President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

General Intelligent Discussion & One Thread About That Buttknuckle

Moderator: Andrew

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby steveo777 » Thu Oct 31, 2013 5:08 pm

Memorex wrote:I don't care who was for it before they were against it. There is a simple fact here; The whole thing was ill-conceived. It was rushed. It was secretive. It's full of ulterior motives. It's full of pork and unbelievably unfair regulations. And the implementation is disastrous. Not just the incredibly expensive worthless website, but the entire roll out. The president has changed it over a dozen times, delayed certain parts, etc. And yet no one seems to care that he has ZERO power to do that. It's not his job and half the things he is doing are illegal as it's congress' job, not his.

So who gives a shit who had some idea? I don't see why it matters. The fact is it's a heaping pile of shit, with a few shinny gems in it.


What movie was that where the dog ate the wedding ring and they had to wait for the dog to shit to find the diamond? :lol:

In this case, the dog ate the country, indoctrinated those who are ignorant or low information. Now we're waiting for the dog to take a shit so we can recover what is left of our country.
User avatar
steveo777
MP3
 
Posts: 11311
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 12:15 pm
Location: Citrus Heights, Ca

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Thu Oct 31, 2013 10:41 pm

steveo777 wrote:In this case, the dog ate the country, indoctrinated those who are ignorant or low information. Now we're waiting for the dog to take a shit so we can recover what is left of our country.


Meanwhile, Romney was a veterinarian who wanted euthanize the family dog (i.e. the middle class). Hey, makes about as much sense as your stupid ass metaphor. Sorry Grampa, that tail simply won't wag. Better push the buzzer and have the nurse empty your bedpan, you clearly can't think straight thru the fumes of your own shit.
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16055
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Fri Nov 01, 2013 12:20 am

Deficit fell 37% in 2013. Where is the massive government spending spree?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... siness_pop
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16055
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby Memorex » Fri Nov 01, 2013 1:20 am

The_Noble_Cause wrote:Deficit fell 37% in 2013. Where is the massive government spending spree?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... siness_pop


You can not seriously be serious - seriously! Are you serious?

This is exactly the way they manipulate you. Hike things up so high, that any decrease looks great. The deficit this year is still higher than any year in the previous administration and going back to who knows when.

I'm sure you buy that the unemployment rate going down with the current math is a good thing too. Just insane.

Bush spent way too much money and this is worse than that. If the story was that we were down 37% from Bush's numbers, cool. Progress. But it's 37% from the insane spending of the last few years.

By the way, the story says that part of the cause is fewer unemployment benefits being paid due to the improving economy. Uh, more people are exiting the job market than are getting jobs. The unemployment benefits are running out. It's not that people got jobs.

More people today receive some form of welfare than have jobs. How long can that last?

This article may fly in some circles, but won't pass muster in this thread.
User avatar
Memorex
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3570
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:30 pm

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby slucero » Fri Nov 01, 2013 3:29 am

Obama Officials In 2010: 93 Million Americans Will Be Unable To Keep Their Health Plans Under Obamacare
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapotheca ... obamacare/


On Wednesday, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius testified before Congress about the continuing issues with the rollout of Obamacare’s health insurance exchanges. “Hold me accountable for the debacle,” said Sebelius. “I’m responsible.” I attended the hearing, and I was struck by the scope, scale, and depth of the health law’s problems, problems that far exceed any one political appointee. But Obamacare’s disruption of the existing health insurance market—a disruption codified in law, and known to the administration—is only just beginning. And it’s far broader than recent media coverage has implied.

Obama administration knew that Obamacare would disrupt private plans

If you read the Affordable Care Act when it was passed, you knew that it was dishonest for President Obama to claim that “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan,” as he did—and continues to do—on countless occasions. And we now know that the administration knew this all along. It turns out that in an obscure report buried in a June 2010 edition of the Federal Register, administration officials predicted massive disruption of the private insurance market.

On Tuesday, White House spokesman Jay Carney attempted to minimize the disruption issue, arguing that it only affected people who buy insurance on their own. “That’s the universe we’re talking about, 5 percent of the population,” said Carney. “In some of the coverage of this issue in the last several days, you would think that you were talking about 75 percent or 80 percent or 60 percent of the American population.” (5 percent of the population happens to be 15 million people, no small number, but let’s leave that aside.)

By “coverage of this issue,” Carney was referring to two articles. The first, by Chad Terhune of the Los Angeles Times, described a number of Californians who are seeing their existing plans terminated and replaced with much more expensive ones. “I was all for Obamacare until I found out I was paying for it,” said one.

