American Politics during the Obama Presidency

I come here for 2/3 amusement and 1/3 intellectual stimulation. I often laugh out loud at some things I read here. Most of the propaganda is from folks afflicted with ODS, who bond with each other in their Fox News groupthink. When I post things that contradict their propaganda, I am accused of posting propaganda. Too funny! But behind the facade, they know where they stand and where I stand.

Notice the timing of Jackson's post, as Doppel attempts to deflect from not standing behind his own statements. His train of thought must be, [I] "Esten is exposing my buddy's false information, now would be a good time to intervene and label Esten a propagandist."[/I].

[QUOTE=Jackson;439008]solely to interdict any ideologically vacillating LIVs[/QUOTE]I must say though, that is an exquisite example of command of the English language.

[QUOTE=Esten;439014]I must say though, that is an exquisite example of command of the English language.[/QUOTE]Actually the whole post was exquisite. I particularly liked the following,

[QUOTE=Jackson;439008] You may consider his posts as chaff intended to cloud the real picture.
[/QUOTE]I would have "thanked" Jackson except that I figure if we gang up on you too much you'll leave and we won't have poor Esten to kick around anymore.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;439015]Actually the whole post was exquisite. I particularly liked the following,

I would have "thanked" Jackson except that I figure if we gang up on you too much you'll leave and we won't have poor Esten to kick around anymore.[/QUOTE]The only way to make Esten leave is to ignore him. He relishes the anti-Esten posts, and thrives on stirring up the anti-Esten sentiment among the more conservative posters on this board. That is one of the reasons that he does not care about separating fact from fiction.

Tres3.

As the 2014 mid-terms get closer Esten and his comrades become more shrill.

They ignore what they don't agree with and embrace what they do.

Prime example is CBO numbers. They rave about the "non-partisan" CBO when they like the numbers, but call the CBO a bunch of partisan hacks when they don't.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;439019]As the 2014 mid-terms get closer Esten and his comrades become more shrill.

They ignore what they don't agree with and embrace what they do.

Prime example is CBO numbers. They rave about the "non-partisan" CBO when they like the numbers, but call the CBO a bunch of partisan hacks when they don't.[/QUOTE]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=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.