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 Memorex » Tue Oct 29, 2013 8:59 am

Fact Finder wrote:
Memorex wrote:
Fact Finder wrote:Obama Promises 19 Times To Lower Health Insurance Premiums by $2,500 Per Year


http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_o65vMUk5s ... o65vMUk5so


I wonder if anyone in the United States actually believed this or the lie about keeping your insurance. I mean if someone was that blind, maybe they should be taxed the most because they obviously can't do simple math equations. We can tell them we are taxing them at 10% but really take 90%. They'd have no idea because if they bought those previous two claims, then clearly they are easy targets.

I know many people probably defended those statements and repeated them as fact, but deep down I seriously doubt anyone is that naive.


Hell yeah a lot of people believed it. There are probably arguments for and against right on this thread 300 or 400 pages ago. :lol: Liberals always steal your hat and then help ya look for it.


I know some argued it or repeated it. But I doubt they believed it. If they did. I'd love to hear their logic. The only answer that they could give is "Because Obama told me so". Nothing else would make sense.
User avatar
Memorex
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3570
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:30 pm

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby slucero » Tue Oct 29, 2013 11:34 am

Fact Finder wrote:For slucero.....


(Reuters) - Gunmen stole $55 million in a heist on a van carrying local and foreign currency for the Libyan central bank on Monday, state news agency Lana said.

Ten armed men stopped the van in the coastal city of Sirte carrying 53 million Libyan dinars ($43.49 million) and foreign currency worth $12 million, Lana said. The van was coming from the airport where the cash had been flown in from Tripoli for the local central bank branch.

"The robbing is a catastrophe not just for Sirte but the whole of Libya," Abdel-Fattah Mohammed, head of Sirte council, told Reuters. He said the local authority had asked several times for better security for such transports.

The Libyan government has been struggling since the 2011 ouster of Muammar Gaddafi to assert control of a country brimming with armed militias, gangs and radical Islamists.

The OPEC country's oil exports fell to less than 10 percent of capacity on Monday after protesters shut down ports and oilfields in the west. Similar strikes over pay or political demands have already paralyzed most of the eastern oil ports.



http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/ ... X920131028



wow.. talk about a powder keg...

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 slucero » Tue Oct 29, 2013 11:44 am

check out just how large healthcare.gov actually is... (at the bottom)
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/v ... s-of-code/

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 » Tue Oct 29, 2013 1:14 pm

In a pointed statement issued today, Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Dianne Feinstein said she was "totally opposed" to gathering intelligence on foreign leaders and said it was "a big problem" if President Obama didn't know the NSA was monitoring the phone calls of German Chancellor Angela Merkel. She said the United States should only be spying on foreign leaders with hostile countries, or in an emergency, and even then the president should personally approve the surveillance.


This really pisses me off. It's ok that we spy on our own citizens, but not foreign leaders? Fuck her.
User avatar
Memorex
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3570
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:30 pm

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby steveo777 » Tue Oct 29, 2013 1:42 pm

Memorex wrote:
In a pointed statement issued today, Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Dianne Feinstein said she was "totally opposed" to gathering intelligence on foreign leaders and said it was "a big problem" if President Obama didn't know the NSA was monitoring the phone calls of German Chancellor Angela Merkel. She said the United States should only be spying on foreign leaders with hostile countries, or in an emergency, and even then the president should personally approve the surveillance.


This really pisses me off. It's ok that we spy on our own citizens, but not foreign leaders? Fuck her.


She's a senile old evil bitch that just needs to go away.
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 slucero » Tue Oct 29, 2013 4:35 pm

Obamacare jacks up her insurance
By CAROL MARIN October 25, 2013 8:50PM

http://www.suntimes.com/news/marin/2335 ... rance.html


Sue Klinkhamer has a problem.

It’s called Obamacare.