The second article, by Lisa Myers and Hanna Rappleye of NBC News, unearthed the aforementioned commentary in the Federal Register, and cited “four sources deeply involved in the Affordable Care Act” as saying that “50 to 75 percent” of people who buy coverage on their own are likely to receive cancellation notices due to Obamacare.

Mid-range estimate: 51% of employer-sponsored plans will get canceled

But Carney’s dismissal of the media’s concerns was wrong, on several fronts. Contrary to the reporting of NBC, the administration’s commentary in the Federal Register did not only refer to the individual market, but also the market for employer-sponsored health insurance.

Section 1251 of the Affordable Care Act contains what’s called a “grandfather” provision that, in theory, allows people to keep their existing plans if they like them. But subsequent regulations from the Obama administration interpreted that provision so narrowly as to prevent most plans from gaining this protection.

“The Departments’ mid-range estimate is that 66 percent of small employer plans and 45 percent of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfather status by the end of 2013,” wrote the administration on page 34,552 of the Register. All in all, more than half of employer-sponsored plans will lose their “grandfather status” and get canceled. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 156 million Americans—more than half the population—was covered by employer-sponsored insurance in 2013.

Another 25 million people, according to the CBO, have “nongroup and other” forms of insurance; that is to say, they participate in the market for individually-purchased insurance. In this market, the administration projected that “40 to 67 percent” of individually-purchased plans would lose their Obamacare-sanctioned “grandfather status” and get canceled, solely due to the fact that there is a high turnover of participants and insurance arrangements in this market. (Plans purchased after March 23, 2010 do not benefit from the “grandfather” clause.) The real turnover rate would be higher, because plans can lose their grandfather status for a number of other reasons.

How many people are exposed to these problems? 60 percent of Americans have private-sector health insurance—precisely the number that Jay Carney dismissed. As to the number of people facing cancellations, 51 percent of the employer-based market plus 53.5 percent of the non-group market (the middle of the administration’s range) amounts to 93 million Americans.

Will these canceled plans be replaced with better coverage?

President Obama’s famous promise that “you could keep your plan” was not some naïve error or accident. He, and his allies, knew that previous Democratic attempts at health reform had failed because Americans were happy with the coverage they had, and opposed efforts to change the existing system.

Now, supporters of the law are offering a different argument. “We didn’t really mean it when we said you could keep your plan,” they say, “but it doesn’t matter, because the coverage you’re going to get under Obamacare will be better than the coverage you had before.”

But that’s not true. Obamacare forces insurers to offer services that most Americans don’t need, don’t want, and won’t use, for a higher price. Bob Laszewski, in a revealing blog post, wrote about the cancellation of his own health coverage. “Right now,” he wrote, “I have ‘Cadillac’ health insurance. I can access every provider in the national Blue Cross network—about every doc and hospital in America—without a referral and without higher deductibles and co-pays.”

But his plan is being canceled. His new, Obamacare-compatible plan has a $500 higher deductible, and a narrower physician and hospital network that restricts out-of-town providers. And yet it costs 66 percent more than his current plan. “Mr. President,” he writes, “I really like my health plan and I would like to keep it. Can you help me out here?”

Congress proposes a straightforward solution

Senator Ron Johnson (R., Wisc.) and Rep. Fred Upton (R., Mich.) have proposed the “If You Like Your Health Care Plan You Can Keep It Act,” with dozens of co-sponsors. The two-page bill simply states that “nothing in [the Affordable Care Act] shall be construed to require that an individual terminate coverage under a group health plan or health insurance coverage in which such individual was enrolled during any part of the period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and ending on December 31, 2013.”

Some Senate Democrats are jumping on the grandfathering bandwagon. Mary Landrieu (D., La.), locked in a competitive reelection race against Rep. Bill Cassidy (R., La.), now claims that she was unaware that Obamacare would disrupt existing insurance arrangements. “It was our understanding when we voted for that bill that people when they have insurance could keep with what they had. So I’m going to be working on that fix,” she said on Wednesday.

But that’s not accurate. It was well known, as far back as 2009, that millions of Americans would lose their existing coverage under the Obamacare bill. Landrieu still voted for it. In September of 2010, Sen. Mike Enzi (R., Wyo.) introduced legislation that would protect small businesses from losing their health plans’ grandfathered status under Obamacare. Landrieu voted against the bill, on a party-line vote.

But Landrieu’s flip-flop illustrates the potency of this issue. If Americans were truly being forced off of their existing insurance plans—that they like—and into better and more affordable ones, the outcry would be minimal. But that isn’t what’s happening. People are being forced into inferior and costlier plans. And they’re making their displeasure felt in Washington.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.


~Albert Einstein
User avatar
slucero
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 5444
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 1:17 pm

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby Memorex » Fri Nov 01, 2013 8:17 am

Fact Finder wrote:Anyone else had it up to here with these nitwits?


