American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;438903]Tiny, you are closer to the truth than Esten, he only uses numbers that agree with his bias.

Europe's stats more closely follow what we call the U6 unemployment rate.

While the Obama administration was trumpeting DOL's reported 6.7% unemployment rate the U6 was almost twice that rate at 12.6%.

Esten's comparison of the U3 to European unemployment rates is apples to oranges. Our U6 rate more closely mirrors European calculations for unemployment so we do look a lot like Europe with a U6 of 12.6%.[/QUOTE]Alas, the legendary King of Crapola strikes again. This is completely false. Both the US and Europe follow a definition set forth by the International Labour Organisation (ILO), with small differences. These differences have been estimated to have an effect of less than 1%. If this were not true, then all these articles you see in the media (including Fox News) showing the higher European unemployment rates would all be guilty of this apples vs. Oranges comparison. Surely someone would have called this out before. But in fact, the comparisons are valid, and Doppel is simply spreading disinformation again, like he did last week by denying there were grandfather provisions for healthcare plans in 2010 ACA regulations.

OK, I've gone to the BLS definitions ( [URL]http://www.bls.gov/bls/glossary.htm[/URL]) and re-read Doppelganger's post. As Doppelganger clearly explained, but as I failed to understand, the Labor Force Participation Rate consists of people classed as employed, plus people classed as unemployed who by definition must looking for jobs.

So the labor force participation rate suffers from the same weakness inherent in the "unemployment rate". In the words of Jackson, the labor force participation rate "is manipulated by the entirely subjective determination of who is and is not looking for work.".

The unadulterated "best" set of data to look at is the one I presented IMHO, being the employment population ratio. Here it is, using a longer time scale, like what Big Boss Man used:

[URL]http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_LNS12300000_1963_2014_all_period_M03_data.gif[/URL]

The pattern I see is a long-term, upward trend in employment rate, probably mostly related to greater participation by women in the work force, until the 2008-2009 recession and the Obama administration, at which time it fell off a cliff and stayed where it fell. Consider that there were recessions in 1970,1974, 1980-1982,1991, 2001, and 2008-2009. Note that employment was bouncing back within a couple of years of the end of each recession, except the last, and maybe also the 2001 recession.

In response to Big Boss Man's post.

[QUOTE=BigBossMan;438903]I do not think that labor participation is good metric on which to evaluate a president. [/QUOTE]You may be right. A decline in the labor force participation rate would mean there are more people like housewives, retirees, students without employment, people who can't work, people who are sitting on their asses and don't won't to work, and people who have totally given up on finding work because the economy sucks. So it's broad at the same time that it suffers from Jackson's observation.

[QUOTE=BigBossMan;438903]"The BLS lists the following factors as primary drivers of the decline in the LFP rate since 2000: (1) the aging of the baby boomer cohort; (2) the decline in the participation rate of those 16-24 years old; (3) the declining LFP rate of women (since its peak in 1999), and (4) the continuous decline of the LFP rate of men (since the 1940's). The main factors that keep the aggregate LFP rate from falling further are the increase of the LFP rate of those 55 and older and the strong attachment to the labor force of Hispanic and Asian people, who constitute the main share of the immigrant population." [/QUOTE]My translation: More young people, more women and more men are both not working and not looking for work. There are more people around retirement age but they are working longer.

[QUOTE=BigBossMan;438903]"The Fed thinks that the fall in the rate is mainly due to the composition of the labor force. [/QUOTE]This is the Fed's interpretation of the BLS's forecast of the change in the labor force participation rate between 2010 and 2020. I'd question whether this is relevant to the discussion and would also ask who specifically made this statement and when they made it.

[QUOTE=Esten;438910]Alas, the legendary King of Crapola strikes again. This is completely false. Both the US and Europe follow a definition set forth by the International Labour Organisation (ILO), with small differences. These differences have been estimated to have an effect of less than 1%. If this were not true, then all these articles you see in the media (including Fox News) showing the higher European unemployment rates would all be guilty of this apples vs. Oranges comparison. Surely someone would have called this out before. But in fact, the comparisons are valid, and Doppel is simply spreading disinformation again, like he did last week by denying there were grandfather provisions for healthcare plans in 2010 ACA regulations.[/QUOTE]Hmm Esten, I look at this, kick out the outliers like Greece, Spain, Norway and Switzerland, and unemployment rates from 2009 to 2012 in the USA Look pretty similar to Europe:

[URL]http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.UEM.TOTL.ZS[/URL]

Not to say that proves anything. Big Boss Man and Jackson have convinced me that "unemployment" and "labor force participation rates" aren't as meaningful as I had thought.

Tiny, thank you for your effort at some balance. Though we still disagree on quite a bit. I do not think that quoting the U3 is a red herring or disinformation, it is the standard, historical benchmark to judge and compare the US unemployment rate. Other metrics are available, but then one must look at the trends in these metrics over time.

Look at the trends in the chart I posted. Clearly, the US is heading one direction and Europe the opposite direction. If you switch to a U6 metric the trends will be the same, just offset. Either way, the data contradicts your claim that Obama is taking the US in the direction of Europe.

I am glad to see you agree that the ACA has probably not significantly affected employment (yet).

IMO the centerpiece of Bush's presidency were his two rounds of significant tax cuts. The failure of his presidency to produce significant job growth is a failure of tax cuts to produce significant job growth. In fact, it was even worse, because keeping the unemployment rate down increasingly depended on a growing real estate and construction bubble. I'll agree tax cuts have [I]potential[/I] to increase hiring, but you need underlying [I]demand[/I]. This brings us back to the old supply (Republican) vs. Demand (Democrat) argument. Corporate America has gone through significant lean efforts that it seems you may not be aware of. These have allowed companies to do a lot more, with less. This is a huge trend that you probably won't hear much about in the right wing media, because they are too busy blaming Obama for everything. Not only do I have some knowledge about this, in fact I have signed off paperwork to approve projects that have eliminated headcounts. The corporate buzzword for this is "improved operational efficiency". When you look at these proposals you pretty much can't argue with them, as they are very compelling on the bottom line.

