American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=PeterSideburn;437897]I love it when liberals call rational people delusional and then blame the malady on their own delusional belief that not admiring King Obama has something to do with Race. How racist is it that you assume everyone who doesn't like this present must be a racist. Not even mentioning the fact that Obama shares far more in common with the narrative liberals ascribe to the elite class of evildoers etc. Obama's fiscal policies have held back the economy on all fronts and are driving us into the ground. His health care lunacy alone will be untenable let alone all of his other brilliant non-capitalist ideas. In fact, Jackson is dead on correct in his drawing parallels between the political leadership of Argentina and the US. How can you blame Bush for the housing mess when it was he and numerous Republican legislators who desperately tried to point out to the Democrats the Freddie and Fanny were broken and that the loans being given out were dangerous etc. Do you not remember all the Democrats like Barney Frank, whose lover was at the head of one of these agencies, all coming out and claiming there was no housing bubble and that Republicans were just trying to scare people and keep houses away from the poor? You can still find the video on you tube if you want to check it out. Our economy has had and incredibly slow recovery as can be seen in the eyes of the huge number of people who still can't or won't get a job; partially because to buy votes Obama continues to try to provide more benefits to them. Your post truly proves that Liberal have had some form of lobotomy in childhood leaving them incapable of rational thought and consideration of the facts. I used to argue with liberals until I realized they simply can't see facts any more than the color blind can see green. If our economy is so great then explain why we have so many more people on food stamps. What happened to Obama's promises of lower health care premiums and lower college tuition? Wasn't there something about transparency in there also? He is a complete and utter failure and will go down in history as the most egotistical, pathetic, ineffective, partisan President of all time. He also recurrently seems to forget this little thing called the Constitution he swore to uphold and which is the only instrument giving him any power. Without it he is a community organizer so before he tramples it again he should consider that if the rest the country treated it with the same disdain that he does, he would be out of a job. Have you seen his majesty's approval rating lately? By the way, the only racism I have seen in regard to this President was the fact that nearly every black american voted for him and when asked again and again why, the response almost uniformly was, "Because he is black." That is racism. I did not vote for him because I quickly realized he was all smoke and mirrors and had an agenda that he elevated far above his actual duties as President and would stop at nothing to try to force his will over due process. This is very very dangerous and has been the same mentality that brought us Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler, Chiang Kia-sheck, Leopold II, Tojo, Pol Pot, Jim Jones and Mao Zedong to name just a few. The only delusional ones are those who still think this President has done anything other than alienate us from our allies and kited checks onto the accounts of our children and their children.

Pete.[/QUOTE]Thank you for illustrating the exact kind of rabid foaming at the mouth senseless anti-Obama obsession that Jackson has so often represented in his rants and ridiculous comparisons on this thread. Again, I reiterate that anyone who can even begin to compare the Obama administration with the policies of the Kirchners and / or what is happening in Argentina knows and understands less than nothing about Argentina.

[QUOTE=RockHarders;437898]Wrong. Highly educated urban voters overwhelmingly voted for Obama.[/QUOTE]"Urban" voters? Your prejudices show themselves again. Anyone who's not from a city is a hick.

I wrote "There wasn't much of a correlation between education level and voter preference." That's true. Exit polls indicated people with college educations were more likely to vote for Romney than people who didn't go to college. It is true that people with postgraduate degrees were more likely to vote for Obama than other voters, but not "overwhelmingly" so.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;437889] I am slowly-but-surely reading the article you recommended, by the way. I get the hard copy New Yorker, and this week's edition is sitting in front of my commode.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, try to finish before 2016! Otherwise, use it to wipe your ass.

[QUOTE=RockHarders;437899]Thank you for illustrating the exact kind of rabid foaming at the mouth senseless anti-Obama obsession that Jackson has so often represented in his rants and ridiculous comparisons on this thread. Again, I reiterate that anyone who can even begin to compare the Obama administration with the policies of the Kirchners and / or what is happening in Argentina knows and understands less than nothing about Argentina.[/QUOTE]This has nothing to do with RH's comment or anything else on this thread but TL is currently receiving anti-rabies injections to avoid "Rabid Foaming at the Mouth" due to a Fucking Bat that ended up in his living room a week ago!