A Kentucky medical center has ordered all of its employees to undergo diversity training after a worker wore a costume of President Obama to the hospital’s annual Halloween party last Friday.

As WZZTV reports, an employee at the Jennie Stuart Medical Center in Hopkinsville, Ky., wore an Obama mask and straitjacket to the party, escorted by fellow workers dressed in police gear, and performed a skit entitled “VIP Special Delivery.” The outfits and skit won third place in a group costume contest.

The costumes spawned enough complaints that the hospital is now requiring all 750 employees to attend diversity training. Because of privacy rules, the hospital can’t say whether the employees who wore the costumes have been disciplined. In addition, they’ve has asked employees not to wear ethnic or political costumes to next year’s party.


I searched the news to find any similar stories with past presidential masks. I could not find any.

Did anyone say what the complaints were? Maybe they thought someone was going to raise taxes or health care costs? Why is the mask offensive? It's the president and every president I can recall since Nixon has had a mask.

Should the members of Genesis go through training for their Land of Confusion video? How about the cast and crew of Point Break?

This is insulting to Obama in my opinion. People are saying that wearing his mask is offensive to others and not an honor.

And it's not ethnic to wear the mask of an historical figure. So next year the only costumes can be whites? Now that's racist.
User avatar
Memorex
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3570
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:30 pm

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby Memorex » Fri Nov 01, 2013 9:00 am

A thought dawned on me today with all this news about us spying on citizens of other countries. How would we feel, as Americans, if it was reported that another country was gathering all this data on us? Maybe that's being done - I don't know. But if I did know about it, I'd have a very negative outlook at that country and I'd want my country to retaliate. Economically, etc.
User avatar
Memorex
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3570
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:30 pm

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby slucero » Fri Nov 01, 2013 9:38 am

Sources: White House told insurance execs to keep quiet on Obamacare
By Drew Griffin and Chris Frates, CNN Special Investigations Unit
updated 4:12 PM EDT, Wed October 30, 2013

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/30/politics/ ... -pressure/

(CNN) -- White House officials have pressured insurance industry executives to keep quiet amid mounting criticism over Obamacare's rollout, insurance industry sources told CNN.

Sebelius: 'I apologize, I'm accountable' for Obamacare website flaws

After insurance officials publicly criticized the implementation, White House staffers contacted insurers to express their displeasure, industry insiders said.

Multiple sources declined to speak publicly about the push back because they fear retribution.

But Bob Laszewski, who heads a consulting firm for big insurance companies, did talk on the record.

"The White House is exerting massive pressure on the industry, including the trade associations, to keep quiet," he said.

Laszewski, who's been a vocal critic of Obamacare, said he's been asked by insurance executives to speak out because they feel defenseless against an administration that is regulating their business -- and a big customer.

Government-backed plans accounted for about half of health care policies last year, a number that is expected to grow over the years.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said the idea that administration officials are trying to silence insurance industry insiders is "preposterous and inaccurate." He added that Laszewski has been a vocal critic of health care reform for two decades.

"Plus, it ignores the fact that every day insurance companies are out talking about the law -- in large part because they are trying to reach millions of new customers who will now have new affordable insurance options available from providers through the new Market Places," Carney said.

Obama and his top advisers have acknowledged problems with the health care website.

On Wednesday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was the latest administration official to apologize for the bungled rollout.

Yet she and other officials continue to argue that once they are fully up and running, the insurance exchanges will benefit Americans.

But Obama also has been accused of breaking his promise that people who like their current plans can keep them. Insurers have begun discontinuing policies that don't meet Obamacare's beefed up coverage requirements.

Laszewski said insurance company officials are embarrassed that they have to cancel plans and force people into more robust, and possibly more expensive, coverage.

Keep your plan? Maybe not

Insurers, he said, warned the White House that the regulations would lead to discontinued policies.

"One of the things I think is clear here is the Obama administration has no trust in anything the health insurance industry is telling them about how to run a health plan," Laszewski said.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.


~Albert Einstein
User avatar
slucero
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 5444
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 1:17 pm

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Fri Nov 01, 2013 2:54 pm

Memorex wrote:This article may fly in some circles, but won't pass muster in this thread.


Yes, but of course. A greater collection of economic minds has never been assembled. :roll:
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16055
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby steveo777 » Fri Nov 01, 2013 3:30 pm

The_Noble_Cause wrote:
Memorex wrote:This article may fly in some circles, but won't pass muster in this thread.


