American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Tiny12;439036]

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.[/QUOTE]This is exactly my point in repeatedly goading Jackson to admit he is a hypocrite for calling US citizens parasites for utilizing a subsidized healthcare system while at the same time Jackson takes advantage of a subsidized healthcare system in Argentina. Jackson argues against ObamaCare simply because it was introduced by Barack Obama even though I know from private conversations that Jackson, in principle, supports the basic premise of what ObamaCare is trying to achieve. Jackson is so deeply infected by Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS) that he simply cannot accept anything that Obama does and essentially still cannot accept the fact that Obama won two elections by majority votes.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;439034]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]I didn't dispute the numbers watching Fox News and I didn't claim that only WASP angry old men watch either. I'll repeat what I actually said "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." The key words are "tend to be", and no mention of gender or race at all. If you'd read the link you would have seen that. Any dispute with that description of the station's demographic?

And are you seriously saying that Fox isn't consistently anti Obama? In your world where anyone you consider left of centre is rabid I can see you having difficulty with that concept.

[QUOTE=SteveC;439041]"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." The key words are "tend to be", and no mention of gender or race at all. If you'd read the link you would have seen that. Any dispute with that description of the station's demographic?

And are you seriously saying that Fox isn't consistently anti Obama? In your world where anyone you consider left of centre is rabid I can see you having difficulty with that concept.[/QUOTE]Also to summarize from your charts, MSNBC viewers tend to be older, more leftist, Democrat voting, poorer, and less educated than the total for all outlets. Both MSNBC and Fox viewers scored better than the totals on the 4 question test of political knowledge. So your point is?

Look at who Fox and MSNBC are being compared to. Yes, your chart shows that people who read the New York Times, the Economist, the Wall Street Journal and the New Yorker, regardless of their political leanings, are likely to be better educated and wealthier than the average viewer of mass media.

I spend substantially more time watching the Sunday morning political talk shows and MSNBC than Fox. And can tell you that Doppelganger's contention that the network journalists are biased in favor of Obama is true.

Finally so what if Fox (and MSNBC) viewers on average aren't as wealthy or educated as some others? Do you believe that perhaps they're not as smart as you are? Maybe they shouldn't be allowed to vote?

Ronald Reagan IMHO was the best president of our lifetimes, except maybe Don B's and WT69's lifetimes (no offense guys). Even Barack Obama has good things to say about him. Reagan read Reader's Digest.

[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.[/QUOTE]Hey Jax, when you get healthcare in Argentina, do you pay 100% of the costs?

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;438903]Europe's stats more closely follow what we call the U6 unemployment rate.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;439033]Eurostat uses something close to both our U3 and U6 numbers.[/QUOTE]Looks like you shifted. But still wrong.

Earlier I posted an article "Euro zone unemployment at 12%, while USA Improving" while noting the US rate of 6.7%. In your attempt to discredit the performance of the US economy and thus Obama, you claimed this was an apples to oranges comparison and that the European number of 12% was a U6-like calculation. Now it's "close to both our U3 and U6". Close to both??

You posted a link, but failed to note what part of the article proves your claim. That's because nothing in it does. Your article talks about both unemployment and underemployment, but clearly states the European unemployment rate is 10.5% (EU27) or 11.4% (Euro area)(both older 2012 figures). The US unemployment rate is much lower. Go ahead and post the definition of how Eurostat defines unemployment. Still unwilling to accept my wager?

[QUOTE=ElAlamoPalermo;439040]This is exactly my point in repeatedly goading Jackson to admit he is a hypocrite for calling US citizens parasites for utilizing a subsidized healthcare system while at the same time Jackson takes advantage of a subsidized healthcare system in Argentina. Jackson argues against ObamaCare simply because it was introduced by Barack Obama even though I know from private conversations that Jackson, in principle, supports the basic premise of what ObamaCare is trying to achieve. Jackson is so deeply infected by Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS) that he simply cannot accept anything that Obama does and essentially still cannot accept the fact that Obama won two elections by majority votes.[/QUOTE][URL]http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/04/demographics_conservatism_and_racial_polarization_could_america_become_mississippi.html[/URL]

For big numbers of "white" Americans, there is fear, disdain & insecurity that the USA is shifting to "black, brown, yellow and even indigo". It's all about the pecking order in any social power structure. And Obama becoming POTUS is one giant step towards that shifting of power. This despite the fact, that "white" power ain't leaving any time soon. And so we see this reaction towards Barack & Michelle, "how dare they act like they do". "Don't they know their place?" Except that they don't quite say that, instead, they will say, "most inexperienced, or just a community organizer".

[QUOTE=Tiny12;439042]Also to summarize from your charts, MSNBC viewers tend to be older, more leftist, Democrat voting, poorer, and less educated than the total for all outlets. Both MSNBC and Fox viewers scored better than the totals on the 4 question test of political knowledge. So your point is?

Look at who Fox and MSNBC are being compared to. Yes, your chart shows that people who read the New York Times, the Economist, the Wall Street Journal and the New Yorker, regardless of their political leanings, are likely to be better educated and wealthier than the average viewer of mass media.