Holy Shit Batman!

There I was watching TV and a fucking Bat ended up next to me! Now I have to get a bunch of shots! In the states it could be about $7,000.00 dollars!

Now that's socialized medicine working for you because here it's free.

My ex-partner told me not to worry because worse things have been in my place sitting on the sofa next to me! Chicas?

Not to worry though! I'm not contagious unless I'm foaming at the mouth!

TL.

[QUOTE=Esten;437894]1. I'm not sure how much of a factor the loss of unemployment benefits was on the December report, but to the extent that loss of benefits caused the unemployment rate to go down, all that tells me is that the rate could have dropped below 7% sooner if the benefits had not been extended so long. With regard to 1 Million fracking jobs, that's great if true, but one component of the 6 Million jobs created since the recovery began in 2009. These data easily demonstrate that Republicans were wrong when they said the Stimulus failed, and that the Affordable Care Act was going to be a huge job-killer. It is true we could have been lower than 6.7% at this point, but our challenges have been more with large government job losses (700 K), and the effects of Corporatism. 2. I think the number was more like 5 million policies cancelled, due to ACA [I]and[/I] the decisions of insurance companies. Insurance companies have been cancelling policies for years before ACA came along. There are not millions of people who are now without insurance because of ACA. In December, it was estimated that fewer than 500,000 people who received cancellation notices have not yet signed up for new coverage. Why are you one of them, Dccpa? I don't think the cancellations and signups can be directly added / subtracted. It gets complicated to dissect the numbers. Ultimately, a key and simple number to follow is simply the overall uninsured rate. It was at 17.3% in December, and at 16.1% earlier this month. We should expect ACA will keep moving that number lower.[/QUOTE]1. A lot of truth in your first lines. What you said is that the unemployment rate would have gone down sooner if we had stopped counting more of the unemployed sooner. We are already doing that, it is called the U3 unemployment rate. But why don't we stop counting all unemployed and have full employment? That makes as much sense as not counting the unemployed whose benefits have run out. The key true measure of unemployment is the labor force participation rate and it is at a multi-decade low. They will probably start counting housewives / househusbands and we will be back to record participation rates.

I didn't follow what conservatives stated regarding Obamacare costing jobs. My opinion has always been that Obamacare would create jobs, but cause overall detriment to the workers. For low end jobs, businesses are cutting worker hours to stay under the 30 hour Obamacare limit. So, yay, we have more burger flippers and waitresses. They just don't work enough hours to earn over the poverty level. That and the fact that the young, I am invincible, citizens, were not going to want to pay for healthcare. Anyone with functioning brain cells knew that the young people were not going to be interested in signing up for Obamacare. Yet, from the beginning, it was stated by the Democrats, that young people signing up in large numbers was essential for Obamacare to function without subsidies. Obamacare is and always was destined to become another government subsidy program by a government that is broke. As far as Corporatism, I have as much use for it as I do for Republicans and Demcrats.

2. The number depends upon whether you actually count those that lose their health insurance or not. What I saw from conservative sources was 16 million and what I saw from liberal sources was around 4-5 million. Don't know how the conservatives got their 16 million number, as it seemed too high. AP and other liberal sources got to their lower numbers by only counting some of the states. For example, I live in Arkansas and they counted none from my state. So, the low end numbers are deliberately false. In my office there are two separate single person businesses. Both of us have different plans and both of us lost our health insurance due to the policies not meeting the Obamacare requirements. It really isn't difficult to determine how many people lost their health insurance as they received notices by October 1st. And for both of us, the premiums are far higher than what we were paying before. Obamacare essentially takes away your consumer choice as a healthy individual to somewhat self insure through catastrophic insurance coverage.