Yes, but of course. A greater collection of economic minds has never been assembled. :roll:


Let go of the rope before you hit the dock, my dad used to say, when water skiing. When are you going to admit the failure that is Obama? Are liberals so morally bankrupt that they will just look the other way when this POS lies? Are your minds so poisoned that you don't even hear the lies? Have you been watching Rachel Maddow again? You know he's an idiot, who's ratings are plummeting, right?
User avatar
steveo777
MP3
 
Posts: 11311
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 12:15 pm
Location: Citrus Heights, Ca

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby Boomchild » Fri Nov 01, 2013 3:51 pm

slucero wrote:Obama Officials In 2010: 93 Million Americans Will Be Unable To Keep Their Health Plans Under Obamacare
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapotheca ... obamacare/


On Wednesday, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius testified before Congress about the continuing issues with the rollout of Obamacare’s health insurance exchanges. “Hold me accountable for the debacle,” said Sebelius. “I’m responsible.” I attended the hearing, and I was struck by the scope, scale, and depth of the health law’s problems, problems that far exceed any one political appointee. But Obamacare’s disruption of the existing health insurance market—a disruption codified in law, and known to the administration—is only just beginning. And it’s far broader than recent media coverage has implied.

Obama administration knew that Obamacare would disrupt private plans

If you read the Affordable Care Act when it was passed, you knew that it was dishonest for President Obama to claim that “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan,” as he did—and continues to do—on countless occasions. And we now know that the administration knew this all along. It turns out that in an obscure report buried in a June 2010 edition of the Federal Register, administration officials predicted massive disruption of the private insurance market.

On Tuesday, White House spokesman Jay Carney attempted to minimize the disruption issue, arguing that it only affected people who buy insurance on their own. “That’s the universe we’re talking about, 5 percent of the population,” said Carney. “In some of the coverage of this issue in the last several days, you would think that you were talking about 75 percent or 80 percent or 60 percent of the American population.” (5 percent of the population happens to be 15 million people, no small number, but let’s leave that aside.)

By “coverage of this issue,” Carney was referring to two articles. The first, by Chad Terhune of the Los Angeles Times, described a number of Californians who are seeing their existing plans terminated and replaced with much more expensive ones. “I was all for Obamacare until I found out I was paying for it,” said one.

The second article, by Lisa Myers and Hanna Rappleye of NBC News, unearthed the aforementioned commentary in the Federal Register, and cited “four sources deeply involved in the Affordable Care Act” as saying that “50 to 75 percent” of people who buy coverage on their own are likely to receive cancellation notices due to Obamacare.

Mid-range estimate: 51% of employer-sponsored plans will get canceled

But Carney’s dismissal of the media’s concerns was wrong, on several fronts. Contrary to the reporting of NBC, the administration’s commentary in the Federal Register did not only refer to the individual market, but also the market for employer-sponsored health insurance.

Section 1251 of the Affordable Care Act contains what’s called a “grandfather” provision that, in theory, allows people to keep their existing plans if they like them. But subsequent regulations from the Obama administration interpreted that provision so narrowly as to prevent most plans from gaining this protection.

“The Departments’ mid-range estimate is that 66 percent of small employer plans and 45 percent of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfather status by the end of 2013,” wrote the administration on page 34,552 of the Register. All in all, more than half of employer-sponsored plans will lose their “grandfather status” and get canceled. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 156 million Americans—more than half the population—was covered by employer-sponsored insurance in 2013.

Another 25 million people, according to the CBO, have “nongroup and other” forms of insurance; that is to say, they participate in the market for individually-purchased insurance. In this market, the administration projected that “40 to 67 percent” of individually-purchased plans would lose their Obamacare-sanctioned “grandfather status” and get canceled, solely due to the fact that there is a high turnover of participants and insurance arrangements in this market. (Plans purchased after March 23, 2010 do not benefit from the “grandfather” clause.) The real turnover rate would be higher, because plans can lose their grandfather status for a number of other reasons.

How many people are exposed to these problems? 60 percent of Americans have private-sector health insurance—precisely the number that Jay Carney dismissed. As to the number of people facing cancellations, 51 percent of the employer-based market plus 53.5 percent of the non-group market (the middle of the administration’s range) amounts to 93 million Americans.

Will these canceled plans be replaced with better coverage?

President Obama’s famous promise that “you could keep your plan” was not some naïve error or accident. He, and his allies, knew that previous Democratic attempts at health reform had failed because Americans were happy with the coverage they had, and opposed efforts to change the existing system.

Now, supporters of the law are offering a different argument. “We didn’t really mean it when we said you could keep your plan,” they say, “but it doesn’t matter, because the coverage you’re going to get under Obamacare will be better than the coverage you had before.”

But that’s not true. Obamacare forces insurers to offer services that most Americans don’t need, don’t want, and won’t use, for a higher price. Bob Laszewski, in a revealing blog post, wrote about the cancellation of his own health coverage. “Right now,” he wrote, “I have ‘Cadillac’ health insurance. I can access every provider in the national Blue Cross network—about every doc and hospital in America—without a referral and without higher deductibles and co-pays.”

