American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=SteveC;439020]I think the fear of the right that public opinion is moving in favour of the ACA is becoming more palpable by the day.[/QUOTE]Let me see if I understand this:

The more people that are registered for the program that gives them free money in the form of subsidized health care, the more people like the program that gives them the free money in the form of subsidized health care.

No shit.

The only thing ObamaCare proves is that you can buy votes with government programs that give away free money.

Thanks,

Jax.

[QUOTE=SteveC;439020]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"![/QUOTE]Lets put this in proper prospective.

First Fox whips everyone for news numbers / viewers, are you trying to tell me only right wing people watch?

Fox is a bit to the Right of Center, but when compared to the major new organizations, NBC CBS ABC & PMSNBC, who are all rabid Obama supporters as well as being so far LEFT of Center to nearly make them part of the Democrat National Committee I would suppose Fox does look anti-Obama for pointing out all the warts.

As far as the CBO they never get it right on long term projections due to the assumptions they are forced to accept are rarely anywhere near reality.

My friend you need to look at the polls regarding how unhappy folks are with ObamaCare and it's only going to get worse before the midterms with company policies getting cancelled and the IRS fining those who did not sign up for health insurance. Why do you think Obama is playing the RACE CARD again?

There are not enough Democrats or Republicans to elect anyone and Obama / Democrats are losing the independents, who will decide the mid terms, in droves.

Add to that the independent base is energized because they are pissed off at Obama and the Democrats for all the lies, the Republican base is energized and smell blood in the water, while the Democrat base is dispirited and disinterested which will probably result in low turn out.

2014 could make 2010 look like a Sunday school picnic.

We will see November 4, 2014.

The only person I named was Esten, but if you are one of his minions and if the shoe fits....

[QUOTE=SteveC]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." [/QUOTE]This quote from the CBO report I thought was the most interesting. It makes sense, those needing or wanting to use healthcare services the most (i.e., the costliest to insurers) were probably the most likely to sign up in the first ACA open enrollment. The healthier people who decided to pay the tax penalty will be more likely to sign up in future years when the penalty increases. Of course it's their choice, the law does not force anyone to buy insurance. But this will most likely have an offsetting effect on premium increases. The CBO says premiums should increase by about 6 percent per year after 2016.

More broadly, the ACA has a number of cost-control measures aimed at reducing healthcare costs over the long run. It may be too early to tell how well they will work, but extending the solvency of Medicare until 2026 is clear, and that's directly from the Medicare trustees report. The ACA accomplishes this in part by reducing payments to private insurers. This (and other measures) contradicts claims that the ACA is some big giveaway to insurers. Spending reductions are projected to take more than $700 billion out of health spending over the next 10 years. This is PRECISELY the type of serious cost-cutting that conservatives say we need, to "live within our means" and ensure our safety nets are preserved for years to come.

BTW Steve, don't take anything Doppel writes too seriously. I have been on the board with him for years. I am sure he is a nice man in person, but he is a slippery, fact-challenged individual, who could easily be the poster child for ODS. He can't admit when he's wrong, and when he gets called out on his incorrect information, he recycles his "Tick Tock" post to reassure himself. It's more likely you will have a threesome with Kate Upton and Emily Ratajkowski, than you will have a factual dialogue with Doppelganger.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;439001]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. [/QUOTE]No, nothing to do with waivers or unions. Rather, the regulations that allowed insurance companies to grandfather plans that were purchased before March 23,2010. These plans did not have to meet all ACA requirements. Insurance companies could continue those non-conforming policies at their choice, as long as they met a subset of requirements.

[QUOTE]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. [/QUOTE]The official unemployment numbers published by Eurostat.

So Doppel, what say you on that wager?

[QUOTE=Jackson;439021]Let me see if I understand this:

The more people that are registered for the program that gives them free money in the form of subsidized health care, the more people like the program that gives them the free money in the form of subsidized health care.

No shit.

The only thing ObamaCare proves is that you can buy votes with government programs that give away free money.

Thanks,

Jax.[/QUOTE]Mongers-.

Jackson and his fascist fan boys (Doppel, Punter, etc) continue to sound increasing antiquated, out of touch, and downright delusional as a result of their chronic infection of Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS). They sound more and more like George Wallace during the dying days of segregation. It boggles the mind that anybody with a rational thought process can attempt to argue that providing citizens with affordable healthcare is a bad idea. Can the citizens / governments of all the G7 and G20 countries all be wrong by providing their citizens with affordable healthcare? Or is it far more likely that Jackson and his fascist fan boys, who are the of the same ilk of those who fought against liberating the slaves, woman suffrage, ending segregation / Jim Crow laws, ADA, etc. Are DEAD WRONG?

Also I am still waiting for Jackson to admit to his fascist fan boys that he is a hypocrite and a parasite for directly and personally benefiting from subsidized healthcare as a foreigner in Argentina all the while admonishing US citizens for benefiting from subsidized healthcare in their own country.

Thanks.

EAP.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;439026]Lets put this in proper prospective.