Dccpa, not that it is worth quibbling about, but I did not say what you claim. It was your original statement about the effect of the unemployed running out of benefits, and I only said 'to the extent that what you said is true'. The U3 is the official rate, and it has not, should not and will not be calculated any differently. It provides the apples-to-apples comparison with historical rates. You are correct about the LFPR, however the underlying factors should be dissected out (mainly, the baby boomer effect) to properly gauge it's meaning. Overall, while I think we have made good progress with the creation of 8 Million new jobs (I previously underestimated it at 6 M), I absolutely agree we need to do more to create more good paying jobs.

[QUOTE]For low end jobs, businesses are cutting worker hours to stay under the 30 hour Obamacare limit. So, yay, we have more burger flippers and waitresses. [/QUOTE]Well, Darden experimented with this and pulled back after it became a huge public relations disaster. Walmart actually elevated 35,000 part-time staff to full-time status last fall, making them eligible for healthcare benefits. So, please post some links to data so we can see how big this ACA effect is. Here's a link for you:

Bartiromo says Obamacare is turning us into 'a part-time employment country'.
PolitiFact Rating: False
[URL]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/oct/22/maria-bartiromo/bartiromo-says-obamacare-turning-us-part-time-empl/[/URL]

[QUOTE]For example, I live in Arkansas and they counted none from my state. So, the low end numbers are deliberately false. In my office there are two separate single person businesses. Both of us have different plans and both of us lost our health insurance due to the policies not meeting the Obamacare requirements. It really isn't difficult to determine how many people lost their health insurance as they received notices by October 1st. And for both of us, the premiums are far higher than what we were paying before. Obamacare essentially takes away your consumer choice as a healthy individual to somewhat self insure through catastrophic insurance coverage.[/QUOTE]Could you please post a link that insurance policy cancellations were not counted in your state. Concerning your situation, I have little sympathy for it. First, your 'hardship' pales in comparison to that of someone who needed healthcare and was denied, or was forced into bankruptcy getting it. Second, based on your income, you may be eligible for subsidies to make your insurance more affordable. Third, we all pay the costs when someone with inadequate insurance needs emergency care. Fourth, in addition to people under the age of 30, people in your situation have been made eligible for a hardship exemption, making you eligible to apply for the same type of catastrophic coverage you claim you are being denied.

Republicans must hate it when Obama comes out with positive statistics and a positive message. It goes against the wet blanket of pessimism that Republicans are constantly trying to drape over the country.

Aside from the race comment, Rock Harders is spot-on with his assessment. How amusing to see Mr. Sideburn pop in to resurrect an old dinosaur I thought Republicans had retired, namely the argument that Fannie and Freddie were a significant contributor to the financial meltdown. Wall Street insiders admit it was Wall Street, Bush said it was Wall Street, and even tonight on Fox News, O'Reilly said it was because of the banks. Why did he not keep up the narrative that it was Fannie and Freddie? Did he forget? LMAO! Fannie and Freddie, birtherism, phony IRS and Benghazi scandals, claims that left-wing policy is driven by buying votes with free money; you wonder how Republicans don't connect the dots and understand their false and deceptive narratives are actually a key reason why their brand has been so badly damaged.

[QUOTE=Esten;437923]Republicans must hate it when Obama comes out with positive statistics and a positive message. It goes against the wet blanket of pessimism that Republicans are constantly trying to drape over the country.

Aside from the race comment, Rock Harders is spot-on with his assessment. How amusing to see Mr. Sideburn pop in to resurrect an old dinosaur I thought Republicans had retired, namely the argument that Fannie and Freddie were a significant contributor to the financial meltdown. Wall Street insiders admit it was Wall Street, Bush said it was Wall Street, and even tonight on Fox News, O'Reilly said it was because of the banks. Why did he not keep up the narrative that it was Fannie and Freddie? Did he forget? LMAO! Fannie and Freddie, birtherism, phony IRS and Benghazi scandals, claims that left-wing policy is driven by buying votes with free money; you wonder how Republicans don't connect the dots and understand their false and deceptive narratives are actually a key reason why their brand has been so badly damaged.[/QUOTE]The speech was just one misleading statistic after another, and really amounted to simply more fodder for the LIVs.