[QUOTE=Esten;438910]Alas, the legendary King of Crapola strikes again. This is completely false. Both the US and Europe follow a definition set forth by the International Labour Organisation (ILO), with small differences. These differences have been estimated to have an effect of less than 1%. If this were not true, then all these articles you see in the media (including Fox News) showing the higher European unemployment rates would all be guilty of this apples vs. Oranges comparison. Surely someone would have called this out before. But in fact, the comparisons are valid, and Doppel is simply spreading disinformation again, like he did last week by denying there were grandfather provisions for healthcare plans in 2010 ACA regulations.[/QUOTE]Esten, go look at the composite of European unemployment figures, it includes under employed, unemployed, etc. Very similar to our U6, one of the reasons it's higher. As Jackson has pointed out over and over, you just want to splash a propaganda headline regardless if there is any evidence to support it.

So according to Esten we have all these wonderful "grandfather clauses" in Obamacare, so why did over 3 million private policies get cancelled in 2013? Why are several multiples of this number about to be cancelled for company plans in 2014? The only "grandfather" I saw was all the Democrat waivers handed out to their friends, I guess some groups are "more equal" than others. If these "grandfather clauses" were there then why did the state insurance commissioners, including California, refuse to reinstate all those cancelled and about to be cancelled policies?

The last bastion of the liberal, make accusations and call names when you lose the argument.

[B]The Democrat party screwed the pooch[/B]

By enacting ObamaCare, they cost millions of Americans their health insurance. So what do Progressives do in an election year?

Why they double down on stupid, and stubbornly defend the failed policy, that's what. Esten and his ilk are in full campaign mode and the order of the day is spin baby spin. Heck they even dug up Rock Harders dusted him off and gave him a new name to help with the spin. But the American people are living the ObamaCare nightmare and you can't spin that away.

The progressives are all running scared and for good reason, every progressive who had anything to do with ramming the ObamaCare Scheme down the throats of the American people needs to be fired. November 4, 2014 is "Purge The Progressives Day." boot 'em all out at every level of government across the country. The time has come to stop empowering these menaces.

The schadenfreude will be so sweet.

Esten, as you are so enamored with ObamaCare what about these falsehoods?

If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, period. NOT.

If you like your insurance plan you can keep your insurance plan, period. NOT (not withstand Esten's assurance about grandfather clauses).

ObamaCare will reduce healthcare costs. NOT.

ObamaCare will save families $2,500/ year. NOT.

I await your excuses and twisted logic with interest.

Since you love the U3 so much, please explain how under U3 once you run out of unemployment benefits, POOF you cease to be unemployed as you don't count anymore.

Explain to me why the U6 and the labor force participation rate are not better predictors of our economic health? Other than of course it makes the Dem's look bad.

I know most of you are Libertarian rather than Conservative but I laughed after reading this article today.

[URL]http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/08/women-stay-at-home-mothers-work/7468163/[/URL]

The article describes a poll where stay-at-home mothers have risen from 23% in 1999 to 29% in 2012.6% of the rise is due to women having trouble finding a job which serves the Libertarian argument.

However a Conservative is quoted:

"I think it's something to celebrate," says Cathy Cleaver Ruse, an attorney and senior fellow at the Family Research Council, a conservative think tank in Washington, the. See. "And I say 'Bravo' to those women who have the courage to buck the 20th-century feminist script that women can only find fulfillment in the workplace.".

Of course, the Feminist view was spelled out in Hillary Clinton's book "It Takes a Village.".

2016 will be a fun year.

When people quoted the official unemployment rate (U3)...

Conservatives accused them of disinformation.
Conservatives said No! You have to use the U6!
Conservatives said No! You have to look at population growth!
Conservatives said No! The only real employment barometer is the percentage of citizens who actually have jobs!

Yes, Conservatives have been consistent on this for decades. It might seem like there is a sudden interest in other metrics since Obama became president, but not so. There is no bias here to downplay the fact that unemployment has been reduced over 3 percentage points through the [B]creation of 8.5 Million private sector jobs[/B] since the passage of the ACA. LOL

[ATTACH=CONFIG]29041[/ATTACH]

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;438918]Esten, as you are so enamored with ObamaCare what about these falsehoods?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Punter127;438915]The progressives are all running scared and for good reason, every progressive who had anything to do with ramming the ObamaCare Scheme down the throats of the American people needs to be fired. November 4, 2014 is "Purge The Progressives Day." boot 'em all out at every level of government across the country. The time has come to stop empowering these menaces.

The schadenfreude will be so sweet.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Jackson;438905][B]The Result:[/B] The Disinformation Headline wins again because that's all that the LIV read.[/QUOTE]Doppel, Punter and Jackson:

[URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L28CnhmeAD4[/URL]

Esten, WT69, is that all you got?

Pretty pathetic responses.

By the way Obama had the methods by which unemployment, U3, is calculated changed shortly after he came into office.

Still waiting on those answers guys.

Finding it hard to defend the indefensible?

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;438918]Esten, as you are so enamored with ObamaCare what about these falsehoods?

If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, period. NOT.

If you like your insurance plan you can keep your insurance plan, period. NOT (not withstand Esten's assurance about grandfather clauses).