But his plan is being canceled. His new, Obamacare-compatible plan has a $500 higher deductible, and a narrower physician and hospital network that restricts out-of-town providers. And yet it costs 66 percent more than his current plan. “Mr. President,” he writes, “I really like my health plan and I would like to keep it. Can you help me out here?”

Congress proposes a straightforward solution

Senator Ron Johnson (R., Wisc.) and Rep. Fred Upton (R., Mich.) have proposed the “If You Like Your Health Care Plan You Can Keep It Act,” with dozens of co-sponsors. The two-page bill simply states that “nothing in [the Affordable Care Act] shall be construed to require that an individual terminate coverage under a group health plan or health insurance coverage in which such individual was enrolled during any part of the period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and ending on December 31, 2013.”

Some Senate Democrats are jumping on the grandfathering bandwagon. Mary Landrieu (D., La.), locked in a competitive reelection race against Rep. Bill Cassidy (R., La.), now claims that she was unaware that Obamacare would disrupt existing insurance arrangements. “It was our understanding when we voted for that bill that people when they have insurance could keep with what they had. So I’m going to be working on that fix,” she said on Wednesday.

But that’s not accurate. It was well known, as far back as 2009, that millions of Americans would lose their existing coverage under the Obamacare bill. Landrieu still voted for it. In September of 2010, Sen. Mike Enzi (R., Wyo.) introduced legislation that would protect small businesses from losing their health plans’ grandfathered status under Obamacare. Landrieu voted against the bill, on a party-line vote.

But Landrieu’s flip-flop illustrates the potency of this issue. If Americans were truly being forced off of their existing insurance plans—that they like—and into better and more affordable ones, the outcry would be minimal. But that isn’t what’s happening. People are being forced into inferior and costlier plans. And they’re making their displeasure felt in Washington.


I think even if you had video of B.O. being personally briefed on this, the drones and the ones that support B.O. and his administration in the media would still believe it isn't true or he didn't know simply based on him denying it.
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
User avatar
Boomchild
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 7129
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 6:10 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby Boomchild » Fri Nov 01, 2013 4:03 pm

Memorex wrote:
I searched the news to find any similar stories with past presidential masks. I could not find any.

Did anyone say what the complaints were? Maybe they thought someone was going to raise taxes or health care costs? Why is the mask offensive? It's the president and every president I can recall since Nixon has had a mask.

Should the members of Genesis go through training for their Land of Confusion video? How about the cast and crew of Point Break?

This is insulting to Obama in my opinion. People are saying that wearing his mask is offensive to others and not an honor.

And it's not ethnic to wear the mask of an historical figure. So next year the only costumes can be whites? Now that's racist.


The difference is that none of these past POTUS were considered to be "The Anointed One" so it was OK to poke fun or goof on them. This POTUS is different. There is so much abuse in the assumption that if you disagree with B.O. on anything then it has to be racially motivated. They should start labeling situations like this the "Al Sharpton Effect".
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
User avatar
Boomchild
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 7129
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 6:10 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby Boomchild » Fri Nov 01, 2013 4:09 pm

Memorex wrote:A thought dawned on me today with all this news about us spying on citizens of other countries. How would we feel, as Americans, if it was reported that another country was gathering all this data on us? Maybe that's being done - I don't know. But if I did know about it, I'd have a very negative outlook at that country and I'd want my country to retaliate. Economically, etc.


If you look at it from the perspective that there is an agenda to create a New World Order then everyone, everywhere is being spied on. It's part of the system to control peoples every thought and actions.
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
User avatar
Boomchild
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 7129
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 6:10 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby Boomchild » Fri Nov 01, 2013 4:17 pm

slucero wrote:Sources: White House told insurance execs to keep quiet on Obamacare


I also remember hearing a report that insurance companies that offer Medicare Advantage and Medigap polices were warned not to mention cost increases and changes were due to Obamacare when it actually was the reason for it.
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
User avatar
Boomchild
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 7129
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 6:10 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby Boomchild » Fri Nov 01, 2013 4:22 pm

steveo777 wrote:
The_Noble_Cause wrote:
Memorex wrote:This article may fly in some circles, but won't pass muster in this thread.


Yes, but of course. A greater collection of economic minds has never been assembled. :roll:


Let go of the rope before you hit the dock, my dad used to say, when water skiing. When are you going to admit the failure that is Obama? Are liberals so morally bankrupt that they will just look the other way when this POS lies? Are your minds so poisoned that you don't even hear the lies? Have you been watching Rachel Maddow again? You know he's an idiot, who's ratings are plummeting, right?