For example, bragging about the economy having created 8 million new jobs since Obama took office. The number sounds great to the LIV, but in fact 8 million jobs over 5 years in a country with 315 million people is pathetic and lags every other economic recovery in the past 100 years. Hell, it's not even enough to keep pace with the country's population growth.

Another example, bragging about the increase in the domestic oil and gas production when in fact he opposed offshore drilling, the Keystone Pipeline, and fracking, which is in fact the primary reason why domestic oil and gas production is so strong.

I did note that the President couldn't stop himself from promising yet more free money to his constituents, in this case raising the minimum pay for government contractors. How nice of him to so cavalierly spend my money by raising the cost of constructing and maintaining every government building in the country.

Anyway, his agenda was all "small ball" stuff and clearly showed a man who has come to realize in the beginning of his 5th year in office that his presidency is a failure.

Good job presenting the speech though, and I'm sure that it had the intended effect on the targeted LIVs, thus making another win for the liberals.

Thanks,

Jax.

[QUOTE=PeterSideburn;437897]I love it when liberals call rational people delusional and then blame the malady on their own delusional belief that not admiring King Obama has something to do with Race. How racist is it that you assume everyone who doesn't like this present must be a racist. This is very very dangerous and has been the same mentality that brought us Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler, Chiang Kia-sheck, Leopold II, Tojo, Pol Pot, Jim Jones and Mao Zedong to name just a few. The only delusional ones are those who still think this President has done anything other than alienate us from our allies and kited checks onto the accounts of our children and their children.Pete.[/QUOTE]The world is changing, America is changing. You had it good but your time is up. And in case you are not convince, mongering has change, too. The glory days are over, be it BA or Bangkok. More expensive, more lousy service, less pickings, etc. There is nothing that you and I can do. Take it or leave it.

[QUOTE=Esten;437923]Republicans must hate it when Obama comes out with positive statistics and a positive message. It goes against the wet blanket of pessimism that Republicans are constantly trying to drape over the country.

Aside from the race comment, Rock Harders is spot-on with his assessment. How amusing to see Mr. Sideburn pop in to resurrect an old dinosaur I thought Republicans had retired, namely the argument that Fannie and Freddie were a significant contributor to the financial meltdown. Wall Street insiders admit it was Wall Street, Bush said it was Wall Street, and even tonight on Fox News, O'Reilly said it was because of the banks. Why did he not keep up the narrative that it was Fannie and Freddie? Did he forget? LMAO! Fannie and Freddie, birtherism, phony IRS and Benghazi scandals, claims that left-wing policy is driven by buying votes with free money; you wonder how Republicans don't connect the dots and understand their false and deceptive narratives are actually a key reason why their brand has been so badly damaged.[/QUOTE]The Fool-in-charge says give me a plan re healthcare.

Well here is not just a proposal but what is actually working now.

[URL]http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2013-fall/dr-josh-umbehr-on-concierge-medicine-revolution.asp[/URL]

BTW, he also said that prescription cost for seniors had been lowered, 1/1/13 I paid 142.75 for one, on 1/8/14 same thing was 199.00. That is lower by -56.25.

Don.

[QUOTE=Jackson;437924]
For example, bragging about the economy having created 8 million new jobs since Obama took office. The number sounds great to the LIV, but in fact 8 million jobs over 5 years in a country with 315 million people is pathetic and lags every other economic recovery in the past 100 years. Hell, it's not even enough to keep pace with the country's population growth.[/QUOTE]Both Jackson and President Obama were correct. Obama was selective in the definition of job growth and the time period he selected.

[B]Fact Check -Jackson[/B]

Population growth of USA during 2010 to 2013: 0.7% to 0.8% per year
8 million jobs / 4 years = 2 million jobs per year

Population of USA = 315 million
Job growth / year = 2 million / 315 million = 0.6%/ year

Growth of private sector jobs was indeed less than population growth.