First Fox whips everyone for news numbers / viewers, are you trying to tell me only right wing people watch?

Fox is a bit to the Right of Center, but when compared to the major new organizations, NBC CBS ABC & PMSNBC, who are all rabid Obama supporters as well as being so far LEFT of Center to nearly make them part of the Democrat National Committee I would suppose Fox does look anti-Obama for pointing out all the warts.

As far as the CBO they never get it right on long term projections due to the assumptions they are forced to accept are rarely anywhere near reality.

My friend you need to look at the polls regarding how unhappy folks are with ObamaCare and it's only going to get worse before the midterms with company policies getting cancelled and the IRS fining those who did not sign up for health insurance. Why do you think Obama is playing the RACE CARD again?

There are not enough Democrats or Republicans to elect anyone and Obama / Democrats are losing the independents, who will decide the mid terms, in droves.

Add to that the independent base is energized because they are pissed off at Obama and the Democrats for all the lies, the Republican base is energized and smell blood in the water, while the Democrat base is dispirited and disinterested which will probably result in low turn out.

2014 could make 2010 look like a Sunday school picnic.

We will see November 4, 2014.

The only person I named was Esten, but if you are one of his minions and if the shoe fits....[/QUOTE]A good source for viewing demographics is [URL]http://www.people-press.org/2012/09/27/section-4-demographics-and-political-views-of-news-audiences/[/URL].

To summarise, Fox News viewers tend to be older, more conservative, Republican voting, poorer, less educated, and with less knowledge of current events than other outlets.

Fox is a bit to the Right of Center. Glad you can bring some humour into the debate! Fox is a bit to the right, anyone to the left of centre is rabid. Nice to get a sense of perspective.

Any evidence of the CBO being out of touch with reality, or is it so just when you disagree with its findings?

Admittedly the polls do show more opposed to the ACA than if favour, but only because the numbers opposing include those that don't think it goes far enough. The numbers are still moving in its favour though. Race Card?

Agreed, the 2014 midterms will be very interesting. Can't wait for the predictions to start on here.

Finally, I'm no-one's minion, any more than you'd consider yourself to be one of Jax's lap dogs.

[QUOTE=Esten;439028]No, nothing to do with waivers or unions. Rather, the regulations that allowed insurance companies to grandfather plans that were purchased before March 23,2010. These plans did not have to meet all ACA requirements. Insurance companies could continue those non-conforming policies at their choice, as long as they met a subset of requirements.

The official unemployment numbers published by Eurostat.

So Doppel, what say you on that wager?[/QUOTE]Ok Esten let's look at Eurostat.

See this link:

[URL]http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Unemployment_and_underemployment_statistics[/URL]#.

Eurostat uses something close to both our U3 and U6 numbers. U6 is a more complete view of unemployment / underemployment than the U3 for reasons stated many times prior to this. You don't refute the number you just ignore it.

The Eurostat article clearly agrees with this argument, so again you are just cherry picking numbers that agree with your bias.

As stated earlier, both numbers are out there and are used to bolster the writer's argument.

Again people like you.

[QUOTE=SteveC;439030]A good source for viewing demographics is [URL]http://www.people-press.org/2012/09/27/section-4-demographics-and-political-views-of-news-audiences/[/URL].

To summarise, Fox News viewers tend to be older, more conservative, Republican voting, poorer, less educated, and with less knowledge of current events than other outlets.

Fox is a bit to the Right of Center. Glad you can bring some humour into the debate! Fox is a bit to the right, anyone to the left of centre is rabid. Nice to get a sense of perspective.

Any evidence of the CBO being out of touch with reality, or is it so just when you disagree with its findings?

Admittedly the polls do show more opposed to the ACA than if favour, but only because the numbers opposing include those that don't think it goes far enough. The numbers are still moving in its favour though. Race Card?

Agreed, the 2014 midterms will be very interesting. Can't wait for the predictions to start on here.

Finally, I'm no-one's minion, any more than you'd consider yourself to be one of Jax's lap dogs.[/QUOTE]Fox News beats all the other cable news sources combined. Any argument here?

Fox News came in 2nd to top major broadcasters in 2013, which means two of the major broadcasters fell below Fox. Any argument here?

Are you trying to tell me with those results only WASP angry old men comprise the only demographic Fox is getting? Come on.

Of course you are going to say Fox is far right, a few of their folks like Hannity are, but the majority are not. When comparing Fox to the NBC, CBS and ABC, who are in the bag for Obama, of course Fox looks anti-Obama to YOU. When the old school national news media is so far left anyone near the center looks extreme in comparison.

[QUOTE=ElAlamoPalermo;439029]They sound more and more like George Wallace during the dying days of segregation...who are the of the same ilk of those who fought against liberating the slaves, woman suffrage, ending segregation / Jim Crow laws, ADA, etc.[/QUOTE]Once again, if you disagree with ObamaCare, then you must be a racist.

It's official guys, the only thing the intellectually bankrupt liberals have left is the race card, which you can expect to see played again and again in the coming months.