I spend substantially more time watching the Sunday morning political talk shows and MSNBC than Fox. And can tell you that Doppelganger's contention that the network journalists are biased in favor of Obama is true.

Finally so what if Fox (and MSNBC) viewers on average aren't as wealthy or educated as some others? Do you believe that perhaps they're not as smart as you are? Maybe they shouldn't be allowed to vote?

Ronald Reagan IMHO was the best president of our lifetimes, except maybe Don B's and WT69's lifetimes (no offense guys). Even Barack Obama has good things to say about him. Reagan read Reader's Digest.[/QUOTE]Of course poor people or less educated people shouldn't vote. Shouldn't get health care either. I still say that the Congressional Budget Office is a superior source of data on health care costs compared with Fox News, which is how the conversation with Doppelgänger started.

[b]Johnnies-come-lately?[/b]

[QUOTE=ElAlamoPalermo;439029]
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?[snip][/QUOTE]

No no no, don't confuse us with Democrats!

Liberating the slaves?
I believe Abraham Lincoln was a [b]Republican[/b], was he not? And no I did not vote for him, or Romney.

Woman suffrage? Really?

The "war on women" is a red herring.
“Most educated Americans vaguely remember that the amendment granting women the right to vote was passed by Congress in 1919 and ratified by the states in 1920. But the number of people who know anything about the forty-year legislative war that preceded that victory is smaller than the audience of MSNBC. That war began in 1878, when a [b]California Republican[/b] named A.A. Sargent introduced the 19th Amendment only to see it [b]voted down by a Democrat-controlled Congress[/b]. It finally ended four decades later, when the [b]Republicans[/b] won landslide victories in the House and the Senate, giving them the power to pass the amendment [highlight]despite continued opposition from most elected Democrats -- including President Woodrow Wilson, to whom the suffragettes frequently referred as "Kaiser Wilson."”[/highlight]

Ending segregation / Jim Crow laws, Democrats wrote the Jim Crow laws and they gave birth to the ku klux klan!

“After the end of Reconstruction, which followed from the Compromise of 1877, the new [b]Democratic governments[/b] in the South instituted state laws to separate black and white racial groups, submitting African-Americans to de facto second-class citizenship and enforcing white supremacy. Collectively, these state laws were called the Jim Crow system, after the name of a stereotypical 1830s black minstrel show character.”
[b]“The "solid South" was a one-party system under the [u]Democrats[/u].”[/b]

[b]Democrat Senator Robert Byrd[/b] was the longest-serving U.S. Senator and, at the time of his death, the longest-serving member in the history of the United States Congress.
Byrd was also a member of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1940s, serving as a recruiter and leader for his chapter.

It was [b]Democrat Governor Orval Faubus[/b] who defied the federal government, and tried to stop school integration in Little Rock in 1957 and created the gravest constitutional crisis since the Civil War. It was [b]Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower[/b] that sent Federal troops to Little Rock long before [b]Democrat President John F Kennedy and the National Democrat Party[/b] really got on the segregation band wagon.

[b]George Corley Wallace Jr. was a racist Democrat[/b] who for years was welcomed with open arms by the National Democrat Party prior to the June 11, 1963 "Stand in the Schoolhouse Door".

Ever wonder why Martin Luther King, Jr. was not a Democrat, just read the above three names.

[u]ADA[/u] now this is a law that a Democrat had a hand in, but;

“(ADA) is a law that was enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1990. [b]Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA),[/b] authored the bill and was its chief sponsor in the Senate. It was signed into law on July 26, 1990, by [b]President George H. W. Bush,[/b] and later amended with changes effective January 1, 2009.”

“On September 25, 2008, [b]President George W. Bush[/b] signed the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) into law. This was intended to give broader protections for disabled workers and "turn back the clock" on court rulings that Congress deemed too restrictive.”

The Democrats are Johnnies-come-lately on most of the above listed issues, yet now you act as if these issues are Democrat accomplishments, and you have the nerve to call others hypocrites. What gall!
The Democrat Party has a lot of nasty skeletons in the closet and they better pray the LIV don't get educated.

[QUOTE=Esten;439044]Looks like you shifted. But still wrong.

Earlier I posted an article "Euro zone unemployment at 12%, while USA Improving" while noting the US rate of 6.7%. In your attempt to discredit the performance of the US economy and thus Obama, you claimed this was an apples to oranges comparison and that the European number of 12% was a U6-like calculation. Now it's "close to both our U3 and U6". Close to both??

You posted a link, but failed to note what part of the article proves your claim. That's because nothing in it does. Your article talks about both unemployment and underemployment, but clearly states the European unemployment rate is 10.5% (EU27) or 11.4% (Euro area)(both older 2012 figures). The US unemployment rate is much lower. Go ahead and post the definition of how Eurostat defines unemployment. Still unwilling to accept my wager?[/QUOTE]

The only thing shifting is you my friend.