I am only able to verify the statement that employment gains (as a % of population) "lag every other economic recovery in the past 100 years" back for 66 years, before the data runs out:

[URL]http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=ra9[/URL]

[b]Fact Check - President Obama[/b]

8 million jobs were indeed created in the private sector over the last 4 years. Including jobs lost in government, however, only 7.5 million nonfarm jobs were added in the last 4 years, since 2010. The net job creation since Obama took office in 2009 was 3.2 million jobs. See the table below the graph in the following for data:

[URL]http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth[/URL]

Esten, if you're reading this, the only reason I dug this up was because of your belief that the declining unemployment numbers are encouraging. I don't believe they are.

[QUOTE=DonB;437938]The Fool-in-charge says give me a plan re healthcare.

Well here is not just a proposal but what is actually working now.

[URL]http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2013-fall/dr-josh-umbehr-on-concierge-medicine-revolution.asp[/URL]

BTW, he also said that prescription cost for seniors had been lowered, 1/1/13 I paid 142.75 for one, on 1/8/14 same thing was 199.00. That is lower by -56.25.

Don.[/QUOTE]Ever heard that mantra before? Meanwhile, I am paying $5 per visit, per procedure, per prescription. I know, I am lucky. Last weekend, had to endured a visit to a Chinese Temple. Was told by my gf that my birthyear was not aligned with the Year of the Horse. After the cleansing ceremony, I never saw a happier trio of women, my gf, future mother-in-law, and my gf's niece. I knew it was not working because had it been, it would been a nice threesome after lunch. Meanwhile, the temple is raking in cash like a casino.

Liberal proof: "I think, therefore it is and everyone should just accept it. Enough said.".

Rabid and foaming.."When no actual response can be created just demonize again and again until most the sheep believe it is true.".

Basis for your last statement of "fact" according to Rock Harder is ...? Your credentials that makes you grand inquisitor of all that Argentine? Let me guess, you live there and therefore you know all?

Cheers,

Pete.

[QUOTE=RockHarders;437899]Thank you for illustrating the exact kind of rabid foaming at the mouth senseless anti-Obama obsession that Jackson has so often represented in his rants and ridiculous comparisons on this thread. Again, I reiterate that anyone who can even begin to compare the Obama administration with the policies of the Kirchners and / or what is happening in Argentina knows and understands less than nothing about Argentina.[/QUOTE]

I completely disagree. I do not expect a handout or an advantage. I expect and opportunity. If America stopped giving handouts and got back to expecting its citizens to earn their own keep and to strive for excellence and not mediocrity then the same elements that propelled America to greatness would keep it in good stead. When you have the left preaching doom, gloom, race, and a million reasons why people are picked on, less advantaged, etc. Etc. It only drives them down thinking they have to accept their current position, status, finances etc. If instead we rewarded hard work, intellectual thought, excellence etc. And stopped with all the excuses we would remain exceptional on the World stage. If we instead behave like the mediocre handout striving don't leave me behind masses then we will become more and more similar by regression toward the social mean we have chosen to emulate. When there are true winners and losers in any sport or life, the losers or initially less successful get better. In all cases they improve faster than in sports where there is not "score." In many cases the initial underdogs over take the "obvious winners." Not thinking of ourselves as too this or too that but rather as works in progress heading toward an individual defined goal would a great start to a wonderful American future.

Your comment about mongering is interesting. It is only the supply that is adapting and setting the stage for their own success. I applaud them for it. The consumers can choose the threshold at which they stop supporting the activity. In Obama's World we would need to offset the increase in "ask" with subsidies to mongers with incomes less than X and we would need to open free schools for the supply side so the poorest performers could be elevated while we apply a tax to the highest performers so that we can spread the wealth evenly.

Pete.

[QUOTE=RevBS;437935]The world is changing, America is changing. You had it good but your time is up. And in case you are not convince, mongering has change, too. The glory days are over, be it BA or Bangkok. More expensive, more lousy service, less pickings, etc. There is nothing that you and I can do. Take it or leave it.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=PeterSideburn;437943] Your credentials that makes you grand inquisitor of all that Argentine? Let me guess, you live there and therefore you know all?

Cheers,

Pete.[/QUOTE]I live and do business in Argentina and have been swimming through the Argentine political and economic system in a way that gives me an uncommon perspective and understanding about the way things really are here.