And the irony of her situation is not lost on her. In a recent email addressed to her former boss, Illinois Congressman Bill Foster, and other Democratic colleagues, she wrote:

“I spent two years defending Obamacare. I had constituents scream at me, spit at me and call me names that I can’t put in print. The congressman was not re-elected in 2010 mainly because of the anti-Obamacare anger. When the congressman was not re-elected, I also (along with the rest of our staff) lost my job. I was upset that because of the health care issue, I didn’t have a job anymore but still defended Obamacare because it would make health care available to everyone at, what I assumed, would be an affordable price. I have now learned that I was wrong. Very wrong.

For Klinkhamer, 60, President Obama’s oft-repeated words ring in her ears: “If you like your health plan, you will keep it.”

Well, possibly not.

When Klinkhamer lost her congressional job, she had to buy an individual policy on the open market.

Three years ago, it was $225 a month with a $2,500 deductible. Each year it went up a little to, as of Sept. 1, $291 with a $3,500 deductible. Then, a few weeks ago, she got a letter.

“Blue Cross,” she said, “stated my current coverage would expire on Dec. 31, and here are my options: I can have a plan with similar benefits for $647.12 [or] I can have a plan with similar [but higher] pricing for $322.32 but with a $6,500 deductible.”

She went on, “Blue Cross also tells me that if I don’t pick one of the options, they will just assume I want the one for $647. ... Someone please tell me why my premium in January will be $356 more than in December?”

The sticker shock Klinkhamer is experiencing is something millions of individual policyholders are reeling from having gotten similar letters from their private insurers.

As UCLA Public Policy expert Dr. Gerald F. Kominski told CBS News this week, “Half of the 14 million people who buy insurance on their own are not going to keep the policies they previously had.”

Part of the reason those policies will be more expensive, he explained, is that Obamacare is requiring insurers to offer “a better product with better protection.”

Congressman Foster, Klinkhamer’s former boss who has since been returned to Congress, told me by phone Friday, “A very large number of people are very grateful” for Obamacare.

No doubt about that.

But right now Sue Klinkhamer, no novice to government or public policy, isn’t among them.

“I am a Democrat and I believe in health care for all,” she said.

“And I was excited that previously uninsured people could now get insurance on the open market. But this is not affordable to me.”

Klinkhamer suggests renaming the Affordable Care Act.

“Just call it,” she said dryly, “the Available Care Act.”


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 Boomchild » Tue Oct 29, 2013 4:56 pm

Memorex wrote:
I wonder if anyone in the United States actually believed this or the lie about keeping your insurance. I mean if someone was that blind, maybe they should be taxed the most because they obviously can't do simple math equations. We can tell them we are taxing them at 10% but really take 90%. They'd have no idea because if they bought those previous two claims, then clearly they are easy targets.

I know many people probably defended those statements and repeated them as fact, but deep down I seriously doubt anyone is that naive.


As far as the statement about keeping the coverage you have, it must true. Today, Carney backed up this statement by B.O.. Just a "slightly" revised version of it. 8)
"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 » Tue Oct 29, 2013 4:58 pm

slucero wrote:say hello to the new conservative message for 2014...

"Obama Lied"


I see it more like this "Obama Lied and now Grandma Died"
"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 » Tue Oct 29, 2013 5:07 pm

I haven't had a chance to research this yet but, I heard a report today that some in the liberal press are already trying to pin Obamacare on Republicans. A statement was made that Obamacare actually is the Republican's plan because Democrats wanted a single payer system but had to compromise on what is now Obamacare. Got to love it, their priming the pump already.
"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 slucero » Tue Oct 29, 2013 5:41 pm

Boomchild wrote:I haven't had a chance to research this yet but, I heard a report today that some in the liberal press are already trying to pin Obamacare on Republicans. A statement was made that Obamacare actually is the Republican's plan because Democrats wanted a single payer system but had to compromise on what is now Obamacare. Got to love it, their priming the pump already.



Al the Repubs are gonna do is tell them to find a single Republican who voted for it..

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 » Tue Oct 29, 2013 10:48 pm

Boomchild wrote:I haven't had a chance to research this yet but, I heard a report today that some in the liberal press are already trying to pin Obamacare on Republicans. A statement was made that Obamacare actually is the Republican's plan because Democrats wanted a single payer system but had to compromise on what is now Obamacare. Got to love it, their priming the pump already.