I expect nothing less from you Esten than half truths and total misinformation.

Again you just ignore what does not agree with your bias.

The article clearly demonstrated the inclusion of underemployed and ALL the people unemployed was a better metric of the economy. That applies both in Europe and here.

Are you trying to say our economy is doing well with workforce participation rate at historic lows and the true number of people out of work above 10%?

You cherry pick a number you like and ignore all else.

You are like the passenger on the Titanic who marvels at the lovely iceberg as it floats by and ignores the water sinking the ship.

Steve, do you even know how the CBO arrives at it's numbers? From your posts, I doubt it. They are GIVEN the basic assumptions upon which they base their numbers. Since many times those assumptions have nothing to do with the real world their number just don't work. How else do you explain the wide variance in multiple outcomes since ObamaCare was first being considered and after it passed.

Go back and look at the CBO projections for Welfare, off by several hundreds percent.

From your post of the poor and uneducated should not vote, are you trying to totally decimate the Democrats? Without the poor and uneducated they could not get their candidate elected dog catcher.

[QUOTE]The Democrat Party has a lot of nasty skeletons in the closet and they better pray the LIV don't get educated.[/QUOTE]Esten, SteveC, and Rev BS are here to ensure that doesn't happen.

Exon, WT69 and Rock Harders stand as evidence of the success of their efforts, although I believe that Rock's ongoing life experiences will result in his eventual recovery.

Thanks,

Jax

The wit and wisdom of Ronald Reagan.

"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." January 20,1981: From Reagan's Inaugural Address.

"Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives."

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'

"Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other."

"A government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth."

"We don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much."

"The American dream is not that every man must be level with every other man. The American dream is that every man must be free to become whatever God intends he should become."

"I hope we have once again reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts."

"We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions."

"History teaches that war begins when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap."

"Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the USA was too strong."

"If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth."

Simple, clear and direct.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;439050]

You cherry pick a number you like and ignore all else.

[/QUOTE]So SteveC links to a CBO graph showing Obamacare insurance coverage will "only" cost $157 billion per annum in 2024 instead of $170 billion in 2019 as originally projected. He conveniently ignores the following,

1. The CBO estimates that the equivalent of 2.5 million jobs will be lost by 2024 as a result of Obamacare.

2. After all the expense and everything else we'll go through, the CBO estimates 30 million people will still have no health care insurance in 2022.

3. The CMS (federal government agency responsible for Medicare, Medicaid and the Health Insurance Marketplace) projects health spending will rise from the current level of 17.1% of GDP to 19.9% of GDP by 2022. Please note that no other significant country in the world is currently spending over 12.5% of GDP.

4. Various studies by nonpartisan groups show government funded health care will bankrupt the federal government unless major changes are made. Democrats, considering only short term political goals, have never been willing to make these changes.

Esten is similarly obsessing over U3 unemployment, which at 6.7% is nothing to brag about 5 years after a recession has ended. But there's no need to go over that again. And again and again and again.

[QUOTE=RevBS;439045][URL]http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/04/demographics_conservatism_and_racial_polarization_could_america_become_mississippi.html[/URL]

For big numbers of "white" Americans, there is fear, disdain & insecurity that the USA is shifting to "black, brown, yellow and even indigo". It's all about the pecking order in any social power structure. And Obama becoming POTUS is one giant step towards that shifting of power. This despite the fact, that "white" power ain't leaving any time soon. And so we see this reaction towards Barack & Michelle, "how dare they act like they do". "Don't they know their place?" Except that they don't quite say that, instead, they will say, "most inexperienced, or just a community organizer".[/QUOTE]In a fantasy world where anyone could run for president, I would vote for Lee Kuan Yew, Ernesto Zedillo, or Paul Kagame over any white presidential candidate the Democrat or Republican parties are likely to nominate anytime in the foreseeable future.

How many people voted for Obama primarily because he would be the first African American president? How many Democrats automatically assume anyone who didn't vote for Obama is a racist? Those people, who vote based on a person's skin color, without considering his abilities, experience, or views, are the racists. Or fools. Or both.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;439051]Steve, do you even know how the CBO arrives at it's numbers? From your posts, I doubt it. They are GIVEN the basic assumptions upon which they base their numbers. Since many times those assumptions have nothing to do with the real world their number just don't work. How else do you explain the wide variance in multiple outcomes since ObamaCare was first being considered and after it passed.

Go back and look at the CBO projections for Welfare, off by several hundreds percent.

From your post of the poor and uneducated should not vote, are you trying to totally decimate the Democrats? Without the poor and uneducated they could not get their candidate elected dog catcher.[/QUOTE]You still saying that Fox news is a more reliable source? That's its agenda isn't strictly anti-Obama? You keep avoiding that question.

I'm sure you got the sarcasm in my reply about voting. As for the democrats being decimated without the poor and uneducated votes, I'd say those votes go the Republicans just as often. Just take a look at those illiterate signs at Tea-bagger rallies for example, although it could be argued that they look stupid deliberately as a self-parody.