American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;436182]Keep whistling past the grave yard Esten, Black Shirt, WT69.[/QUOTE]I enjoy whistling, it keeps me lighthearted, carefree and optimistic about life.

ObamaCare, you did not want it, you hate it. So you are looking for every shred of evidence that it is a disaster. Nothing will make you more happy than the collapse of ObamaCare. You will jump for joy when it happens.

On the other hand, I am unaffected, nothing has change on my coverage. Yes, there is a great deal of misinformation, and there will be glitches. It is to be expected. Sometimes, when you go out in the morning, and your car won't start, what do you do? Go into a rage? Or you fix it or find alternative transportation?

If it is a total disaster when Obama leaves office, I will donate a 2 hr body massage with all the trimmings, and the masseuse of your choice, and a great Thai dinner. But you have to claim it in Bangkok. Airfare / hotel not included.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;436182]Ok Esten, I'm seeing a lot of "happy talk" about ObamaCare but no facts to back them up.

Remember all those folks who testified before Congress about how the sites were ready to go after being paid hundreds of millions of dollars? Did not happen!

Please don't roll out the sites crashed because of overwhelming demand, as there is no reason for this to have happened as they knew or should have known what the demand would be since they are the only store in town. There were plenty of examples out there of under planning resources and how to avoid it, so you have no excuses.

If that was the excuse then why isn't the site working now after experiencing an 88% decrease in traffic, it's not overwhelmed it just doesn't work.

Also why isn't Obama coming out the figures for those who got insurance via the site after three weeks? What's because it simply does not work and Sebelius has time to go on TV to pump the plan but no time for Congress?

The Obama Lie I love the best is how the cost of care is going DOWN $2500 a year. Maybe he just mis-spoke and really meant to say it was going UP.

How can you say with a straight face that NOTHING IN ACA FORCED THIS? Every action being taken by companies is in reaction to ACA and it's draconian take over of the health insurance market.

The undeniable facts are people don't like ObamaCare because the whole thing is a sham. Nothing Obama said is true, but that's nothing new. Companies dropping coverage, reducing work hours, price increases are the REAL affects not some left wing-nut outfit saying it's only going to INCREASE 2%.

Keep whistling past the grave yard Esten, Black Shirt, WT69.[/QUOTE]Keep howling at the moon, Doppel.

Still only seeing "happy talk" with no responses to all which has occurred due to ObamaCare coming on line. Everyday there is a new problem and every day a new excuse by the Obama apologist.

Please answer the questions.

Selebius' appearance but not before Congress?

Part time status, decreased or terminated benefits, increases in premiums?

If the system crashed because it was "over whelmed" when it opened why isn't it working now that traffic has decreased by 88%?

Where are Obama's promised numbers on those who signed up and got coverage?

Enough of the "happy talk" how about some real answers.

Black Shirt your analogy about the car just does not work. I chose the car the car I drive. The government did not force me to by a clunker form outer Mongolia, which is a pretty good analogy for what this administration is forcing the public to buy.

To paraphrase Henry Ford. You can have any insurance you want so long as it's ObamaCare.

I say let it roll out unimpeded and as it crashes like the Wreck of Hesperus the Democrats will have no one to blame but themselves.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;436176]That's why Obama was elected. The people need help, not their quality of life taking away.[/QUOTE]Obama got elected because he promised the most people the most free money, period.

The auto bailouts, the borrowed stimulus money to pay local government salaries, the 99 weekers, Solyndra, the Dream Act, free cellphones, suspending the welfare work requirement, rubber stamping SS disability claims, hyper-promoting food stamps, and now free health insurance with no income verification.

And that's just what I can recall off the top of my head.

Thanks,

Jax.

[QUOTE=Jackson;436192]Obama got elected because he promised the most people the most free money, period.

Thanks,

Jax.[/QUOTE]Wrong. Obama got re-elected because the Republicans were too stupid to realize that demographics and attitudes in the US have changed and that national elections are no longer decided by redneck white men who watch Fox News and listen to Rush Limbaugh. Until the Republicans realize that the political sentiments of Asians, Hispanics, Gays, and people with college degrees matter they will continue to lose national elections.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;436190]I say let it roll out unimpeded and as it crashes like the Wreck of Hesperus the Democrats will have no one to blame but themselves.[/QUOTE]Wish you and the "gang that can't shoot straight" would do that. Instead of threatening civil war, and making fools of yourselves.

[QUOTE=RockHarders;436195]Wrong. Obama got re-elected because the Republicans were too stupid to realize that demographics and attitudes in the US have changed and that national elections are no longer decided by redneck white men who watch Fox News and listen to Rush Limbaugh. Until the Republicans realize that the political sentiments of Asians, Hispanics, Gays, and people with college degrees matter they will continue to lose national elections.[/QUOTE]It's certainly true that Obama got re-elected because the "[I]demographics and attitudes in the US have changed[/I]" and that change was that 51% of the electorate has decided that living off the endeavors of the 49% who work is a much better lifestyle option that the decidedly worse option of actually working for a living themselves, this moral decline being directly attrituable to the vote-pandering, "[I]free money for all who claim to be victims[/I]" liberal Democrats.

The bottom line: Republicans can't and won't "out-give" the Democrats, and now that under the Obama administration the parasites vs producers ratio has passed the 50% point, it would appear that the USA will never recover from it's current economic malise.

"[I]When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.[/I]"

Ben Franklin

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;436196]Wish you and the "gang that can't shoot straight" would do that. Instead of threatening civil war, and making fools of yourselves.[/QUOTE]Black Shirt, Doppelganger has repeatedly said Republicans in Congress should let the Affordable Care Act roll out. How is he making a fool of himself?