Thanks,

Jax.

[QUOTE=ElAlamoPalermo;439029]Mongers-.

Jackson and his fascist fan boys (Doppel, Punter, etc) continue to sound increasing antiquated, out of touch, and downright delusional as a result of their chronic infection of Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS). They sound more and more like George Wallace during the dying days of segregation. It boggles the mind that anybody with a rational thought process can attempt to argue that providing citizens with affordable healthcare is a bad idea. Can the citizens / governments of all the G7 and G20 countries all be wrong by providing their citizens with affordable healthcare? Or is it far more likely that Jackson and his fascist fan boys, who are the of the same ilk of those who fought against liberating the slaves, woman suffrage, ending segregation / Jim Crow laws, ADA, etc. Are DEAD WRONG?

Also I am still waiting for Jackson to admit to his fascist fan boys that he is a hypocrite and a parasite for directly and personally benefiting from subsidized healthcare as a foreigner in Argentina all the while admonishing US citizens for benefiting from subsidized healthcare in their own country.

Thanks.

EAP.[/QUOTE]EAP / RH, Respectfully, you've been duped to paint your opponents as racists and misogynists. Democrat politicians, Eric Holder, MSNBC, and various left wing web sites are lying about this in order to increase turnout in the 2014 election. Today's Wall Street Journal makes the case more eloquently than I can:

[URL]http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303663604579501572356272540?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303663604579501572356272540.html[/URL]

For the third time, Jackson's posts contradict your assertions. He has praised the health care system in Argentina and proposed it as a possible alternative, if it were politically feasible, for the USA. Please see

[URL]http://www.argentinaprivate.com/forum/showthread.php?5285-American-Politics-during-the-Obama-Presidency&p=435044&highlight=Argentina#post435044[/URL]

[URL]http://www.argentinaprivate.com/forum/showthread.php?5285-American-Politics-during-the-Obama-Presidency&p=435065&highlight=Argentina#post435065[/URL].

I would add, again, that when the Argentine system is used by a country with greater resources, like Hong Kong, it results in medical care that's much more cost effective than the USA, and it produces better outcomes.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;439036]

For the third time, Jackson's posts contradict your assertions. He has praised the health care system in Argentina and proposed it as a possible alternative, if it were politically feasible, for the USA. Please see

[URL]http://www.argentinaprivate.com/forum/showthread.php?5285-American-Politics-during-the-Obama-Presidency&p=435044&highlight=Argentina#post435044[/URL]

[URL]http://www.argentinaprivate.com/forum/showthread.php?5285-American-Politics-during-the-Obama-Presidency&p=435065&highlight=Argentina#post435065[/URL].

I would add, again, that when the Argentine system is used by a country with greater resources, like Hong Kong, it results in medical care that's much more cost effective than the USA, and it produces better outcomes.[/QUOTE]This is exactly my point in repeatedly goading Jackson to admit he is a hypocrite for calling US citizens parasites for utilizing a subsidized healthcare system while at the same time Jackson takes advantage of a subsidized healthcare system in Argentina. Jackson argues against ObamaCare simply because it was introduced by Barack Obama even though I know from private conversations that Jackson, in principle, supports the basic premise of what ObamaCare is trying to achieve. Jackson is so deeply infected by Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS) that he simply cannot accept anything that Obama does and essentially still cannot accept the fact that Obama won two elections by majority votes.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;439034]Fox News beats all the other cable news sources combined. Any argument here?

Fox News came in 2nd to top major broadcasters in 2013, which means two of the major broadcasters fell below Fox. Any argument here?

Are you trying to tell me with those results only WASP angry old men comprise the only demographic Fox is getting? Come on.

Of course you are going to say Fox is far right, a few of their folks like Hannity are, but the majority are not. When comparing Fox to the NBC, CBS and ABC, who are in the bag for Obama, of course Fox looks anti-Obama to YOU. When the old school national news media is so far left anyone near the center looks extreme in comparison.[/QUOTE]I didn't dispute the numbers watching Fox News and I didn't claim that only WASP angry old men watch either. I'll repeat what I actually said "To summarise, Fox News viewers tend to be older, more conservative, Republican voting, poorer, less educated, and with less knowledge of current events than other outlets." The key words are "tend to be", and no mention of gender or race at all. If you'd read the link you would have seen that. Any dispute with that description of the station's demographic?

And are you seriously saying that Fox isn't consistently anti Obama? In your world where anyone you consider left of centre is rabid I can see you having difficulty with that concept.

[QUOTE=SteveC;439041]"To summarise, Fox News viewers tend to be older, more conservative, Republican voting, poorer, less educated, and with less knowledge of current events than other outlets." The key words are "tend to be", and no mention of gender or race at all. If you'd read the link you would have seen that. Any dispute with that description of the station's demographic?

And are you seriously saying that Fox isn't consistently anti Obama? In your world where anyone you consider left of centre is rabid I can see you having difficulty with that concept.[/QUOTE]Also to summarize from your charts, MSNBC viewers tend to be older, more leftist, Democrat voting, poorer, and less educated than the total for all outlets. Both MSNBC and Fox viewers scored better than the totals on the 4 question test of political knowledge. So your point is?