Asking this would be like asking the followers of Jim Jones to admit he was crazy and not a man of God. They will follow him right over the cliff.
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
User avatar
Boomchild
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 7129
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 6:10 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Fri Nov 01, 2013 4:29 pm

Boomchild wrote:
steveo777 wrote:
Let go of the rope before you hit the dock, my dad used to say, when water skiing. When are you going to admit the failure that is Obama? Are liberals so morally bankrupt that they will just look the other way when this POS lies? Are your minds so poisoned that you don't even hear the lies? Have you been watching Rachel Maddow again? You know he's an idiot, who's ratings are plummeting, right?


Asking this would be like asking the followers of Jim Jones to admit he was crazy and not a man of God. They will follow him right over the cliff.


Blah blah blah. So says two dick whistling ex-Bush voters who willingly rely on both Soc Security and Medicare - two entitlement programs that were derided in the day as being the harbinger of the end of Western civilization. You'll excuse me if I take your fear mongering over Obamacare with a metric ton of salt.
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16055
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby Boomchild » Fri Nov 01, 2013 6:35 pm

The_Noble_Cause wrote:Blah blah blah. So says two dick whistling ex-Bush voters who willingly rely on both Soc Security and Medicare - two entitlement programs that were derided in the day as being the harbinger of the end of Western civilization. You'll excuse me if I take your fear mongering over Obamacare with a metric ton of salt.


Apparently, you seem to to have memory retention problems. I have stated before that I didn't vote for Bush and don't look to his presidency as the right answer to this nation's ills. Also, for the record I am not old enough to qualify for SS or medicare. So it seems just like B.O. and his administration you tend to make shit up as you go along.
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
User avatar
Boomchild
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 7129
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 6:10 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby Boomchild » Fri Nov 01, 2013 6:40 pm

Boomchild wrote:
The_Noble_Cause wrote:Blah blah blah. So says two dick whistling ex-Bush voters who willingly rely on both Soc Security and Medicare - two entitlement programs that were derided in the day as being the harbinger of the end of Western civilization. You'll excuse me if I take your fear mongering over Obamacare with a metric ton of salt.


Apparently, you seem to to have memory retention problems. I have stated before that I didn't vote for Bush and don't look to his presidency as the right answer to this nation's ills. Also, for the record I am not old enough to qualify for SS or medicare. So it seems just like B.O. and his administration you tend to make shit up as you go along. Which is common for followers of radical idealists.
Last edited by Boomchild on Fri Nov 01, 2013 6:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
User avatar
Boomchild
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 7129
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 6:10 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby verslibre » Fri Nov 01, 2013 6:40 pm

Boomchild wrote:The difference is that none of these past POTUS were considered to be "The Anointed One" so it was OK to poke fun or goof on them. This POTUS is different. There is so much abuse in the assumption that if you disagree with B.O. on anything then it has to be racially motivated. They should start labeling situations like this the "Al Sharpton Effect".


If Dana Carvey could spoof Bush Sr., and if Darrell Hammond could spoof Clinton, and if Will Ferrell could spoof Dubya, and if Keegan-Michael Key could spoof B.O. (on MADTV)...then what's the problem?
"Heer's ta swimmen wid bowlegged wimmen!"
verslibre
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 6873
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:55 pm

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby Boomchild » Fri Nov 01, 2013 6:51 pm

verslibre wrote:If Dana Carvey could spoof Bush Sr., and if Darrell Hammond could spoof Clinton, and if Will Ferrell could spoof Dubya, and if Keegan-Michael Key could spoof B.O. (on MADTV)...then what's the problem?


That's a very good question. The reason we get this type of reaction is because they don't have answers to things that are being pointed out and being made fun of. Therefore their fall back position is to demonize the person poking fun.
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
User avatar
Boomchild
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 7129
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 6:10 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby Boomchild » Fri Nov 01, 2013 8:07 pm

Top Hospitals Opt Out of Obamacare
"Americans who sign up for insurance on the state exchanges may not have access to the nation's top hospitals, Watchdog.org reports."

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/ho ... -obamacare
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
User avatar
Boomchild
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 7129
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 6:10 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby The Sushi Hunter » Sat Nov 02, 2013 2:56 am

Fact Finder wrote:The website launched on a Tuesday. Publicly, the government said there were 4.7 million unique visits in the first 24 hours. But at a meeting Wednesday morning, the war room notes say "six enrollments have occurred so far."


Those are just the one's who actually have a job and pay into the system. Everyone else who signed up has an OBozophone.
I've never eaten a piece of sushi I didn't thoroughly enjoy.
User avatar
The Sushi Hunter
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4881
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 11:54 am
Location: Hidden Valley, Japan

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby slucero » Sat Nov 02, 2013 6:10 am

More GM channel stuffing..