ObamaCare will reduce healthcare costs. NOT.

ObamaCare will save families $2,500/ year. NOT.

I await your excuses and twisted logic with interest.

Since you love the U3 so much, please explain how under U3 once you run out of unemployment benefits, POOF you cease to be unemployed as you don't count anymore.

Explain to me why the U6 and the labor force participation rate are not better predictors of our economic health? Other than of course it makes the Dem's look bad.[/QUOTE]Notice how Esten didn't even attempt to respond to Doppelganger's statements, but instead posted a link to a video.

Of course he can't refute the "[I]If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, period.[/I]" whopper, but Doppelganger's post couldn't be left unchallenged least an LIV accidentally stumble onto this thread, so Esten posts a "video bauble" as a distraction for said LIV.

Another disinformation mission accomplished.

Thanks,

Jax.

[QUOTE=Esten;438913]Tiny, thank you for your effort at some balance. Though we still disagree on quite a bit. I do not think that quoting the U3 is a red herring or disinformation, it is the standard, historical benchmark to judge and compare the US unemployment rate. Other metrics are available, but then one must look at the trends in these metrics over time.

Look at the trends in the chart I posted. Clearly, the US is heading one direction and Europe the opposite direction. If you switch to a U6 metric the trends will be the same, just offset. Either way, the data contradicts your claim that Obama is taking the US in the direction of Europe.

I am glad to see you agree that the ACA has probably not significantly affected employment (yet).

IMO the centerpiece of Bush's presidency were his two rounds of significant tax cuts. The failure of his presidency to produce significant job growth is a failure of tax cuts to produce significant job growth. In fact, it was even worse, because keeping the unemployment rate down increasingly depended on a growing real estate and construction bubble. I'll agree tax cuts have [I]potential[/I] to increase hiring, but you need underlying [I]demand[/I]. This brings us back to the old supply (Republican) vs. Demand (Democrat) argument. Corporate America has gone through significant lean efforts that it seems you may not be aware of. These have allowed companies to do a lot more, with less. This is a huge trend that you probably won't hear much about in the right wing media, because they are too busy blaming Obama for everything. Not only do I have some knowledge about this, in fact I have signed off paperwork to approve projects that have eliminated headcounts. The corporate buzzword for this is "improved operational efficiency". When you look at these proposals you pretty much can't argue with them, as they are very compelling on the bottom line.[/QUOTE]Esten, The red herring I mentioned was showing that the number of jobs in the USA had increased, without mentioning population had grown as fast or faster. Looking at OECD harmonized data, I don't think the numbers in your graph, unemployment in the USA versus Europe, are comparing apples and oranges. The USA should be higher and/or Europe should be lower. The trends over the last few years have indeed been toward lower unemployment in the USA and higher in Europe. But you're cherry picking data, that's a small part of the big picture, as I and others have pointed out. No need to go over that again, except perhaps to say the trends of unemployment rates in the USA and Europe in your graph are not secular trends. Instead, they're related to economic cycles and an increasing number of people in the USA that no longer work but are not considered "unemployed", given "unemployed" only includes people who are actively looking for work.

The same for the tax cuts. You can't just zero in on Bush's tax cuts and say higher taxes are better for the economy, which, respectfully, IMHO is crazy. You have to look at tax cuts under Kennedy and Reagan. Compare the performance of countries with lower taxes like Singapore, Hong Kong, Switzerland and, before Obama, the United States to countries with higher taxes. Look at the experience of the rest of the world, for example, many countries in Europe that have lowered income tax substantially on business because they figured out high taxes hurt the economy. Consider 9/11 and the 2008/2009 recession. We've been over that ad nauseum too.

While I was loathe to admit it, from time to time you used to come up with some formidable arguments. You caused me to realize, hey, maybe this is more complicated than I thought it was. But recently you've been sounding like the propaganda arm for the Democrat party. No elections are going to be swayed by what you post here. It would be interesting to know what you believe, instead of your party.

[QUOTE=Punter127;438915][B]The Democrat party screwed the pooch[/B]

By enacting ObamaCare, they cost millions of Americans their health insurance. So what do Progressives do in an election year?

Why they double down on stupid, and stubbornly defend the failed policy, that's what. Esten and his ilk are in full campaign mode and the order of the day is spin baby spin. Heck they even dug up Rock Harders dusted him off and gave him a new name to help with the spin. But the American people are living the ObamaCare nightmare and you can't spin that away.

The progressives are all running scared and for good reason, every progressive who had anything to do with ramming the ObamaCare Scheme down the throats of the American people needs to be fired. November 4, 2014 is "Purge The Progressives Day." boot 'em all out at every level of government across the country. The time has come to stop empowering these menaces.

The schadenfreude will be so sweet.[/QUOTE]Jackson and all his hypocritical fascist fan boys can ***** and moan all they want, predict the massive defeat of the Democratic Party in the November 2014 mid term elections, howl at the moon relentlessly as a symptom of their Obama Derangement Syndrome but it will not change this simple fact: ObamaCare is the law of the land and is here to stay. There is absolutely nothing Republicans can do to repeal it, plain and simple. This is guaranteed until at least January 2017 and very likely beyond that as well because the Republicans will probably nominate an unelectable candidate to stand against Hillary Clinton. After seven years have gone by and the ranks of those enrolled in ObamaCare has swelled to 30-40 million people does anybody with a brain really believe it could ever be repealed outright?