? This is not news. The individual mandate is a leftover from Romneycare which is a leftover from The Heritage Foundation and was supported by everyone from Dole to Bush Sr. Funny how the original paper has been scrubbed off Heritage's website. Yes, believe it or not, once upon a time, the GOP actually tried to solve the nation's problem.

http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... or-america
"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 » Wed Oct 30, 2013 12:28 am

Fact Finder wrote:
Lets get the facts straight shall we?

Stuart Butler’s USA Today op-ed

Last October, prompted by a Wall Street Journal piece by James Taranto, I recounted how the Heritage Foundation was once the leading conservative advocate of the individual mandate. In response to various articles of this stripe, Stuart has published an op-ed in USA Today, in which he describes as a “myth” the idea that Heritage invented the mandate. “I headed Heritage’s health work for 30 years,” he writes. “And make no mistake: Heritage and I actively oppose the individual mandate, including in an amicus brief filed in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court.” He notes that his proposal struck a contrast with Hillarycare, and that Milton Friedman also called for an individual mandate:

The confusion arises from the fact that 20 years ago, I held the view that as a technical matter, some form of requirement to purchase insurance was needed in a near-universal insurance market to avoid massive instability through “adverse selection” (insurers avoiding bad risks and healthy people declining coverage). At that time, President Clinton was proposing a universal health care plan, and Heritage and I devised a viable alternative.

My view was shared at the time by many conservative experts, including American Enterprise Institute (AEI) scholars, as well as most non-conservative analysts. Even libertarian-conservative icon Milton Friedman, in a 1991 Wall Street Journal article, advocated replacing Medicare and Medicaid “with a requirement that every U.S. family unit have a major medical insurance policy.”

My idea was hardly new. Heritage did not invent the individual mandate.

Stuart says that Heritage’s version of the individual mandate contained “three critical features” that distinguish it from Obamacare’s mandate: (1) it required people to buy catastrophic coverage, rather than more expensive comprehensive coverage; (2) it was primarily financed “through the carrot of a generous health credit or voucher…rather than by a stick”; (3) Heritage’s mandate “was actually the loss of certain tax breaks…not a legal requirement.”

In fairness to Heritage’s critics, it’s worth pointing out that: (1) Heritage proposed the individual mandate in 1989, well before Bill and Hillary Clinton were on anyone’s political radar screen; (2) Obamacare and Romneycare both finance individual insurance purchases through generous vouchers (via the exchanges); (3) Obamacare’s mandate is “enforced,” weakly, by withholding tax refunds.

Why has Heritage changed its mind?

Stuart goes on to give four reasons why he and Heritage no longer support the mandate: (1) a mandate isn’t necessary because “the new field of behavioral economics taught me that default auto-enrollment in employer or nonemployer insurance plans can lead many people to buy coverage without a requirement;” (2) “advances in ‘risk-adjustment’ tools are improving the stability of voluntary insurance,” as illustrated by the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program; (3) Obamacare’s mandate forces people to buy comprehensive coverage rather than catastrophic coverage; (4) Obamacare’s mandate is unconstitutional.

Stuart, of course, is perfectly entitled to change his mind, and the reasons he gives for having done so are ones I’d agree with. (I would also point out, as I do repeatedly in this space, that the “free rider” problem is grossly exaggerated, and that an individual mandate actually increases free-riding.)

Many conservatives opposed the individual mandate

The fact that many prominent Republicans and conservatives supported the mandate does not, by any stretch, mean that conservatives did as a whole. Peter Ferrara, a Heritage Foundation alumnus, takes credit for “killing” the Heritage plan after he left the think-tank.