Look at who Fox and MSNBC are being compared to. Yes, your chart shows that people who read the New York Times, the Economist, the Wall Street Journal and the New Yorker, regardless of their political leanings, are likely to be better educated and wealthier than the average viewer of mass media.

I spend substantially more time watching the Sunday morning political talk shows and MSNBC than Fox. And can tell you that Doppelganger's contention that the network journalists are biased in favor of Obama is true.

Finally so what if Fox (and MSNBC) viewers on average aren't as wealthy or educated as some others? Do you believe that perhaps they're not as smart as you are? Maybe they shouldn't be allowed to vote?

Ronald Reagan IMHO was the best president of our lifetimes, except maybe Don B's and WT69's lifetimes (no offense guys). Even Barack Obama has good things to say about him. Reagan read Reader's Digest.

[QUOTE=Jackson;439021]Let me see if I understand this:

The more people that are registered for the program that gives them free money in the form of subsidized health care, the more people like the program that gives them the free money in the form of subsidized health care.[/QUOTE]Hey Jax, when you get healthcare in Argentina, do you pay 100% of the costs?

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;438903]Europe's stats more closely follow what we call the U6 unemployment rate.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;439033]Eurostat uses something close to both our U3 and U6 numbers.[/QUOTE]Looks like you shifted. But still wrong.

Earlier I posted an article "Euro zone unemployment at 12%, while USA Improving" while noting the US rate of 6.7%. In your attempt to discredit the performance of the US economy and thus Obama, you claimed this was an apples to oranges comparison and that the European number of 12% was a U6-like calculation. Now it's "close to both our U3 and U6". Close to both??

You posted a link, but failed to note what part of the article proves your claim. That's because nothing in it does. Your article talks about both unemployment and underemployment, but clearly states the European unemployment rate is 10.5% (EU27) or 11.4% (Euro area)(both older 2012 figures). The US unemployment rate is much lower. Go ahead and post the definition of how Eurostat defines unemployment. Still unwilling to accept my wager?

[QUOTE=ElAlamoPalermo;439040]This is exactly my point in repeatedly goading Jackson to admit he is a hypocrite for calling US citizens parasites for utilizing a subsidized healthcare system while at the same time Jackson takes advantage of a subsidized healthcare system in Argentina. Jackson argues against ObamaCare simply because it was introduced by Barack Obama even though I know from private conversations that Jackson, in principle, supports the basic premise of what ObamaCare is trying to achieve. Jackson is so deeply infected by Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS) that he simply cannot accept anything that Obama does and essentially still cannot accept the fact that Obama won two elections by majority votes.[/QUOTE][URL]http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/04/demographics_conservatism_and_racial_polarization_could_america_become_mississippi.html[/URL]

For big numbers of "white" Americans, there is fear, disdain & insecurity that the USA is shifting to "black, brown, yellow and even indigo". It's all about the pecking order in any social power structure. And Obama becoming POTUS is one giant step towards that shifting of power. This despite the fact, that "white" power ain't leaving any time soon. And so we see this reaction towards Barack & Michelle, "how dare they act like they do". "Don't they know their place?" Except that they don't quite say that, instead, they will say, "most inexperienced, or just a community organizer".

[QUOTE=Tiny12;439042]Also to summarize from your charts, MSNBC viewers tend to be older, more leftist, Democrat voting, poorer, and less educated than the total for all outlets. Both MSNBC and Fox viewers scored better than the totals on the 4 question test of political knowledge. So your point is?

Look at who Fox and MSNBC are being compared to. Yes, your chart shows that people who read the New York Times, the Economist, the Wall Street Journal and the New Yorker, regardless of their political leanings, are likely to be better educated and wealthier than the average viewer of mass media.

I spend substantially more time watching the Sunday morning political talk shows and MSNBC than Fox. And can tell you that Doppelganger's contention that the network journalists are biased in favor of Obama is true.

Finally so what if Fox (and MSNBC) viewers on average aren't as wealthy or educated as some others? Do you believe that perhaps they're not as smart as you are? Maybe they shouldn't be allowed to vote?

Ronald Reagan IMHO was the best president of our lifetimes, except maybe Don B's and WT69's lifetimes (no offense guys). Even Barack Obama has good things to say about him. Reagan read Reader's Digest.[/QUOTE]Of course poor people or less educated people shouldn't vote. Shouldn't get health care either. I still say that the Congressional Budget Office is a superior source of data on health care costs compared with Fox News, which is how the conversation with Doppelgänger started.

[b]Johnnies-come-lately?[/b]

[QUOTE=ElAlamoPalermo;439029]
Or is it far more likely that Jackson and his fascist fan boys, who are the of the same ilk of those who fought against liberating the slaves, woman suffrage, ending segregation / Jim Crow laws, ADA, etc. Are DEAD WRONG?[snip][/QUOTE]

No no no, don't confuse us with Democrats!

Liberating the slaves?
I believe Abraham Lincoln was a [b]Republican[/b], was he not? And no I did not vote for him, or Romney.

Woman suffrage? Really?

The "war on women" is a red herring.
“Most educated Americans vaguely remember that the amendment granting women the right to vote was passed by Congress in 1919 and ratified by the states in 1920. But the number of people who know anything about the forty-year legislative war that preceded that victory is smaller than the audience of MSNBC. That war began in 1878, when a [b]California Republican[/b] named A.A. Sargent introduced the 19th Amendment only to see it [b]voted down by a Democrat-controlled Congress[/b]. It finally ended four decades later, when the [b]Republicans[/b] won landslide victories in the House and the Senate, giving them the power to pass the amendment [highlight]despite continued opposition from most elected Democrats -- including President Woodrow Wilson, to whom the suffragettes frequently referred as "Kaiser Wilson."”[/highlight]

Ending segregation / Jim Crow laws, Democrats wrote the Jim Crow laws and they gave birth to the ku klux klan!

“After the end of Reconstruction, which followed from the Compromise of 1877, the new [b]Democratic governments[/b] in the South instituted state laws to separate black and white racial groups, submitting African-Americans to de facto second-class citizenship and enforcing white supremacy. Collectively, these state laws were called the Jim Crow system, after the name of a stereotypical 1830s black minstrel show character.”
[b]“The "solid South" was a one-party system under the [u]Democrats[/u].”[/b]

[b]Democrat Senator Robert Byrd[/b] was the longest-serving U.S. Senator and, at the time of his death, the longest-serving member in the history of the United States Congress.
Byrd was also a member of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1940s, serving as a recruiter and leader for his chapter.

It was [b]Democrat Governor Orval Faubus[/b] who defied the federal government, and tried to stop school integration in Little Rock in 1957 and created the gravest constitutional crisis since the Civil War. It was [b]Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower[/b] that sent Federal troops to Little Rock long before [b]Democrat President John F Kennedy and the National Democrat Party[/b] really got on the segregation band wagon.

[b]George Corley Wallace Jr. was a racist Democrat[/b] who for years was welcomed with open arms by the National Democrat Party prior to the June 11, 1963 "Stand in the Schoolhouse Door".

Ever wonder why Martin Luther King, Jr. was not a Democrat, just read the above three names.

[u]ADA[/u] now this is a law that a Democrat had a hand in, but;

“(ADA) is a law that was enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1990. [b]Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA),[/b] authored the bill and was its chief sponsor in the Senate. It was signed into law on July 26, 1990, by [b]President George H. W. Bush,[/b] and later amended with changes effective January 1, 2009.”

“On September 25, 2008, [b]President George W. Bush[/b] signed the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) into law. This was intended to give broader protections for disabled workers and "turn back the clock" on court rulings that Congress deemed too restrictive.”

The Democrats are Johnnies-come-lately on most of the above listed issues, yet now you act as if these issues are Democrat accomplishments, and you have the nerve to call others hypocrites. What gall!
The Democrat Party has a lot of nasty skeletons in the closet and they better pray the LIV don't get educated.

[QUOTE=Esten;439044]Looks like you shifted. But still wrong.

Earlier I posted an article "Euro zone unemployment at 12%, while USA Improving" while noting the US rate of 6.7%. In your attempt to discredit the performance of the US economy and thus Obama, you claimed this was an apples to oranges comparison and that the European number of 12% was a U6-like calculation. Now it's "close to both our U3 and U6". Close to both??

You posted a link, but failed to note what part of the article proves your claim. That's because nothing in it does. Your article talks about both unemployment and underemployment, but clearly states the European unemployment rate is 10.5% (EU27) or 11.4% (Euro area)(both older 2012 figures). The US unemployment rate is much lower. Go ahead and post the definition of how Eurostat defines unemployment. Still unwilling to accept my wager?[/QUOTE]

The only thing shifting is you my friend.

I expect nothing less from you Esten than half truths and total misinformation.

Again you just ignore what does not agree with your bias.

The article clearly demonstrated the inclusion of underemployed and ALL the people unemployed was a better metric of the economy. That applies both in Europe and here.

Are you trying to say our economy is doing well with workforce participation rate at historic lows and the true number of people out of work above 10%?

You cherry pick a number you like and ignore all else.

You are like the passenger on the Titanic who marvels at the lovely iceberg as it floats by and ignores the water sinking the ship.

Steve, do you even know how the CBO arrives at it's numbers? From your posts, I doubt it. They are GIVEN the basic assumptions upon which they base their numbers. Since many times those assumptions have nothing to do with the real world their number just don't work. How else do you explain the wide variance in multiple outcomes since ObamaCare was first being considered and after it passed.

Go back and look at the CBO projections for Welfare, off by several hundreds percent.

From your post of the poor and uneducated should not vote, are you trying to totally decimate the Democrats? Without the poor and uneducated they could not get their candidate elected dog catcher.

[QUOTE]The Democrat Party has a lot of nasty skeletons in the closet and they better pray the LIV don't get educated.[/QUOTE]Esten, SteveC, and Rev BS are here to ensure that doesn't happen.

Exon, WT69 and Rock Harders stand as evidence of the success of their efforts, although I believe that Rock's ongoing life experiences will result in his eventual recovery.

Thanks,

Jax

The wit and wisdom of Ronald Reagan.

"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." January 20,1981: From Reagan's Inaugural Address.

"Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives."

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'

"Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other."

"A government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth."

"We don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much."

"The American dream is not that every man must be level with every other man. The American dream is that every man must be free to become whatever God intends he should become."

"I hope we have once again reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts."

"We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions."

"History teaches that war begins when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap."

"Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the USA was too strong."

"If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth."

Simple, clear and direct.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;439050]

You cherry pick a number you like and ignore all else.

[/QUOTE]So SteveC links to a CBO graph showing Obamacare insurance coverage will "only" cost $157 billion per annum in 2024 instead of $170 billion in 2019 as originally projected. He conveniently ignores the following,

1. The CBO estimates that the equivalent of 2.5 million jobs will be lost by 2024 as a result of Obamacare.

2. After all the expense and everything else we'll go through, the CBO estimates 30 million people will still have no health care insurance in 2022.

3. The CMS (federal government agency responsible for Medicare, Medicaid and the Health Insurance Marketplace) projects health spending will rise from the current level of 17.1% of GDP to 19.9% of GDP by 2022. Please note that no other significant country in the world is currently spending over 12.5% of GDP.

4. Various studies by nonpartisan groups show government funded health care will bankrupt the federal government unless major changes are made. Democrats, considering only short term political goals, have never been willing to make these changes.

Esten is similarly obsessing over U3 unemployment, which at 6.7% is nothing to brag about 5 years after a recession has ended. But there's no need to go over that again. And again and again and again.

[QUOTE=RevBS;439045][URL]http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/04/demographics_conservatism_and_racial_polarization_could_america_become_mississippi.html[/URL]

For big numbers of "white" Americans, there is fear, disdain & insecurity that the USA is shifting to "black, brown, yellow and even indigo". It's all about the pecking order in any social power structure. And Obama becoming POTUS is one giant step towards that shifting of power. This despite the fact, that "white" power ain't leaving any time soon. And so we see this reaction towards Barack & Michelle, "how dare they act like they do". "Don't they know their place?" Except that they don't quite say that, instead, they will say, "most inexperienced, or just a community organizer".[/QUOTE]In a fantasy world where anyone could run for president, I would vote for Lee Kuan Yew, Ernesto Zedillo, or Paul Kagame over any white presidential candidate the Democrat or Republican parties are likely to nominate anytime in the foreseeable future.

How many people voted for Obama primarily because he would be the first African American president? How many Democrats automatically assume anyone who didn't vote for Obama is a racist? Those people, who vote based on a person's skin color, without considering his abilities, experience, or views, are the racists. Or fools. Or both.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;439051]Steve, do you even know how the CBO arrives at it's numbers? From your posts, I doubt it. They are GIVEN the basic assumptions upon which they base their numbers. Since many times those assumptions have nothing to do with the real world their number just don't work. How else do you explain the wide variance in multiple outcomes since ObamaCare was first being considered and after it passed.

Go back and look at the CBO projections for Welfare, off by several hundreds percent.

From your post of the poor and uneducated should not vote, are you trying to totally decimate the Democrats? Without the poor and uneducated they could not get their candidate elected dog catcher.[/QUOTE]You still saying that Fox news is a more reliable source? That's its agenda isn't strictly anti-Obama? You keep avoiding that question.

I'm sure you got the sarcasm in my reply about voting. As for the democrats being decimated without the poor and uneducated votes, I'd say those votes go the Republicans just as often. Just take a look at those illiterate signs at Tea-bagger rallies for example, although it could be argued that they look stupid deliberately as a self-parody.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;439054]The wit and wisdom of Ronald Reagan.

"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." January 20,1981: From Reagan's Inaugural Address.

"Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives."

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'

"Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other."

"A government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth."

"We don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much."

"The American dream is not that every man must be level with every other man. The American dream is that every man must be free to become whatever God intends he should become."

"I hope we have once again reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts."

"We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions."

"History teaches that war begins when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap."

"Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the USA was too strong."

"If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth."

Simple, clear and direct.[/QUOTE]Ignoring his abysmal record on civil rights, support for genocidal regimes in central America and being on the wrong side of history when supporting the apartheid regime in South Africa (even Republicans helped in overturning his veto on the sanctions bill in 1986), I did agree with what he said here.

[URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJDhS4oUm0M[/URL]

[QUOTE=SteveC;439062]You still saying that Fox news is a more reliable source? That's its agenda isn't strictly anti-Obama? You keep avoiding that question.[/QUOTE]Clearly the only program you've ever watched on Fox News is Hannity, who is to the extreme right what Rachel Maddow is to the extreme left. I don't think either of them contribute anything of value.