GM "Stuffs Channels" At Fastest Pace In Its Post-Bankruptcy History; Volt Sales Plunge 32%

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-11-0 ... sales-plun

Moments ago, General Motors reported its October domestic car deliveries number, which at 226,402, was 31K better, or 15.7% higher, than the 195,674 from a year earlier, better than the 7.9% increase expected. Unlike the ISM, GM was quick to point the counterfactual, namely that sales picked up because, you guessed it, confidence returned once the government reopened in the second half of the month. "Chevrolet, Cadillac and Buick-GMC all performed well in the month, and the sales tempo really picked up after the government shutdown ended,” said Kurt McNeil, vice president, U.S. sales operations. Apparently, like houses, Americans just can't buy cars if the government isn't around to hold their hand.

Joking aside, one thing that was not mentioned in the otherwise blemish-free GM sales report, is that the biggest reason for the surge in GM "deliveries" was because the car company once again resorted to that old faithful gimmick: dealer channel stuffing. At 728K units in dealer inventory at month end, or 87 days supply, this was the highest number since March 2013, but far more disturbing, the monthly rate of increase was the highest since GM's emergency as a "new" company from bankruptcy. And just to complete the picture, combining the past two month channel stuffing, we get 99,168 GM cars parked at dealer lots: the biggest two month jump in the restructured company's history.

Image

Last but not least, it seems that the electric car dream may be alive for Tesla (if only until something cooler and more expensive appears), but is all but dead for GM after a 32% plunge in Chevy Volt deliveries. If only GM could somehow charge 50% more for the car and make it a little more spontaneously combustible, all would be well.

Image



Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.


~Albert Einstein
User avatar
slucero
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 5444
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 1:17 pm

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby Memorex » Sat Nov 02, 2013 7:30 am

One news story today:

Is there a new scientific consensus forming around global cooling? That’s what environmentalist Lawrence Solomon writes in the Financial Post, citing the fact that solar activity is decreasing at the fastest rate as anytime in the last 10,000 years.

“Now an increasing number of scientists are swinging back to the thinking of the 1960s and 1970s,” Solomon writes. “The global cooling hypothesis may have been right after all, they say. Earth may be entering a new Little Ice Age.”

Solomon adds that Columbia University’s George Kukla — who warned the U.S. government about the dangers of global cooling in 1972 — postulated that “[g]lobal warming always precedes an ice age… The warming we saw in the 1980s and 1990s, in other words, was expected all along, much as the calm before the storm.”


And then another:

President Obama issued an executive order Friday directing a government-wide effort to boost preparation in states and local communities for the impact of global warming.
The action orders federal agencies to work with states to build “resilience” against major storms and other weather extremes. For example, the president’s order directs that infrastructure projects like bridges and flood control take into consideration climate conditions of the future, which might require building structures larger or stronger — and likely at a higher price tag.

“The impacts of climate change — including an increase in prolonged periods of excessively high temperatures, more heavy downpours, an increase in wildfires, more severe droughts, permafrost thawing, ocean acidification and sea-level rise — are already affecting communities, natural resources, ecosystems, economies and public health across the nation,” the presidential order said. “The federal government must build on recent progress and pursue new strategies to improve the nation’s preparedness and resilience.”
There’s no estimate of how much the additional planning will cost. Natural disasters including Superstorm Sandy cost the U.S. economy more than $100 billion in 2012, according to the administration.


Has anyone gotten the memo that this has been the quietest year on record for disasters?
User avatar
Memorex
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3570
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:30 pm

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Sun Nov 03, 2013 12:07 am

Boomchild wrote:Apparently, you seem to to have memory retention problems. I have stated before that I didn't vote for Bush and don't look to his presidency as the right answer to this nation's ills.

Get real. Every dribbling Conservatard in this thread would gladly cast the lever for a third Cheney administration. You know it. Stop lying to yourself. Romney was advocating more of the same, and you guys still lapped it up like creamy shit on a shingle.

Boomchild wrote:Also, for the record I am not old enough to qualify for SS or medicare.

But I bet your parents or people you know are. Why don't you have the courage of your convictions and tell them to stop being dirty lazy mite-infested "moochers" and to stop abetting the welfare state? When you DO qualify for these Democratic programs, will you turn them down? C'mon. Be a man.

Boomchild wrote:Which is common for followers of radical idealists.