Ferrara correctly points out that a key flaw with the individual mandate is that the government is then required to define what types of insurance qualify for the mandate, and government will always be tempted to require costly, comprehensive insurance:



Lmao. You may actually want to try reading an article before you brainlessly copy n' post it. The article above CONFIRMS that the idea of an individual mandate and compelling people to buy private insurance had roots in the Heritage Foundation. Not sure why anyone would dispute this - unless they were an intellectually dishonest scumbag.
"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 » Wed Oct 30, 2013 12:35 am

Fact Finder wrote:I also somehow doubt that a Conservative Health plan would have caused this kind of mess...


I guess we'll never know, considering that modern day "Conservatives" (which are little more than corporate neo-christian fascists) have no health plan - besides tort reform, which means strip Americans of their right of due process. And in every state that's been tried, healthcare costs went up. At the end of the day, Americans would rather have a president try to address their needs/issues and fail spectacularly, than listen to your tired old bullshit about the magic of the free market. Get off the fucking stage, you bum.
"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 Sushi Hunter » Wed Oct 30, 2013 1:46 am

Boomchild wrote:I haven't had a chance to research this yet but, I heard a report today that some in the liberal press are already trying to pin Obamacare on Republicans. A statement was made that Obamacare actually is the Republican's plan because Democrats wanted a single payer system but had to compromise on what is now Obamacare. Got to love it, their priming the pump already.


Yep, friends of mine brought this up a day or so ago during conversation. Doesn't surprise us a bit about what those idiots will do when their deals go sour. The_Abnormal_Flaws is prime example.
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 » Wed Oct 30, 2013 3:11 am

Top Dem Admits: ‘We Knew’
By Jonathan Strong
October 29, 2013 11:56 AM

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/36 ... han-strong

House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer conceded to reporters today that Democrats knew people would not be able to keep their current health care plans under Obamacare and expressed qualified contrition for President Obama’s repeated vows to the contrary.

“We knew that there would be some policies that would not qualify and therefore people would be required to get more extensive coverage,” Hoyer said in response to a question from National Review.

Asked by another reporter how repeated statements by Obama to the contrary weren’t “misleading,” Hoyer said “I don’t think the message was wrong. I think the message was accurate. It was not precise enough…[it] should have been caveated with – ‘assuming you have a policy that in fact does do what the bill is designed to do.’”

Hoyer noted that people losing access to their current plans are mostly in the individual market, which is a small segment of the overall market. He also argued requiring those plans to follow new mandates and regulations was important for ensuring those plans included “adequate coverage so the public would not have to be on the hook for serious illnesses or other illnesses.”

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 Sushi Hunter » Wed Oct 30, 2013 6:28 am

Fact Finder wrote:...Adding fuel to the fire, Congress has exempted themselves from the monstrous overhaul and has a massive subsidy program designed that puts the burden of insurance costs for the poor on the middle and upper class.


Wow, that's wonderful.

It's a great day today.

Meanwhile, it will be quite interesting to find out exactly who "Adriana" the glitch girl turns out to be and where they got her picture.
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 » Wed Oct 30, 2013 8:23 am

US swallowed $9.7 billion loss on General Motors bailout


http://www.cnbc.com/id/101153187


The U.S. government has booked a loss of $9.7 billion on the nearly $50 billion bailout of U.S. automaker General Motors, according to a quarterly report to Congress on Tuesday.

In 2009, the U.S.Treasury extended $49.5 billion in loans to GM in exchange for $2.1 billion in preferred stock and a 60.8 percent equity stake.

Treasury has since whittled down its stake in GM through a series of stock sales. Those sales have all taken place below the price Treasury needed to break even on its GM investment, resulting in the loss, according to Tuesday's report from the Special Inspector General overseeing the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program.

Treasury has sold its preferred stock and reduced its equity stake to 7.3 percent. Treasury owns 101.3 million GM shares as of September 26, the most recent date available.

The U.S. government has said it plans to sell its remaining GM shares by April 2014. Some analysts said Treasury could even unwind its position by year end.

The exit of Treasury will eliminate the stigma of government ownership that has hovered over the automaker since the bailout, which prompted some critics to dub the company "Government Motors."

--By Reuters

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 » Wed Oct 30, 2013 1:34 pm

The Sushi Hunter wrote:Doesn't surprise us a bit about what those idiots will do when their deals go sour. The_Abnormal_Flaws is prime example.


