American Politics during the Obama Presidency

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

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

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

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

The schadenfreude will be so sweet.

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

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

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

ObamaCare will reduce healthcare costs. NOT.

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

I await your excuses and twisted logic with interest.

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

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

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

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

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

However a Conservative is quoted:

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

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

2016 will be a fun year.

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

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

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

[ATTACH=CONFIG]29041[/ATTACH]

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

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

The schadenfreude will be so sweet.[/QUOTE]

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

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

Esten, WT69, is that all you got?

Pretty pathetic responses.

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

Still waiting on those answers guys.

Finding it hard to defend the indefensible?

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

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

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

ObamaCare will reduce healthcare costs. NOT.

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

I await your excuses and twisted logic with interest.

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

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

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

Another disinformation mission accomplished.

Thanks,

Jax.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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