Yea, dude. Starting proxy wars in Syria and Libya and following the neo-con status quo is really the hallmark of a "radical." :roll: Let's think: FDR created the WPA, Soc Security, FDIC, CCC, and the TVA. Think fast - how many government programs has our radical in chief created? Even his landmark legislation, Obamacare, leaves things in the hands of the HMO executives and shareholders. I guess a giant sweetheart subsidy to the insurance industry, hand written by the industry, is what passes for "radicalism" in 2013. You are a clueless pawn of corporate power.
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16055
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby AR » Sun Nov 03, 2013 12:16 am

I have so far been able to keep my plan. Probably because it is Maryland state employee benefits package. Full coverage in network no deductible.

This is my plan monthly through my agency (family coverage)

Health: $158.57
Prescription: $80.26
Dental $43.6

If it ever gets taken away or premiums raised so others can get coverage I will be fucking pissed.
User avatar
AR
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 8530
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 10:21 am

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby Memorex » Sun Nov 03, 2013 12:50 am

AR wrote:I have so far been able to keep my plan. Probably because it is Maryland state employee benefits package. Full coverage in network no deductible.

This is my plan monthly through my agency (family coverage)

Health: $158.57
Prescription: $80.26
Dental $43.6

If it ever gets taken away or premiums raised so others can get coverage I will be fucking pissed.


I'm not sure what to think of this. I think there are a couple points to it.

My insurance currently costs much more than yours. So the assumption I have is that as a state employee, the tax payers are paying a big portion of your coverage. My employer pays a portion of mine, but it's a private company and they apparently pay much less than yours. And i have many deductibles. So are you benefiting from the tax payers of MD, but would not want the same for someone else? That doesn't seem right.

I agree that it sucks that everyone will have to pay more to help everyone else, but that only sucks for two reasons. Freeloaders and coverage. There will be a tremendous number of people being covered for free that could go out and work for it, but choose not to. That blows. And I will be forced to have coverage I may not want. Currently I have a wide ranging family on my plan, from me, my wife, adult kids, young kids, etc. So the fact that my insurance may cover a multitude of things right now is fine. But what about when it's just me and my wife and the younger boys. I will be forced to have maternity coverage, contraception, etc., even though I don't need it. And so I am paying much more than I ever would otherwise.

If everyone had to pay a little more, and all the fraud and abuse could go away, and people were paying for plans that fit their needs, I'd feel a whole lot better about it.
User avatar
Memorex
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3570
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:30 pm

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby slucero » Sun Nov 03, 2013 11:26 am

The_Noble_Cause wrote: Get real. Every dribbling Conservatard in this thread would gladly cast the lever for a third Cheney administration. You know it. Stop lying to yourself. Romney was advocating more of the same, and you guys still lapped it up like creamy shit on a shingle.


interesting..

I voted for Obama in 2008 (because McCain would have been worse)..

Shit on Romney in this thread (because I though Romney OR Obama would have been worse..)

and voted for Gary Johnson in 2010


And I consider myself an Independent conservative

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.


~Albert Einstein
User avatar
slucero
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 5444
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 1:17 pm

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby steveo777 » Sun Nov 03, 2013 1:46 pm

slucero wrote:
The_Noble_Cause wrote: Get real. Every dribbling Conservatard in this thread would gladly cast the lever for a third Cheney administration. You know it. Stop lying to yourself. Romney was advocating more of the same, and you guys still lapped it up like creamy shit on a shingle.


interesting..

I voted for Obama in 2008 (because McCain would have been worse)..

Shit on Romney in this thread (because I though Romney OR Obama would have been worse..)

and voted for Gary Johnson in 2010


And I consider myself an Independent conservative


We all make mistakes. I give people a pass for voting for Obama once, but twice? I'm amazed at how many people still have their nose in his ass and the continued worship, no matter how many times he proves he has fucked up policies, only aimed at hurting America. His continued lies should make any person with any level of intelligence or integrity turn away from him. People who sing his praises are immediately discarded as people who don't support America and condone a liar in the white house, as far as I'm concerned. His whole last campaign was predicated on lie after lie and people actually bought in.
User avatar
steveo777
MP3
 
Posts: 11311
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 12:15 pm
Location: Citrus Heights, Ca

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby Boomchild » Sun Nov 03, 2013 6:47 pm

steveo777 wrote:We all make mistakes. I give people a pass for voting for Obama once, but twice? I'm amazed at how many people still have their nose in his ass and the continued worship, no matter how many times he proves he has fucked up policies, only aimed at hurting America. His continued lies should make any person with any level of intelligence or integrity turn away from him. People who sing his praises are immediately discarded as people who don't support America and condone a liar in the white house, as far as I'm concerned. His whole last campaign was predicated on lie after lie and people actually bought in.


These people that you are referring to are the ones that are getting governmental support and will continue to support the ones that are for these programs. As long as the support keeps coming they will continue to support them.
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
User avatar
Boomchild
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 7129
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 6:10 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

PreviousNext

Return to Snowmobiles For The Sahara

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

cron