Obamacare is compiled from the junkyard of abandoned GOP ideas. The fact that you are unaware of this, speaks volumes about your own intellectual incuriosity, and willingness to support a political cause sight unseen. It begs the question, what other skeletons in the GOP closet are you unaware of? And if you learned of them, would it change a thing? The Iraq War already proved that most Conservatives are willing to accept wholesale slaughter abroad and McCarythite intimidation tactics at home. In any case, tracing the historical GOP footprint of the "individual mandate" is not giving cover to Obamacare's failure. It's just stating a well-known fact, you big dope.
"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 » Wed Oct 30, 2013 2:36 pm

The_Noble_Cause wrote:
The Sushi Hunter wrote:Doesn't surprise us a bit about what those idiots will do when their deals go sour. The_Abnormal_Flaws is prime example.


Obamacare is compiled from the junkyard of abandoned GOP ideas. The fact that you are unaware of this, speaks volumes about your own intellectual incuriosity, and willingness to support a political cause sight unseen. It begs the question, what other skeletons in the GOP closet are you unaware of? And if you learned of them, would it change a thing? The Iraq War already proved that most Conservatives are willing to accept wholesale slaughter abroad and McCarythite intimidation tactics at home. In any case, tracing the historical GOP footprint of the "individual mandate" is not giving cover to Obamacare's failure. It's just stating a well-known fact, you big dope.


Fuck head, Obamacare passed without a single republican vote. It was a grab bag.....you know, you have to vote on it before you can find out what's in it. You typical liberals want to now blame a failure of something that was pushed by the democrats, on the GOP? That's rich.
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 » Wed Oct 30, 2013 4:58 pm

The Sushi Hunter wrote:
Boomchild wrote:I haven't had a chance to research this yet but, I heard a report today that some in the liberal press are already trying to pin Obamacare on Republicans. A statement was made that Obamacare actually is the Republican's plan because Democrats wanted a single payer system but had to compromise on what is now Obamacare. Got to love it, their priming the pump already.


Yep, friends of mine brought this up a day or so ago during conversation. Doesn't surprise us a bit about what those idiots will do when their deals go sour. The_Abnormal_Flaws is prime example.


It's just so ridiculous. It's the the dems that are\were flying their freak flag and ramming Obamacare down the throats of the American public. Just as soon as it appears that the system may fall flat on it's face they attempt to act as if this wasn't their idea. Got to love 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 » Wed Oct 30, 2013 5:06 pm

So Obama now wants everybody to join "Team Obamacare". Whose up for that? I'm thinking of putting out a line of "Team Obamacare" t-shirts, hats, mugs, bumper stickers, cell phone protectors,pens, posters etc.. All made to eco friendly standards of course. The fools and drones will eat this up.
"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 steveo777 » Wed Oct 30, 2013 6:15 pm

Boomchild wrote:So Obama now wants everybody to join "Team Obamacare". Whose up for that? I'm thinking of putting out a line of "Team Obamacare" t-shirts, hats, mugs, bumper stickers, cell phone protectors,pens, posters etc.. All made to eco friendly standards of course. The fools and drones will eat this up.


Might be a great idea....make our wealth on the back of sheep, while they are still alive. Hey, that's just being capitalists.....you know, the thing they hate, but we could get rich on it....then they would blame us BECAUSE we took their own shit and sold it back to them. OMG!!! :mrgreen:

*Boomchild, you're a genius! ;)
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 Sushi Hunter » Thu Oct 31, 2013 1:17 am

The_Noble_Cause wrote:Obamacare is compiled from the junkyard of abandoned GOP ideas.


Not all ideas are good ones. If what you say is correct, sure it started as an idea but was scrapped because it was determined that it wasn't such a good idea.

So what you have suggested is that OBozo took an idea that was determined not be a good idea after all and spent millions upon millions of tax dollars to set it up and force it onto the working American citizens anyways? And sidekick morons such as Nancy Pelosi joined in on the scam. That right there speaks volumes on how incompetent and pathetic the whole fucking Bozo clan, his sidekick clown posse in office and all the individuals who voted and support them really are.

