an independent but one who leans more conservative (since the GOP has been spending like drunken sailors and abandoned smaller government and more states rights) and never considered Bush was the devil incarnate while disagreeing with several of his policies.

As far as the wars, you seem to agree that Afghanistan was necessary but Iraq was not. If Bush's father had done the job right the first time while we had the troops there, the Iraqis decimated and on the run we would not have had to go back later to complete the job. Was it necessary, history and time will tell since rectal vision is always 20/20.

As far as the Stimulus I am speaking of both with the greater emphasis on Obama's bail out of Wall Street as well as the GM Chrysler take over.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]Excuse me! Last time I checked Obama has been railing against the Bush Tax Cuts as a giveaway to the "rich" - a term he kept shifting downward with each speech during his campaign to what is now $250,000 annual income for married joint filers. I don't know anyone who considers $250K / year as "rich".

Get a grip Esten since your guy Obama is as slippery as an eel when it comes to economics and taxing the folks. Obama did not get on board until AFTER many Democrats saw this as a cheap trick to attempt to hold on to their seats in November.[/QUOTE]Obama was clear and consistent on his tax position in the months before the election. And he has remained so to the present. That being: allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for the rich but not for families making less than 250K or individuals less than 200K. There is a ton of video and news articles to back this up, why would you even bother to argue? How does clear and consistent become "slippery as an eel"? You must be kidding me.

A few Dems have been mulling extending the tax cuts for the rich, but not the White House. Obama did not "get on board" with that. You are confused.

Earners above 250K represent just 2% of the population. Coincidentally, the percent of people surveyed in a Gallup poll who considered themselves "rich" was also 2%. That poll also found the public's median definition of "rich" was an income of $120,000. There is no hard and fast definition of "middle class" but all the economic assessments I have seen (vs. polls asking rich people what they think) put almost all if not all the middle class below the 250K level. Your suggestion that 250K is middle class is amusing to say the least. And regardless of the definition, the fact remains that Obama hasn't changed his position.

Your lame defense of that Fox News story is inaccurate on all counts. Do you work at Fox News?

[QUOTE]Your boy Obama spent more than $1 Trillion on one piece of legislation (Stimulus I) in his first months in office [/QUOTE]Recovery Act spending isn't even half that amount. Do you just make stuff up?

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]Well at least we can agree on something. I am also an independent but one who leans more conservative[/QUOTE]I consider myself to be an independent thinker, however, my political philosophy is conservative. Not in the "evil conservative" vein portrayed in the media but in the sense of limited government, personal responsibility and freedom (you might have guessed by now that I am not much of a holy roller)

[quote] (since the GOP has been spending like drunken sailors and abandoned smaller government and more states rights) [/QUOTE]Don't mistake Republicans candidates for true conservatives.

[quote]and never considered Bush was the devil incarnate while disagreeing with several of his policies. [/QUOTE]Bush was a train wreck on the spending he was willing to endorse. However, he kept us safe (a much bigger task and thinner line than most of you know)

[quote]As far as the wars, you seem to agree that Afghanistan was necessary but Iraq was not.[/QUOTE]Not sure you directed this to me but I jumped in. I was in favor of both wars and support them both today, in thought and deed.

[quote]If Bush's father had done the job right the first time while we had the troops there,[/QUOTE]George HW did what he could, while his hands were tied. There was no route to Baghdad, including the highway of death given constraints placed upon the US by the UN and international powers.

[quote]The Iraqis decimated and on the run we would not have had to go back later to complete the job.[/QUOTE]See above, we were not allowed to complete the job back then. The bigger concern was creating a power vacuum (remember that back then Republicans were not into 'nation building') that would tip the balance to Iran for control of Iraq (population 31 million and third largest oil reserves) which we were not willing to stomach. It is revolting that we would leave Saddam in power to wreak the havoc and evil head did during the interceding years, however, the alternative was worse.

[quote]Was it necessary, history and time will tell since rectal vision is always 20/20.[/QUOTE]As for "rectal" vision, I have that at privados sometimes.

[quote]As far as the Stimulus I am speaking of both with the greater emphasis on Obama's bail out of Wall Street as well as the GM Chrysler take over.[/QUOTE]History will not look kindly upon Obama's Wall Street connections (and payoffs) nor will the unconstitutional expropriation of private asset effectuated by Obama in nationalization of Chrysler and GM look so good in "rectal vision."

No WW the comments were not in response to you but to Maimipro.

First.

I know the UN refused to allow the US to finish the job and the media's whining about the Highway of Death was another reason (What did they expect we were doing playing on an X Box - it was war) We could have finished it then but were not permitted to do so and the Administration had won a stunning victory, in such a small amount of time with so few casualties they were not really eager to continue although the field commanders were. Had we been permitted to finish the job things probably would have been easier, but after allowing the Iraqis in the south and Kurds in the north to rise up expecting our assistance then letting them be slaughter by Saddam it made Gulf II more difficult.

During Bush's last term how could you tell the difference between Republicans and Democrats, they both expanded government programs and spent like drunken sailors.

WW, I think you are confusing rectal vision with Hershey Highway, but that is just IMHO.

Esten.

Are you really trying to tell me Obama did not spend over $1 Trillion dollars on Wall Street / AIG / et. Al. In his first year? Now who is making things up here! Hell even the CBO has been whining about his deficit spending.

No, your boy has not been consistent, your just trying to reinterpret his words on the campaign trail and after entering office to what you want to hear today. He was very clear; the Bush Tax Cuts were to be allowed to expire, period. There was no caveat in his statements about "except for joint filers earning less than $250K". There was certainly nothing about Capital Gains, in fact he vilified those who received Capital Gains for getting money they did not earn – go check the video. You are just trying to combine two pledges to make your case. Two pledges Obama never linked.