[QUOTE=ElAlamoPalermo;438941]Jackson and all his hypocritical fascist fan boys can ***** and moan all they want, predict the massive defeat of the Democratic Party in the November 2014 mid term elections, howl at the moon relentlessly as a symptom of their Obama Derangement Syndrome but it will not change this simple fact: ObamaCare is the law of the land and is here to stay. There is absolutely nothing Republicans can do to repeal it, plain and simple. This is guaranteed until at least January 2017 and very likely beyond that as well because the Republicans will probably nominate an unelectable candidate to stand against Hillary Clinton. After seven years have gone by and the ranks of those enrolled in ObamaCare has swelled to 30-40 million people does anybody with a brain really believe it could ever be repealed outright?[/QUOTE]Here we go with the name calling denigrating your opponents again.

Typical Liberal / Progressive behavior for the people who state they are open minded and tolerant of others view point, that is until you disagree with them. Then its Katy bar the door!

While ObamaCare is the law of the land now, I don't recall anyone saying it was not, that does not mean it will be the law of the land until 2017. Should the Republicans hold the House and gain the Senate, it would be a simple matter to choke off funding for it in a general appropriations bill. Obama may well veto it but then the Democrats favorite whipping boy for government shutdowns would no longer be the Republicans but their number one boy. Obama.

There is also a very good chance enough Democrats will cross the isle to override the veto.

I truly hope Hilary runs and loses again. She was the anointed one in 2008 and a nobody beat her. Who knows where the next nobody in her party will come from.

I do agree about poor choices by the Republicans for presidential candidates, but I think they have pretty much run out of geezers to run this time around.

With the young invincibles failing to sign up for ObamaCare, you will see a rise in uninsured and without their premium payments a fiscal collapse of ObamaCare, so your 30-40 million is a pipe dream IMHO.

Very little the Democrats and Obama told the public about ObamaCare has been truthful, with each month bringing new revelations about how poorly this law was written, how impossible it will be to implement and how many lies were told about it to the public. There have been what 37 or 38 delays in critical portions of the law by presidential fiat? If it were such a great law why all the delays?

Have you noticed how many of the primary architects of this debacle are not running for re-election but choosing to retire rather than face defeat at the polls?

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;438942]Here we go with the name calling denigrating your opponents again.

Typical Liberal / Progressive behavior for the people who state they are open minded and tolerant of others view point, that is until you disagree with them. Then its Katy bar the door!

While ObamaCare is the law of the land now, I don't recall anyone saying it was not, that does not mean it will be the law of the land until 2017. Should the Republicans hold the House and gain the Senate, it would be a simple matter to choke off funding for it in a general appropriations bill. Obama may well veto it but then the Democrats favorite whipping boy for government shutdowns would no longer be the Republicans but their number one boy. Obama.

There is also a very good chance enough Democrats will cross the isle to override the veto.

I truly hope Hilary runs and loses again. She was the anointed one in 2008 and a nobody beat her. Who knows where the next nobody in her party will come from.

I do agree about poor choices by the Republicans for presidential candidates, but I think they have pretty much run out of geezers to run this time around.

With the young invincibles failing to sign up for ObamaCare, you will see a rise in uninsured and without their premium payments a fiscal collapse of ObamaCare, so your 30-40 million is a pipe dream IMHO.

Very little the Democrats and Obama told the public about ObamaCare has been truthful, with each month bringing new revelations about how poorly this law was written, how impossible it will be to implement and how many lies were told about it to the public. There have been what 37 or 38 delays in critical portions of the law by presidential fiat? If it were such a great law why all the delays?

Have you noticed how many of the primary architects of this debacle are not running for re-election but choosing to retire rather than face defeat at the polls?[/QUOTE]Never have I ever posted on this forum that ObamaCare is a "great law"; it's certainly NOT a great law and the way it was legislated was unfortunate. That being said, it did eliminate denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions, lifetime caps, and allows for 20-somethings to stay on their parents insurance until age 26, all of which are worthwhile progress. As a result of the flawed ObamaCare for the first time everyone in the United States has access to affordable healthcare, which IS progress. If the US Congress was actually functional, a bi-partisan effort would be made to work out the kinks in ObamaCare and make whatever changes are necessary to allow for things to run more efficiently; unfortunately there is an endemic infection of Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS) among the Republican caucus which prevents this from getting done.

Regarding your 2016 election predictions, you and the rest of Jackson's Fascist Fan Boys howled for months that Obama would be slaughtered by Romney in the 2012 election and the opposite happened which goes to show how completely out of touch Jackson's Fascist Fan Boys truly are with the political reality in the United States.

[QUOTE=ElAlamoPalermo;438947]Never have I ever posted on this forum that ObamaCare is a "great law"; it's certainly NOT a great law and the way it was legislated was unfortunate. That being said, it did eliminate denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions, lifetime caps, and allows for 20-somethings to stay on their parents insurance until age 26, all of which are worthwhile progress. As a result of the flawed ObamaCare for the first time everyone in the United States has access to affordable healthcare, which IS progress. If the US Congress was actually functional, a bi-partisan effort would be made to work out the kinks in ObamaCare and make whatever changes are necessary to allow for things to run more efficiently; unfortunately there is an endemic infection of Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS) among the Republican caucus which prevents this from getting done.

Regarding your 2016 election predictions, you and the rest of Jackson's Fascist Fan Boys howled for months that Obama would be slaughtered by Romney in the 2012 election and the opposite happened which goes to show how completely out of touch Jackson's Fascist Fan Boys truly are with the political reality in the United States.[/QUOTE]In agreement with just about everything there, though Hillary versus Jeb could be interesting. But will the Republicans nominate an electable candidate?

[QUOTE=Doggboy;438949] though Hillary versus Jeb could be interesting.[/QUOTE]No it wouldn't, we've seen that show before, need names other than Bush and Clinton. Bill Gates versus anyone of the Koch Brothers or even Darrell (I like investigations more than life itself) Issa versus Eric (I don't know anything) Holder would be good theater. Some new blood would do the country good but we'll probably get the same old boring reruns.