Thanks for clarifying who picked up and ran with an idea that was already determined not to be a good idea at all. At least the GOP determined it was a bad idea before spending what OBozo did on it and forced it onto the American citizens. I got it now.... OBozo got the Nobel Peace Prize for.......re-inventing the wheel while living in the Whitehouse.

Glad you clarified this, I needed something sweet with my coffee this morning.
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 trekman » Thu Oct 31, 2013 4:48 am

Because of Obamacare and Amnesty for Millions of Illegal Aliens combined U.S. Employers will have No incentive to keep LEGAL Americans as employees. And when employers will only keep the illegals where will some Legals go to survive? The government. They will become government dependent, because they cant get jobs any longer and this is what that POS Obama is hoping for. Government Dependency = More Votes. If that/this continues and weve heard this before (agree or not) Big Government/Democrats Will probably remain the dominate political force in America for many decades. :(

You need to watch this. The whole thing. Then tell me what I said isnt true.

http://youtu.be/XoWlJ77pMyg
Music Makes Life Better!!
User avatar
trekman
45 RPM
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2003 6:10 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby slucero » Thu Oct 31, 2013 9:11 am

interesting take on things..

Obamacare’s Fatal Flaw
http://www.project-syndicate.org/print/ ... -feldstein

Martin Feldstein
Professor of Economics at Harvard University and President Emeritus of the National Bureau of Economic Research

29 October 2013

CAMBRIDGE – Obamacare, officially known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, is the health-insurance program enacted by US President Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats over the unanimous opposition of congressional Republicans. It was designed to cover those Americans without private or public health insurance – about 15% of the US population.

Opponents of Obamacare have failed to stop it in the courts and, more recently, in Congress. The program was therefore formally launched on October 1. Although it has been hampered by a wide range of computer problems and other technical difficulties, the program is likely to be operating by sometime in 2014.

The big question is whether it will function as intended and survive permanently. There is a serious risk that it will not.

The potentially fatal flaw in Obamacare is the very same feature that appeals most to its supporters: the ability of even those with a serious preexisting health condition to buy insurance at the standard premium.

That feature will encourage those who are not ill to become or remain uninsured until they have a potentially costly medical diagnosis. The resulting shift in enrollment away from low-cost healthy patients to those with predictably high costs will raise insurance companies’ cost per insured person, driving up the premiums that they must charge. As premiums rise, even more relatively healthy individuals will be encouraged to forego insurance until illness strikes, causing average costs and premiums to rise further.

With this in mind, Obamacare’s drafters made the purchase of insurance “mandatory.” More specifically, employers with more than 50 employees will be required after 2014 to purchase an approved insurance policy for their “full-time” employees. Individuals who do not receive insurance from their employers are required to purchase insurance on their own, with low-income buyers receiving a government subsidy.

But neither the employer mandate nor the personal requirement is likely to prove effective. Employers can avoid the mandate by reducing an employee’s workweek to less than 30 hours (which the law defines as full-time employment). But even for full-time employees, firms can opt to pay a relatively small fine rather than provide insurance. That fine is $2,000 per employee, much less than the current average premium of $16,000 for employer-provided family policies.

Not providing insurance and paying the fine is a particularly attractive option for a firm if its employees have incomes that entitle them to the government subsidies (which are now available to anyone whose income is below four times the poverty level). Rather than incur the cost of the premium for an approved policy, a smart employer can pay the fine for not providing insurance and increase employees’ pay by enough so that they have more spendable cash after purchasing the subsidized insurance policy. Even after both payments, employers can be better off financially. News reports indicate that many employers are already taking such steps.

But the biggest danger to Obamacare’s survival is that many individuals who do not receive insurance from their employer will choose not to insure themselves and will instead pay the fine of just 1% of income (rising permanently after 2015 to 2.5%). The preferred alternative for these individuals is to wait to buy insurance until they are ill and are facing large medical bills.