About your offer for a free massage in Bangkok with the masseuse of my choice if the ACA crashes, does that include Khun Noi, formerly at Tulip, who told me she'd come out of retirement for 40,000 baht? (jk)

[QUOTE=Tiny12;436199]Black Shirt, Doppelganger has repeatedly said Republicans in Congress should let the Affordable Care Act roll out. How is he making a fool of himself?

About your offer for a free massage in Bangkok with the masseuse of my choice if the ACA crashes, does that include Khun Noi, formerly at Tulip, who told me she'd come out of retirement for 40,000 baht? (jk)[/QUOTE]I would do it to release you out of your depressed state. But I will have to cancel my London trip to see my beloved Arsenal to release the funds for your pleasure. You see, I believe in the Greater Good.

For Doppey, it would be the venue of my choice. However, be assure that this will be my own favorite place. Insofar as ACA, he has only taken this stance just a few days ago. Prior to that, he was a very vocal member of the "gang that can't shoot straight" pushing for rejecting, repealing, then defunding ACA. Now with no more options, he has surrender to the last call, the crash that he is crying for. A praying mantis, he has become, saffron robe, shaved head, bare feet & all.

[QUOTE=Jackson;436198]It's certainly true that Obama got re-elected because the "[I]demographics and attitudes in the US have changed[/I]" and that change was that 51% of the electorate has decided that living off the endeavors of the 49% who work is a much better lifestyle option that the decidedly worse option of actually working for a living themselves, this moral decline being directly attrituable to the vote-pandering, "[I]free money for all who claim to be victims[/I]" liberal Democrats.

The bottom line: Republicans can't and won't "out-give" the Democrats, and now that under the Obama administration the parasites vs producers ratio has passed the 50% point, it would appear that the USA will never recover from it's current economic malise.[/QUOTE]But yet, many wealthier states and individuals vote Democrat. And many poorer states and individuals vote Republican.

Jackson's reply illustrates the very point RH was making. Conservatives live in a world of false stereotypes, and their ideology blinds them from the realities of the broad electorate.

Another good one from PolitiFact. I guess Texas didn't want to support any of those nasty parasites, even if they are veterans.

40,000 veterans in Texas won't get health care because Perry rejected Obamacare's Medicaid expansion
PolitiFact Rated: MOSTLY TRUE
[URL]http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2013/oct/17/gilberto-hinojosa/more-veterans-income-qualify-Medicaid-Texas/[/URL]

[QUOTE=Esten;436211]But yet, many wealthier states and individuals vote Democrat. And many poorer states and individuals vote Republican.
[/QUOTE]Many states that vote Republican exhibit stronger job growth, lower unemployment, and bigger gains in income compared to many states that vote Democrat. States that vote Democrat are losing population to states that vote Republican.

[QUOTE=Esten;436211]Conservatives live in a world of false stereotypes, and their ideology blinds them from the realities of the broad electorate.[/QUOTE]I agree to an extent. More Asians, Hispanics, Jews, Blacks, gays and young adults should support those Republicans who favor economic liberalism, as it would produce greater prosperity for all. The Republican party hasn't done a good job of appealing to them. Maybe a new generation of Republican politicians, like Jeff Flake and Rand Paul, will help. However, I don't see how you can tie that to Jackson's post. I agree with his conclusion that having large segments of the able-bodied population bought off by politicians in ways that discourage them from working or saving will lead to continued economic malise.

[QUOTE=Jackson;436198]

The bottom line: Republicans can't and won't "out-give" the Democrats, and now that under the Obama administration the parasites vs producers ratio has passed the 50% point, it would appear that the USA will never recover from it's current economic malise.



Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]Wrong again. Nine out of the top ten and seventeen out of the top twenty wealthiest states (by household per capita income) voted for Obama in 2012; if, as you argue, only "parasites" were supporting Obama this would surely not have been the case. Conversely, nine out of the ten poorest states and sixteen out of the bottom twenty in fact voted for Romney. As I stated in my previous post, these poor Republican voting states are populated mostly by ignorant white rednecks who get their information from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh; fortunately, this demographic is becoming increasing marginalized as US demographics change.

[QUOTE=RockHarders;436215]Wrong again. Nine out of the top ten and seventeen out of the top twenty wealthiest states (by household per capita income) voted for Obama in 2012; if, as you argue, only "parasites" were supporting Obama this would surely not have been the case. Conversely, nine out of the ten poorest states and sixteen out of the bottom twenty in fact voted for Romney. As I stated in my previous post, these poor Republican voting states are populated mostly by ignorant white rednecks who get their information from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh; fortunately, this demographic is becoming increasing marginalized as US demographics change.[/QUOTE]Wealthier individuals were more likely to vote for Romney. Poorer individuals were more likely to vote for Obama. Sixty percent of voters making less than $50,000 per year voted for Obama, versus 44% making more than $100,000 per year: [URL]http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_12.html[/URL].

Do you believe wealthier individuals are more capable of selecting good candidates? Maybe votes should be allocated based on taxes paid, which should be a good proxy for wealth?

These days, Fox & Bloomberg are the only 2 news stations on my network. Luckily, I can access several news sources for political content. But I don't quite know how to react to the bashing of RomneyCare. I have not heard one Basher say, "my insurance has gone up, my insurance have been cancel". Not one. All they can say that it is a disaster, that nothing is working, that Sebelius need to be fired.

CNN reports that as of Friday, Oct 19, that 257,000 has signed up. Not enrolled. Don't laugh, I know it's seem only like a trickle. We went through about "who laughs last" a while back.

Meanwhile, on Fox, nothing but screaming, "fire, fire, abandon ship, shoot the captain". I have to accept that they are paid to do that.