Nevertheless, if you were to watch any of the other programs objectively you might observe the large numbers of Leftist / Liberal / Democrats voicing their opinions in the talking heads segments on Fox News. Just tonight, immediately after O'Reilly's "Talking Points" they brought James Carville on to refute O'Reilly.

I'm not going to conduct minute-by-minute research to prove my point, but Fox is hardly "strictly anti-Obama", although it may appear that way to you because right / conservative / Republicans are also allowed to voice their opinions, some of which may make you cringe.

Thanks,

Jax.

Doppel's latest posts are simply more deflection from his false statements on grandfather provisions and US vs. Europe unemployment rates, that he used in an attempt to discredit Obama. But his deflection and avoidance only expose more clearly what a fraud he is.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;439050]The only thing shifting is you my friend.[/QUOTE]Of course Doppel doesn't provide an example or any evidence. In fact the opposite is true, and this is a tactic of a slippery purveyor of disinformation: [I]accuse the other person of what you are guilty of[/I].

[U]Shifting from the U3 metric to the U6[/U]. Doppel can't stand to talk about the U3, since 6.7% is a good number reflecting the creation of almost 9 Million private sector jobs, and much better than Europe's number. He wants to talk about a higher number (U6) that includes part-time employment, a number people weren't much interested in until Obama became president. And he claims using the official U3 number is "biased" and "cherry picking". Such are the efforts of a man determined to frame Obama in a bad light at any cost and any level of intellectual dishonesty.

[U]Shifting from whether US vs. Europe unemployment rate is better, to whether U3 vs. U6 is better.[/U] This is pure evasiveness. As supported by his own link, the European unemployment rate is 10.5% (EU27) or 11.4% (Euro area)(both older 2012 figures, now closer to 12%). These numbers do not include part-timers, because [I]someone employed part-time is not unemployed[/I]. Doppel doesn't seem to grasp such an obvious point. These numbers are clearly higher than the US 6.7%, which reflect the better performance of the US economy, that Doppel can't stand to admit.

Doppel, since you're too afraid to accept my wager, why don't you at least post the Eurostat definition of unemployment? Surely this will help us settle whether the European number includes the underemployed.

[QUOTE=Esten;439067]Doppel's latest posts are simply more deflection from his false statements on grandfather provisions and US vs. Europe unemployment rates, that he used in an attempt to discredit Obama. But his deflection and avoidance only expose more clearly what a fraud he is.

Of course Doppel doesn't provide an example or any evidence. In fact the opposite is true, and this is a tactic of a slippery purveyor of disinformation: [I]accuse the other person of what you are guilty of[/I].

[U]Shifting from the U3 metric to the U6[/U]. Doppel can't stand to talk about the U3, since 6.7% is a good number reflecting the creation of almost 9 Million private sector jobs, and much better than Europe's number. He wants to talk about a higher number (U6) that includes part-time employment, a number people weren't much interested in until Obama became president. And he claims using the official U3 number is "biased" and "cherry picking". Such are the efforts of a man determined to frame Obama in a bad light at any cost and any level of intellectual dishonesty.

[U]Shifting from whether US vs. Europe unemployment rate is better, to whether U3 vs. U6 is better.[/U] This is pure evasiveness. As supported by his own link, the European unemployment rate is 10.5% (EU27) or 11.4% (Euro area)(both older 2012 figures, now closer to 12%). These numbers do not include part-timers, because [I]someone employed part-time is not unemployed[/I]. Doppel doesn't seem to grasp such an obvious point. These numbers are clearly higher than the US 6.7%, which reflect the better performance of the US economy, that Doppel can't stand to admit.

Doppel, since you're too afraid to accept my wager, why don't you at least post the Eurostat definition of unemployment? Surely this will help us settle whether the European number includes the underemployed.[/QUOTE]Who cares?? Every intelligent person knows that just about every country's government cooks the books. It matters not whether the government is right or left wing. Give it a rest and move on. There is a saying by accountants, "What do you want the numbers to say?

Tres3.

[QUOTE=Esten;439067] Doppel can't stand to talk about the U3, [b]since 6.7% is a good number reflecting the creation of almost 9 Million private sector jobs[/b][/QUOTE]Hahahahahahaha! HAHAHAHAHAHA!

[URL]http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000[/URL]

Witness the tremendous efforts of conservatives to steer the conversation away from Doppel's false statements and from favorable statistics on the US economy.

Let's see if Doppel can post the Eurostat definition of unemployment. If he can't do something so simple, this should be proof positive that he lacks credibility.

[QUOTE=Esten;439070]Witness the tremendous efforts of conservatives to steer the conversation away from Doppel's false statements and from favorable statistics on the US economy.

Let's see if Doppel can post the Eurostat definition of unemployment. If he can't do something so simple, this should be proof positive that he lacks credibility.[/QUOTE]I already posted it. You just ignored it.

Look in the mirror to see lack of credibility.

[QUOTE=Jackson;439066]Clearly the only program you've ever watched on Fox News is Hannity, who is to the extreme right what Rachel Maddow is to the extreme left. I don't think either of them contribute anything of value.

Nevertheless, if you were to watch any of the other programs objectively you might observe the large numbers of Leftist / Liberal / Democrats voicing their opinions in the talking heads segments on Fox News. Just tonight, immediately after O'Reilly's "Talking Points" they brought James Carville on to refute O'Reilly.

I'm not going to conduct minute-by-minute research to prove my point, but Fox is hardly "strictly anti-Obama", although it may appear that way to you because right / conservative / Republicans are also allowed to voice their opinions, some of which may make you cringe.

Thanks,

Jax.[/QUOTE]I don't know why you keep referring me to other news sources, I didn't make any claims in that direction. My point was that the Congressional Budget Office is a more non-partisan source of economic data than Fox News. Any dispute there?

[QUOTE=SteveC;439062]You still saying that Fox news is a more reliable source? That's its agenda isn't strictly anti-Obama?.

[/QUOTE]Anyone who says Fox news is not anti-Obama, should find one story, only one that is positive from start to finish for or pro Obama. From dusk to dawn is all Obama's fault. With the exception of Shepherd Smith and on rare occasions Neil Cavuto, they're consistent Obama bashers. Daily accusations are nefariously guised in the formed of a "question," on their website and on TV. Is Obama destroying the country? Is Obama to blame for everything? And of course the answer is yes. With attack dog Hannity leading the charge, O'Reilly and the rest of the primetime crew are totally obsessed with Obama and want him to fail. Every night its all about something Obama is not doing or doing wrong. Watch the reaction of Fox on Obama's reelection night victory, tells you all you need to know about how they feel about him. According to Fox when Bush was in office, you should not criticize him outside our borders especially on war related / foreign policy matters but Obama is afforded no such courtesy as he is regularly second guessed and bashed at will.

Regular erroneous graphics are shown to disparage Obama, especially on the morning show but never an erroneous graphic that would show him or his administration in a positive light. Every error they make is always against Obama. Odd that this is even being debated, any and every objective observer knows they were against him from the start and remains so now. When Obama first took office the Dow was around 6500 and dropped about 200 points and it was Obama's fault. Now the Dow is at an all time high at 16400 plus but you'll never see them give him any credit for that. Bringing on a democrat or liberal guest then shouting him or her down or cutting their microphone while allowing conservatives to talk uninterrupted is not balance or fair, this is old news.

[QUOTE=SteveC;439075]I don't know why you keep referring me to other news sources, I didn't make any claims in that direction. My point was that the Congressional Budget Office is a more non-partisan source of economic data than Fox News. Any dispute there?[/QUOTE]No argument with that.

[QUOTE=RcCollins;439076]Anyone who says Fox news is not anti-Obama, should find one story, only one that is positive from start to finish for or pro Obama.[/QUOTE]That's your definition of an "anti-Obama" media outlet, any source that does not publish stories that are " [I]positive from start to finish for or pro Obama[/I]"?

Thanks,

Jax.

Like CIA operatives who undergoes psychological training to treat pain as pleasure when undergoing interrogation techniques, I have somewhat adjusted to be able to take on Fox News these days without my blood pressure cooking up.

But what I cannot handle is when they go from hard news to a hillbilly song.

[QUOTE=Jackson;439078]That's your definition of an "anti-Obama" media outlet, any source that does not publish stories that are " [I]positive from start to finish for or pro Obama[/I]"?

Thanks,

Jax.[/QUOTE]Well, yes that's a part of it. Because they did so many for Bush, despite his many short-comings so if you tout the fair and balance slogan, you should do the same for both parties.

[QUOTE=SteveC;439075]I don't know why you keep referring me to other news sources, I didn't make any claims in that direction. My point was that the Congressional Budget Office is a more non-partisan source of economic data than Fox News. Any dispute there?[/QUOTE]Steve, I have not contended the office itself maybe partisan, while I do believe many of the projections made are based on partisan assumptions from sources requesting the data. That said, the CBO's numbers are not the Holy Grail of forecasting and have very frequently been wrong by large margins, totally missing major events while over / under stating surplus and deficient numbers. Regarding Fox vs CBO it is my opinion Fox produces numbers which are more consistently accurate than the CBO.

See the following link from CATO Institute:

[URL]http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/dont-trust-cbos-numbers[/URL]

[QUOTE=RcCollins;439080]Well, yes that's a part of it. Because they did so many for Bush, despite his many short-comings so if you tout the fair and balance slogan, you should do the same for both parties.[/QUOTE]Collins, what a double standard you folks employ. Bush was SAVAGED by the major news outlets. Fox was critical as well but not to the extent of the liberal / main stream news outlets.

Holder and Obama's cries of mistreatment ring hollow indeed when compared to the statements of congressional members and the media during the Bush years.

Based on your yardstick do these two reports make the CBO anti-Obama ?

[URL]http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2014/02/04/319362.htm[/URL]

[URL]http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/5/specter-of-welfare-state-jolts-democrats/?page=all[/URL]