[QUOTE=RcCollins;438952]No it wouldn't, we've seen that show before, need names other than Bush and Clinton. Bill Gates versus anyone of the Koch Brothers or even Darrell (I like investigations more than life itself) Issa versus Eric (I don't know anything) Holder would be good theater. Some new blood would do the country good but we'll probably get the same old boring reruns.[/QUOTE]"Interesting" from the perspective of a competitive contest. I thought that would have been clear from the context of the discussion related to ElAlamoPalermo's post.

[QUOTE=ElAlamoPalermo;438947]Never have I ever posted on this forum that ObamaCare is a "great law"; it's certainly NOT a great law and the way it was legislated was unfortunate. That being said, it did eliminate denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions, lifetime caps, and allows for 20-somethings to stay on their parents insurance until age 26, all of which are worthwhile progress. As a result of the flawed ObamaCare for the first time everyone in the United States has access to affordable healthcare, which IS progress. If the US Congress was actually functional, a bi-partisan effort would be made to work out the kinks in ObamaCare and make whatever changes are necessary to allow for things to run more efficiently; unfortunately there is an endemic infection of Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS) among the Republican caucus which prevents this from getting done.

Regarding your 2016 election predictions, you and the rest of Jackson's Fascist Fan Boys howled for months that Obama would be slaughtered by Romney in the 2012 election and the opposite happened which goes to show how completely out of touch Jackson's Fascist Fan Boys truly are with the political reality in the United States.[/QUOTE] RH, You recognize this was "certainly NOT a great law." Then why are you jumping through hoops trying to justify it?

You take a system where doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, drug companies, and lawyers who sue all of the preceding subvert the free market and fuck the consumer. Then you add a 2000 page law THAT NO MEMBER OF CONGRESS BOTHERED TO READ and tens of thousands of pages of associated regulations and you put that system on steroids. This is going to eat up $20 of every $100 of GDP generated in America. You think we can afford that? Going to a true free market would work better. Or, at the other end of the spectrum, socialized medicine for those who care to use it would work better. The chief of the fan boys has said as much. How does that square with your definition of fascism? The truth is you're promoting a truly fucked up system for the sole reason that the Democrat Party supports it. You guys need to quit spouting all the crap you "learn" on MSNBC and, in the words of WT69, get some brains. That includes you WT69.

I predicted here that Romney would lose, even though he was by far the better candidate. Gary Johnson was the best. There are unfortunately many Americans, like many Venezuelans and many Argentines, that are dupes in the hands of the fascist/populist left.

[QUOTE=Jackson;438938]Notice how Esten didn't even attempt to respond to Doppelganger's statements, but instead posted a link to a video.

Of course he can't refute the "[I]If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, period.[/I]" whopper, but Doppelganger's post couldn't be left unchallenged least an LIV accidentally stumble onto this thread, so Esten posts a "video bauble" as a distraction for said LIV.[/QUOTE]Notice how Doppel was throwing recycled mud, and Jackson chimes in to give the false impression that his statements have not been refuted before. In fact, I addressed all except one of Doppel's ACA statements before. Go look up my posts over the past month. The one ACA statement I don't recall responding to before is the one on reducing healthcare costs. Some reports say there is not enough data in yet to attribute falling healthcare spending to the ACA, but others say there are signs that this projection will be true. In fact, spending reductions in the ACA are projected to significantly extend the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund. See two links below. Although I'm sure next week Doppel will be howling, "Hey Esten, what about the false claim that Obamacare reduces healthcare costs?" Smart Democrats will not be doubling down on the ACA. They will be tripling and quadrupling down.

New Data Suggests Obamacare Is Actually Bending The Healthcare Cost Curve
[URL]http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/02/12/new-data-suggests-obamacare-is-actually-bending-the-healthcare-cost-curve/[/URL]

Medicare trust fund projected to last until 2026 as health costs drop
[URL]http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/medicare-trust-funds-life-extended-2-years-to-2026/2013/05/31/7efc7ca6-ca03-11e2-9245-773c0123c027_story.html[/URL]

[QUOTE=Esten;438959] Smart Democrats will not be doubling down on the ACA. They will be tripling and quadrupling down.

New Data Suggests Obamacare Is Actually Bending The Healthcare Cost Curve
[URL]http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/02/12/new-data-suggests-obamacare-is-actually-bending-the-healthcare-cost-curve/[/URL]

Medicare trust fund projected to last until 2026 as health costs drop
[URL]http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/medicare-trust-funds-life-extended-2-years-to-2026/2013/05/31/7efc7ca6-ca03-11e2-9245-773c0123c027_story.html[/URL][/QUOTE]Wonderful, health care costs dropped from 17.2% to 17.1% of GDP one year. But according to the Democrat-leaning Brookings Institute they're potentially on their way to close to 25% of GDP in 20 years. And the ACA didn't do jack to lower costs, because it hadn't even kicked in:

[URL]http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Projects/BPEA/Fall%202013/2013b%20chandra%20healthcare%20spending.pdf[/URL]

Please note that they reference your Forbes article on page 9, where they debunk the credit the ACA has received for lowering costs.

Democrats and mainstream Republicans jump all over the sort of information you provided if they think it's to their political advantage. It gives them an excuse not to deal with long term problems in a way that might hurt them with voters. Reforms to Medicare certainly don't win elections.

So, fantastic. Smart Democrats will be tripling and quadrupling down on this. Yeah, maybe they are smart. Many will be out of office or dead before the health care system bankrupts the country.

Sign this.

[URL]http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/we-denounce-the-koch?source=mo&id=94412-27461261-LezppQx[/URL]

Here's how the petition should be written:

[QUOTE]We, citizens of the United States, denounce you, [strike]Charles and David Koch[/strike] George Soros, for using your vast wealth -- more than the combined wealth of the bottom 40 percent of Americans -- to corrupt our democracy. You are thereby undermining the most precious gift we possess, our democratic system of government. You deserve to be shamed and condemned by all Americans.[/QUOTE]Thanks,

Jax.

[QUOTE=Esten;438959]Notice how Doppel was throwing recycled mud, and Jackson chimes in to give the false impression that his statements have not been refuted before. In fact, I addressed all except one of Doppel's ACA statements before. Go look up my posts over the past month. The one ACA statement I don't recall responding to before is the one on reducing healthcare costs. Some reports say there is not enough data in yet to attribute falling healthcare spending to the ACA, but others say there are signs that this projection will be true. In fact, spending reductions in the ACA are projected to significantly extend the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund. See two links below. Although I'm sure next week Doppel will be howling, "Hey Esten, what about the false claim that Obamacare reduces healthcare costs?" Smart Democrats will not be doubling down on the ACA. They will be tripling and quadrupling down.

New Data Suggests Obamacare Is Actually Bending The Healthcare Cost Curve
[URL]http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/02/12/new-data-suggests-obamacare-is-actually-bending-the-healthcare-cost-curve/[/URL]

Medicare trust fund projected to last until 2026 as health costs drop
[URL]http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/medicare-trust-funds-life-extended-2-years-to-2026/2013/05/31/7efc7ca6-ca03-11e2-9245-773c0123c027_story.html[/URL][/QUOTE]How is it we always hear about SOCIAL SECUIRTY, into which every working American contributed funds which were matched by their employer, will run out of money by a certain date.

But we never hear about WELFARE, into which NONE of the recipients of said program paid a single penny, running out of money?

How is it we always hear about MEDICARE, into which every working American contributed funds which were matched by their employer, will run out of money by a certain date.

But we never hear about MEDICAID, into which NONE of the recipients of said program paid a single penny, running out of money?

Funny how that works.

By the way Esten, it's not mud it just the truth.

Now the next shoe to drop is when the IRS starts fining folks without healthcare. Wonder if the number is going to match the number for those HHS say are uninsured?

Remember, all the company plans which are non-conforming with ObamaCare will be receiving cancellation notices in a few short months.

When that starts Esten, can you say Grandfather?

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;438984]Sign this.

[URL]http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/we-denounce-the-koch?source=mo&id=94412-27461261-LezppQx[/URL][/QUOTE][I]Far from trying to rig the system, I have spent decades opposing cronyism and all political favors, including mandates, subsidies and protective tariffs—even when we benefit from them. I believe that cronyism is nothing more than welfare for the rich and powerful, and should be abolished.

Koch Industries was the only major producer in the ethanol industry to argue for the demise of the ethanol tax credit in 2011. That government handout (which cost taxpayers billions) needlessly drove up food and fuel prices as well as other costs for consumers—many of whom were poor or otherwise disadvantaged. Now the mandate needs to go, so that consumers and the marketplace are the ones who decide the future of ethanol.

Instead of fostering a system that enables people to help themselves, America is now saddled with a system that destroys value, raises costs, hinders innovation and relegates millions of citizens to a life of poverty, dependency and hopelessness. This is what happens when elected officials believe that people's lives are better run by politicians and regulators than by the people themselves. Those in power fail to see that more government means less liberty, and liberty is the essence of what it means to be American. Love of liberty is the American ideal.[/I]

- Charles G. Koch, Chairman and CEO of Koch Industries.

[URL]http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303978304579475860515021286[/URL]

It would be nice if Soros had argued for the demise of his tax preferences, like Koch did for ethanol. He did not, and thanks largely to Democrat politicians, hedge fund managers have continued to park income offshore tax free and take advantage of carried interest.

I have to laugh everytime I see a conservative selling "freedom". What a wonderful message. Everyone wants freedom.

But dig deeper and you'll see it's merely a feel-good slogan, because the underlying effects of conservative policies are not always good for people (and therefore not sellable). So they resort to selling "freedom".

In a free market the strong tend to get stronger. And sometimes, even stronger and stronger. When they get too big, you might find yourself at their mercy. Their motive is profit, not your welfare. And so you need rules and regulations to keep the powerful in check. Just last week, we learned Bank of America illegally charged its customers for credit monitoring and credit reporting services that were not received. The bank was ordered to pay roughly $772 million in refunds to customers and fines to federal regulators. You can thank the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, created under Obama for that one. We see the effects of free markets creating tremendous wealth in the top 1%, and some in government trying to counter that with redistributive legislation, that many of the very wealthy (like Buffett and Soros) support. While the "freedom" sellers attempt to demonize regulations and redistribution, these are usually good things for the average American. In some cases, they actually lead to [I]more[/I] freedom, like the freedom the ACA has given millions of Americans to obtain affordable health insurance and not have coverage denied or dropped, including more freedom to change jobs without losing access to affordable coverage.

Koch's position on ethanol subsidies doesn't mean much. What is ethanol, like 5% of their business? And how much would that really impact their individual wealth? Whereas liberals like Buffett and Soros support the Buffett rule, where they would take a significant hit. Tell me when the Kochs start supporting the Buffett rule, and maybe then I'll give them some credit. In the meantime, their free-market "liberty" propaganda will only continue to deceive the LIV, and perpetuate trends in economic inequality.

Hey Doppel, how about let's put a wager on some of your posts. Then we'll see how confident you are.

#1. I claim that regulations issued to implement the ACA allowed insurance companies to continue selling certain policies that did not meet all ACA requirements (i.e. grandfathered plans). And that some policies were cancelled because insurance companies chose to (were not forced to) discontinue them. You have denied this. I'll wager $1000.

#2. I claim that the commonly cited European unemployment rates more closely resemble the US U3 (not U6 as you claim). I'll wager $1000.

C'mon big guy, let's see what you got. Any attempt to avoid this challenge or counter with different wagers will be seen as an admission of a lack of confidence in your own words.

[QUOTE=RockinBob;438992]On the other hand, the policies of the 1% who run this country ain't geared to helping people, they're geared to further enriching the one percent. The government is nothing but a bunch of lackeys for the 1%. It is a government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich. Read the recent McCutcheon decision by the Supreme Court! Utter nonsense with no other purpose than give even more power to the one percent.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Esten;438998]In a free market the strong tend to get stronger. And sometimes, even stronger and stronger. When they get too big, you might find yourself at their mercy. Their motive is profit, not your welfare. And so you need rules and regulations to keep the powerful in check....We see the effects of free markets creating tremendous wealth in the top 1%, and some in government trying to counter that with redistributive legislation, that many of the very wealthy (like Buffett and Soros) support. While the "freedom" sellers attempt to demonize regulations and redistribution, these are usually good things for the average American. In some cases, they actually lead to [I]more[/I] freedom, like the freedom the ACA has given millions of Americans to obtain affordable health insurance and not have coverage denied or dropped, including more freedom to change jobs without losing access to affordable coverage.
Koch's position on ethanol subsidies doesn't mean much. What is ethanol, like 5% of their business? And how much would that really impact their individual wealth? Whereas liberals like Buffett and Soros support the Buffett rule, where they would take a significant hit. Tell me when the Kochs start supporting the Buffett rule, and maybe then I'll give them some credit. In the meantime, their free-market "liberty" propaganda will only continue to deceive the LIV, and perpetuate trends in economic inequality.[/QUOTE]The experience of the world over the last 100 years is that free markets work and the alternatives do not. Yes, competition and regulation are required. Crony capitalism should be stamped out.

The top 1% thing is a classic example of Jackson's LIV explanations. And also an example of how Esten was correct when he said the Democrat party is cohesive while Republicans tend to infight. I would rephrase that, and say that many Democrats blindly believe whatever their leaders say, no matter how ridiculous, while many Republicans and Independents think for themselves.

Anyway, Obama and Rockin Bob say the 1% [B](many of whom are Democrats)[/B] and the Republicans are responsible for all the ills that have befallen America. Because Obama said it, it must be true. Like Chavez and the Kirchner's, Obama finds scapegoats (Republicans and the top 1%) and pins his own party's failures on them. Also, as exemplified by the McCutcheon supreme court verdict that Rockin Bob condemned and the Obama administration's attempts to alter rules for 501 (c)(4)'s that Esten defended, the leaders of the Democrat Party appear to believe, like Chavez and the Kirchner's, that free speech should be muzzled in the interests of the party.

The implementation of the Buffet rule would really impact Warren's individual wealth? He would take a significant hit? That's ridiculous. Almost all of Buffet's wealth is taxed at the corporate level, and virtually none at the individual level. The Buffet rule would have virtually no effect on his wealth. I estimate the Buffet rule would take about 0.009% of his wealth annually. Soros was notorious for avoiding taxes through loopholes during his time in the fund management business.

Finally, Esten, I believe in universal health care too. Unfortunately, Obamacare does not provide it, leaving 30 million uninsured in the year 2022, and it doubles down on a failed system where costs are out of control and quality of care is not commensurate with cost.

[QUOTE=Esten;438999]Hey Doppel, how about let's put a wager on some of your posts. Then we'll see how confident you are.

#1. I claim that regulations issued to implement the ACA allowed insurance companies to continue selling certain policies that did not meet all ACA requirements (i.e. grandfathered plans). And that some policies were cancelled because insurance companies chose to (were not forced to) discontinue them. You have denied this. I'll wager $1000.

#2. I claim that the commonly cited European unemployment rates more closely resemble the US U3 (not U6 as you claim). I'll wager $1000.

C'mon big guy, let's see what you got. Any attempt to avoid this challenge or counter with different wagers will be seen as an admission of a lack of confidence in your own words.[/QUOTE]

#1 Total misinformation as always.
Are you talking Grandfather or those who received waivers ie "grandfathered" from Obama?

You know all the Democrat's friends like the UNIONS.

Is there a provision for "grandfathered" plans in the law, yes but it's not available to anyone due to the Obama Administration's rules governing who qualifies for grandfather status.

It's Obama not the insurance companies.

So I guess it's ok for you to assert there is a grandfathered clause in ObamaCare but due to Obama's regulations restricting whose plan can qualify for that status you would have to be a one horned, one eyed, flying purple people eater. Not many qualifying for that one.

Check out the link it explains it pretty well.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/31/obama-officials-in-2010-93-million-americans-will-be-unable-to-keep-their-health-plans-under-obamacare/

Under #2 who exactly are your talking about when you say "commonly cited" since I have seen BOTH out there depending on who wanted to slant the numbers to support their argument. You know, like you!


This from the guy who said "no one was forced to buy ObamaCare"!

Your challenge is as meaningless as many of your posts.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;439001]This from the guy who said "no one was forced to buy ObamaCare"!

Your challenge is as meaningless as many of your posts.[/QUOTE]Esten is a propagandist.

However, his posts are not intended to sway any of us as he knows that we are paying attention to what's going on in our country.

Esten posts here solely to interdict any ideologically vacillating LIVs who may inadvertently stumble upon this thread.

You may consider his posts as chaff intended to cloud the real picture.

In this regard, he has done an excellent job.

Thanks,

Jax.

[QUOTE=DonB;439009]I once characterized Esten as either immoral, amoral, hopelessly naive or just plain stupid, I have since lowered my opinion of him.

I might add I have added several others to that category.

Don.[/QUOTE]Since we know that you were a winner of several Nobel Prizes, and as a recipient of the Medal of Honor, you will be buried in Arlington.

Esten, et al.

Talk about cost, take a look at this article. Costs have gone and are going to continue to go WAY UP under ObamaCare.

[URL]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/14/survey-shows-obamacare-sending-premiums-rising-at-fastest-clip-in-decades/[/URL]

I wouldn't trust Fox 'Fair and balanced my arse' News on this subject, it does have a reputation for lies (I.e. Intentional falsehoods rather than disagreements). How about the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. On Monday it revised its cost estimate for the health care law.

[URL]http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45231-ACA_Estimates.pdf[/URL]

The nonpartisan office now believes that the ACA will cost the government $5 billion less than projected in 2014 and $104 billion less for the 2015-2024 period. It also found "no clear evidence" that premiums will surge in 2015, noting that "enrollees in the future will be healthier, on average, than the smaller number of people who are obtaining such coverage in 2014." The agency estimated that the national average premium for individual silver policy plans would increase by $100 that year.

The CBO attributes the additional savings to government, relative to the CBO's last assessment from February 2014, to lower-than expected premiums, which in turn lowered the cost for exchange subsidies, and higher-than expected revenues from the excise tax on high-premium insurance plans.

"Despite projecting that slightly more people will receive insurance coverage through exchanges over the 2015–2024 period than they had anticipated previously," the report says. "CBO and JCT project that costs for exchange subsidies and related spending will be $164 billion (or 14 percent) below the previous projection, mainly because of the downward revision to expected exchange premiums." The office also predicted that plans offered in the exchanges will provide wider provider networks and higher reimbursement rates to providers as enrollment increases. "That pattern will put upward pressure on exchange premiums over the next couple of years, although CBO and JCT anticipate that the plans' characteristics will stabilize after 2016," it found.

The office also concluded that the law's so-called shock absorbers — reinsurance payments that are distributed to insurers that attract high-cost enrollees — "reduced exchange premiums this year by approximately 10 percent" and will "reduce premiums by smaller amounts in 2015 and 2016." CBO found additional savings in Medicaid, revising downward government spending per adult enrolled in the program. Ultimately, 12 million more nonelderly people will have health insurance in 2014 as a result of the law. Twenty-six million more "will be insured each year from 2017 through 2024 than would have been the case without the ACA," the CBO concluded.

I expect your next post to condemn as a propagandist anyone quoting Fox News.

[QUOTE=Jackson;439008]Esten is a propagandist.

[/QUOTE]

I come here for 2/3 amusement and 1/3 intellectual stimulation. I often laugh out loud at some things I read here. Most of the propaganda is from folks afflicted with ODS, who bond with each other in their Fox News groupthink. When I post things that contradict their propaganda, I am accused of posting propaganda. Too funny! But behind the facade, they know where they stand and where I stand.

Notice the timing of Jackson's post, as Doppel attempts to deflect from not standing behind his own statements. His train of thought must be, [I] "Esten is exposing my buddy's false information, now would be a good time to intervene and label Esten a propagandist."[/I].

[QUOTE=Jackson;439008]solely to interdict any ideologically vacillating LIVs[/QUOTE]I must say though, that is an exquisite example of command of the English language.

[QUOTE=Esten;439014]I must say though, that is an exquisite example of command of the English language.[/QUOTE]Actually the whole post was exquisite. I particularly liked the following,

[QUOTE=Jackson;439008] You may consider his posts as chaff intended to cloud the real picture.
[/QUOTE]I would have "thanked" Jackson except that I figure if we gang up on you too much you'll leave and we won't have poor Esten to kick around anymore.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;439015]Actually the whole post was exquisite. I particularly liked the following,

I would have "thanked" Jackson except that I figure if we gang up on you too much you'll leave and we won't have poor Esten to kick around anymore.[/QUOTE]The only way to make Esten leave is to ignore him. He relishes the anti-Esten posts, and thrives on stirring up the anti-Esten sentiment among the more conservative posters on this board. That is one of the reasons that he does not care about separating fact from fiction.

Tres3.

As the 2014 mid-terms get closer Esten and his comrades become more shrill.

They ignore what they don't agree with and embrace what they do.

Prime example is CBO numbers. They rave about the "non-partisan" CBO when they like the numbers, but call the CBO a bunch of partisan hacks when they don't.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;439019]As the 2014 mid-terms get closer Esten and his comrades become more shrill.

They ignore what they don't agree with and embrace what they do.

Prime example is CBO numbers. They rave about the "non-partisan" CBO when they like the numbers, but call the CBO a bunch of partisan hacks when they don't.[/QUOTE]As the one posting the link to the CBO: I didn't 'rave', and have never disparaged the office either. I do generally mock, with good reason, anything sourced from Fox News which never fails to deliver its anti-Obama agenda.

Can anyone deny that Fox has a well deserved reputation for a consistent anti-Obama and right wing stance? If people want to complain about members posting propaganda, they should start there. Anyone disputing the figures from the CBO? And as for becoming more shrill, I think the fear of the right that public opinion is moving in favour of the ACA is becoming more palpable by the day.

As for the comments about Esten, I always remember the old adage, "When losing the argument, attack the messenger"!