That wait-to-insure strategy makes sense if the medical condition is a chronic disease like diabetes or a condition requiring surgery, like cancer or a hernia.
In either case, the individual would be able to purchase insurance after he or she receives the diagnosis.

But what about conditions like a heart attack or injuries sustained in an automobile accident? In those cases, the individual would not have time to purchase the health insurance that the law allows. If they are not insured in advance, they will face major hospital bills that could cause serious financial hardship or even cause them not to receive needed care. Anyone contemplating that prospect might choose to forego the wait-to-insure strategy and enroll immediately.

But private insurance companies could solve that problem by creating a new type of “emergency insurance” that would make enrolling now unnecessary and allow individuals to take advantage of the wait-to-insure option
. Such insurance would cover the costs that a patient would incur after a medical event that left no time to purchase the policies offered in the Obamacare insurance exchanges. Emergency insurance might also cover the cost of care until the “open enrollment” period for purchasing insurance at the end of each year (if political pressure does not lead to the repeal of that temporary barrier to insurance).

This type of insurance is very different from existing high-deductible policies. Given the very limited scope and unpredictable nature of the conditions that it would cover, the premium for such a policy would be very low. It would not satisfy the broad coverage requirements that Obamacare mandates, forcing individuals to pay the relatively small penalty for being uninsured and to incur the subsequent cost of buying a full policy if one is needed later. But the combination of emergency insurance and the wait-to-insure strategy would still be financially preferable for many individuals, and the number would grow as premiums are driven higher.

Employers with a large number of full-time employees could encourage their existing insurance companies to create the emergency policies. They might even choose to self-insure the emergency risk for their employees.

The “wait-to-insure” option could cause the number of insured individuals to decline rapidly as premiums rise for those who remain insured. In this scenario, the unraveling of Obamacare could lead to renewed political pressure from the left for a European-style single-payer health-care system.


But it might also provide an opportunity for a better plan: eliminate the current enormously expensive tax subsidy for employer-financed insurance and use the revenue savings to subsidize everyone to buy comprehensive private insurance policies with income-related copayments. That restructuring of insurance would simultaneously protect individuals, increase labor mobility, and help to control health-care costs.





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 » Thu Oct 31, 2013 10:38 am

There goes that math again.
User avatar
Memorex
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3570
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:30 pm

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby trekman » Thu Oct 31, 2013 11:27 am

Fact Finder wrote:
trekman wrote:Because of Obamacare and Amnesty for Millions of Illegal Aliens combined U.S. Employers will have No incentive to keep LEGAL Americans as employees. And when employers will only keep the illegals where will some Legals go to survive? The government. They will become government dependent, because they cant get jobs any longer and this is what that POS Obama is hoping for. Government Dependency = More Votes. If that/this continues and weve heard this before (agree or not) Big Government/Democrats Will probably remain the dominate political force in America for many decades. :(

You need to watch this. The whole thing. Then tell me what I said isnt true.

http://youtu.be/XoWlJ77pMyg



Wow!

It's called Cloward-Piven Strategy folks...you can look it up. It's alive and in action as we speak.


Agreed!
Music Makes Life Better!!
User avatar
trekman
45 RPM
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2003 6:10 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Thu Oct 31, 2013 12:35 pm

steveo777 wrote:Fuck head, Obamacare passed without a single republican vote.


Oh please. The Japanese could strike us at Pearl Harbor and the GOP would block Obama's declaration of war. You're officially a fucking moron.
"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 » Thu Oct 31, 2013 3:36 pm

The_Noble_Cause wrote:
steveo777 wrote:Fuck head, Obamacare passed without a single republican vote.


Oh please. The Japanese could strike us at Pearl Harbor and the GOP would block Obama's declaration of war. You're officially a fucking moron.


IS that all you fucking got, Nancy boy? :roll: :lol: :lol:
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 Memorex » Thu Oct 31, 2013 4:49 pm

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.
User avatar
Memorex
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3570
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:30 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Snowmobiles For The Sahara

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests