American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=RevBS;438062]Have not been able to catch the full interview yet, but the snippets that Fox is so proudly ensnaring its viewers of the Obama interview leads one to conclude that Obama is the "Saviour" of Fox's ratings. In the so-call 10 minute pre-SuperBowl introductory interview, I see a "Righteous but Desperate" O'Reilly leaning forward to make his points about Obama's lies and failings. His role, as the leader of the "tired angry old white men", a heavy burden on his shoulders.

But like Ali's "float like a butterly, sting like a bee", a very relaxed Obama just lean back into his armchair, the accusations disappearing like jabs into the air. Obama has disappointed almost everyone, but I think our expectations for change too high and I for one, was naive enough to underestimate the hate and opposition that his presidency would generate. With nothing worthwhile to say but needing publicity, Donald Trump has chimed in to say that Obama did not show presidential character by not wearing a tie to do the interview. Him and his front hair patch that must have come from his former's wife Ivana's pubic bush.

Obama gave Fox publicity & ratings that they never could have fantasize. Just watch Fox News now, and you will see every anchor & show host just oozing with outrage that they could be bias and unfair. A good laugh, but a sad state of American affairs. Meanwhile, O'Silly's coffers are brimming. Who actually goes and watch his shows on the road? And his books? Maybe I'll write one myself. How about, The Pitfalls of Mongering & Friendship or the 12 Steps of a Good Cum.[/QUOTE]ROTFLMAO!

Me thinks thou doth protest too much.

You're right about this though: Obama certainly laughed everything off.

IRS? Ha, ha, ha, it was just a boneheaded idea on the part of some underlings.

Benghazi? You know, the fog of war, etc. Yuck, yuck, yuck.

If you like your plan you can keep your plan? We had a grandfather clause, but I guess it wasn't correctly worded, hardy-har-har!

I'm sure the LIVs are telling themselves "[I]See man, I told you so. Obama is completely innocent, it's just the fucking conservatives always trying to fuck up things for everybody else."[/I].

Thanks,

Jax.

[QUOTE=RevBS;438062]Maybe I'll write one myself. How about, The Pitfalls of Mongering & Friendship or the 12 Steps of a Good Cum.[/QUOTE]Please do. Then we can compare the sales of your book to the number of books that O'Reily has sold.

[QUOTE=Jackson;438065]Please do. Then we can compare the sales of your book to the number of books that O'Reily has sold.[/QUOTE]With his Northeast upbringing, and his liberal educational background, O'Reilly's politics is probably more left than right. At worse, he is on middle ground. I think Obama easily sees that, so that is why the banter is for public consumption. But with Fox seasonings.

His present mega business empire is a long way from his days on Inside Edition. I give him kudos for his instincts for where the wind blows and the scent of money. Would it be fair to call him a "front man"? Albeit, a very successful one. But Jimmy Swaggert was very successful, too.

What's your take on the new Congressional Budget Office study, that the equivalent of 2.5 million full time jobs will be lost by 2024 as a result of the Affordable Care Act? Actually, the CBO thinks more full time jobs will be lost, but the lower number of hours worked will be equivalent to 2.5 million full time jobs.

Also, what are your thoughts about what the CBO's report says about the relationship between higher marginal tax rates and employment? From Reuters:

[i]According to the report, federal subsidies [for health insurance] can be substantial, particularly for lower-wage workers who receive more under the law's sliding income scale. But that also means the benefits can be phased out as a worker's income rises.

[b]"The phaseout effectively raises people's marginal tax rates (the tax rates applying to their last dollar of income), thus discouraging work,"[/b] CBO said.[/i]

To anyone who says "We're really not losing 2.5 million jobs, it just means that employment won't grow as fast", I challenge you to use the same reasoning the next time you complain about federal budget "cuts" to programs that grow, year after year.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;438068]What's your take on the new Congressional Budget Office study, that the equivalent of 2.5 million full time jobs will be lost by 2024 as a result of the Affordable Care Act? Actually, the CBO thinks more full time jobs will be lost, but the lower number of hours worked will be equivalent to 2.5 million full time jobs.[/QUOTE]Better yet, how about just once one of our leftists attempting to give a moral justification for their beliefs.

Don.

[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/02/04/the-medias-massive-revisions-on-cbo-obamacare-story/?hpid=z3[/url]

This link might not work, but the article can be found on Washington Post, February 2, 2014, by Erik Wemple

Furthermore, Greg Sargent of the Washington Post on the same day, reported: "Under questionin before the House Budget Committee from Democrat Representative Chris Van Hollen, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf confirmed that in reality, his report suggests that Obamacare will reduced unemployment."

[QUOTE=Tiny12;438068]What's your take on the new Congressional Budget Office study, that the equivalent of 2.5 million full time jobs will be lost by 2024 as a result of the Affordable Care Act? Actually, the CBO thinks more full time jobs will be lost, but the lower number of hours worked will be equivalent to 2.5 million full time jobs.

Also, what are your thoughts about what the CBO's report says about the relationship between higher marginal tax rates and employment? From Reuters:

[i]According to the report, federal subsidies [forhealthinsurance] can be substantial, particularly for lower-wage workers who receive more under the law's sliding income scale. But that also means the benefits can be phased out as a worker's income rises.

[b]"The phaseout effectively raises people's marginal tax rates (the tax rates applying to their last dollar of income), thus discouraging work,"[/b] CBO said.[/i]

To anyone who says "We're really not losing 2.5 million jobs, it just means that employment won't grow as fast", I challenge you to use the same reasoning the next time you complain about federal budget "cuts" to programs that grow, year after year.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=RevBS;438072]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/02/04/the-medias-massive-revisions-on-cbo-obamacare-story/?hpid=z3

This link might not work, but the article can be found on Washington Post, February 2, 2014, by Erik Wemple[/QUOTE]I read that this morning, it's weak. For example:

[I]Obamacare’s impact, the CBO concluded, would lessen the supply of labor by encouraging certain folks not to work: “The estimated reduction stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply, rather than from a net drop in businesses’ demand for labor, so it will appear almost entirely as a reduction in labor force participation and in hours worked. . . .”[/I]

In other words, Obamacare discourages people from working.

Okay Reverend, if you're going to accept the logic in the Washington Post blog, then you should never criticize Libertarian-leaning politicians for "cuts" when they're actually just trying to slow the rate of growth in federal spending. Actually, I don't think that's something you're guilty of here, although others are.

[QUOTE=Rev BS;438072]Furthermore, Greg Sargent of the Washington Post on the same day, reported: "Under questionin before the House Budget Committee from Democrat Representative Chris Van Hollen, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf confirmed that in reality, his report suggests that Obamacare will reduced unemployment."[/QUOTE]

Yes, it's very possible that some people like Esten (see his post above) will give up looking for work because of Obamacare, and therefore no longer be counted as "unemployed." I wish I could find the CBO report, but can't. Anyway, listening to Van Hollen's testimony, he does say the short term effect will be to reduce unemployment because of the economic stimulus associated with Obamacare. However, in the longer term, Obamacare is a job destroyer.

I might quit my job and remain unemployed, or try to get a low-paying job. Not sure if I'll make enough to ever come back to BA, but those government subsidies I'll become eligible for are too juicy to resist.

[QUOTE=DonB;438069]Better yet, how about just once one of our leftists attempting to give a moral justification for their beliefs. Don.[/QUOTE]I know you have been around a long time, and I know you have more knowledge in your little finger that I have in my head. But I thought you might like this little contribution from me.

[URL]http://www.trueactivist.com/nurse-reveals-the-top-5-regrets-people-make-on-their-deathbed/[/URL]

The 5 regrets people have before they kick the bucket:

1. I wish I'd had the courage to live a life true to myself, not the life others expected of me.

2. I wish I didn't work so hard.

3. I wish I've had the courage to express my feelings.

4. I wish I've stay in touch with my friends.

5. I wish I've let myself be happier.

I am quite sure you are more than adequately covered, my friend. Myself, I am still working on all of them, except, for #2.

I think most of us can agree on this issue.

[URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zqQubSHRd8[/URL]

If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for entering and remaining in the country illegally * you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If you have to get your parents' permission to go on a field trip or to take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion * you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If you MUST show your identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor, or check out a library book and rent a video, but not to vote for who runs the government * you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If the government wants to prevent stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines that hold more than ten rounds, but gives twenty F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new leaders in Egypt * you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If, in the nation's largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not one 24-ounce soda, because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat * you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If an 80-year-old woman or a three-year-old girl who is confined to a wheelchair can be strip-searched by the TSA at the airport, but a woman in a burka or a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched * you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more * you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If a seven-year-old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher is 'cute,' but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable * you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government regulation and intrusion, while not working is rewarded with Food Stamps, WIC checks, Medicaid benefits, subsidized housing, and free cell phones * you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If the government's plan for getting people back to work is to provide incentives for not working, by granting 99 weeks of unemployment checks, without any requirement to prove that gainful employment was diligently sought, but couldn't be found * you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If you pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big-screen TV, while your neighbor buys iPhones, time shares, a wall-sized do-it-all plasma screen TV and new cars, and the government forgives his debt when he defaults on his mortgage * you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If being stripped of your Constitutional right to defend yourself makes you more 'safe' according to the government * you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

What a country!

How about we give God a reason to continue blessing America!

TL.

You are right on some and wrong on others.

What gun laws have congress passed since Sandy Hook?

[URL]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/13/gun-control-newtown_n_4425157.html[/URL]

What are you doing kissing up to Jackson and his cronies?

[QUOTE=TejanoLibre;438128]If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for entering and remaining in the country illegally * you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If you have to get your parents' permission to go on a field trip or to take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion * you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If you MUST show your identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor, or check out a library book and rent a video, but not to vote for who runs the government * you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If the government wants to prevent stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines that hold more than ten rounds, but gives twenty F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new leaders in Egypt * you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If, in the nation's largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not one 24-ounce soda, because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat * you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If an 80-year-old woman or a three-year-old girl who is confined to a wheelchair can be strip-searched by the TSA at the airport, but a woman in a burka or a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched * you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more * you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If a seven-year-old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher is 'cute,' but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable * you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government regulation and intrusion, while not working is rewarded with Food Stamps, WIC checks, Medicaid benefits, subsidized housing, and free cell phones * you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If the government's plan for getting people back to work is to provide incentives for not working, by granting 99 weeks of unemployment checks, without any requirement to prove that gainful employment was diligently sought, but couldn't be found * you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If you pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big-screen TV, while your neighbor buys iPhones, time shares, a wall-sized do-it-all plasma screen TV and new cars, and the government forgives his debt when he defaults on his mortgage * you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If being stripped of your Constitutional right to defend yourself makes you more 'safe' according to the government * you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

What a country!

How about we give God a reason to continue blessing America!

TL.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;438133]What gun laws have congress passed since Sandy Hook?[/QUOTE]Other than outright banning private citizens from possessing weapons, exactly what other gun laws did you want Congress to pass?

And please don't answer by posting yet another cartoon that you can't explain.

Thanks,

Jax.

Where did you dream that up?

Nobody is trying to take any ones gun away, except the criminals and nut jobs.

The only reason anyone would need a multi-magazine gun is if they need to shoot all those beer cans in their back yard.

[QUOTE=Jackson;438135]Other than outright banning private citizens from possessing weapons, exactly what other gun laws did you want Congress to pass?

And please don't answer by posting yet another cartoon that you can't explain.

Thanks,

Jax.[/QUOTE]

WT that's a pretty weak response to TL's post, which is a take off on "you might be a redneck".

The thing that makes the post really funny is it points out the liberal / progressive schizophrenia when it comes to what they see as "good" and "bad".

Need a note to the school for your kid to take an aspirin but getting an abortion without parental consent is OK?

Big whoop on Sandy Hook. Sure it was a tragedy the kids and teachers were killed but where is all the liberal empathy for all the kids killed in automobile accidents? No liberal protesting for banning cars.

I noticed the Obamanation has changed ObamaCare again to allow companies with 50 to 199 employees to skip the penalties for another year. Wonder if he is feeling the heat for all the cancellations which are coming in September, October and November. Skipping the penalties is not going to stop the insurance companies from following the law which will force them to cancel non-ObamaCare conforming policies. I guess it will be much like when Obama waved his magic wand and told the insurance companies to re-issue non-compliant individual policies which the insurance companies declined to do as it was AGAINST THE LAW.