Government Shut Down

[Adak]

Originally Posted by tw

But again the facts get ignored. Wacko extremists caused those closures because they 'knew' closed memorials do not matter. They also knew (and openly say) that a default would not hurt the country. They feel; therefore it must be true. They even reasoned they were winning. Sounds much like Charlie Sheen and his victory.

That "wacko" was Obama, and no one else. Before he leaves office, he will have increased our national debt TWICE the amount of ALL THE PREVIOUS PRESIDENTS COMBINED.

Think about that.

What did they accomplish? Nothing. Why do they associate Obamacare with closed memorials? Adults acting like children. Such emotional reasoning is common among extremists. Another example of why only moderates are informed, educated, adult, and therefore patriotic.

In a recent study (by somebody at Yale, I was driving when I heard it) 45 out of 50 states will have HIGHER medical insurance costs, under Obamacare. 166% for women, and 194% for men, on average.

Does that sound like the cheaper health care insurance we were told we'd have with Obamacare, or does that sound like his BLATANT LIES, again?

To keep their disciples misinformed, they blamed Obama for closed memorials.

We tried to blame it on the Republicans like everything else, but it just wasn't believable!

Not the 30 wacko extremists who did nothing useful - to hype their political agenda. Eventually enough moderate Republicans had the balls to vote down their wacko peers. Then the memorials opened.

I remember the Washington Monument and other closed memorials being closed. I believe Lincoln's was barricaded by Clinton. But the WWII memorial - no, I never heard that one was closed. That's the only one that has the "honor flights" of old vets, coming in to pay respects, for the last time.

I get it - if Obama took a blowtorch to your dog, you'd find a way to blame the Conservatives for it - I get it.

The truth is, the whole shut down strategy was poorly thought out, by some Conservatives, who had promised their constituents they'd do everything they could to stop Obamacare. It was a brash thing to promise, but they felt that once it was promised, they HAD to do what they said they would.

There is a strong movement among the Conservatives, to put up strong Conservative challengers into the primaries, to challenge every neo, every RINO, every John McCain type Republican, currently in office - and get rid of them.

They have split the party with a lot of their votes, and in some cases, just plainly were bought out like street hoe's - Nebraska, Florida, Kentucky, etc. You can say that their votes weren't bought and paid for -- except that they were.

The days of the "Go along to get along", Republicans, are coming to an end, in response to the wholesale socialist agenda of the current Democratic party.

Since Obama can't manage to spend within the national income of the federal gov't, you have to wonder "where's the Treasury Dept getting the money to pay our bills?

Simple, from the large Trust Funds. And what Trust fund has been raided the most, because it has the most?

Social Security.

Oh, we got a big fat IOU in there, for whatever it's worth.

Have you heard anything about that in the major media?

Nope. When it's Obama, it's all good. ANY other President would have been BBQ'd long ago, to a cinder, for that kind of irresponsibility with our finances, and our future.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Adak

In a recent study (by somebody at Yale, I was driving when I heard it) 45 out of 50 states will have HIGHER medical insurance costs, under Obamacare. 166% for women, and 194% for men, on average.

So Rush Limbaugh once visited Yale. That proves it must be true. A perfect example of motivated reasoning.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by tw

So Rush Limbaugh once visited Yale. That proves it must be true. A perfect example of motivated reasoning.

My problem with listening to Limbaugh, is that he continually attacks the Democrats - not just their policies, but them, unnecessarily.

I admit some Democrats seem to be so far removed from reality that they become icons for inanity: Nancy Pelosi is one of them.

Or they're terrible hypocrites like Dianne Feinstein, who keeps pushing gun control bill after gun control bill - all the while having a concealed gun permit, and a handgun she keeps with her. Dianne has been around several violent crimes (Milk assassination, Jones' cult in Guyanna when she went to investigate it, her home was burglarized, etc.). But she acts like she's the ONLY person who was ever the victim of a violent crime! When she was in S.F. politics, you couldn't get a CCW permit in S.F., because of her.

But we need to try to stay focused on the issues and policies, not the human failings of our politicians (as people).

Why do you think there's been a backlash against Obamacare? HINT: It's not because the rates are too cheap!

No, I didn't catch the researchers name, but that kind of info is coming out more, as people try to sign up at the ACA exchanges in their state.

So far, less than 1% of those who go to the websites, actually enroll in Obamacare, at any level, according to the British papers.

Washington Post (Not a Conservative paper), had this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...45b_story.html

Read this balanced article, with analysis by Actuaries, and you'll know the good, and the bad news about rates under Obamacare. Some groups will do well - older, poorer, sicker, but healthier, younger, or those with a larger family, will do much worse.

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2013/10/...why_are_s.html

ACA doesn't allow a family to be insured as a group anymore. They have to rate each individual, and then add them all up to get the family's premium rate.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Adak

Washington Post (Not a Conservative paper), had this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...45b_story.html

The Post is a pretty conservative paper, but gets a liberal reputation because of Watergate, and because their competition is the Washington Times. But more importantly, the author of that opinion piece is definitely a conservative.

ACA doesn't allow a family to be insured as a group anymore. They have to rate each individual, and then add them all up to get the family's premium rate.

Not true in general, but partially true, and should be fixed as soon as we have a congress that can pass fixes.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Adak

Why do you think there's been a backlash against Obamacare? HINT: It's not because the rates are too cheap!

The backlash from Obamacare comes from the same reasoning and propaganda that called blacks 'niggers'. The same reasoning and propaganda that convinced so many that smoking cigarettes increases health. Ruch Limbaugh simply does what Hitler also advocated in his book. And that so successfully gets so many to smoke cigarettes.

Meanwhile, Obamacare was defined by conservatives think tanks, advocated first by Nixon, implemented successfully by Romney, and not attacked only for reasons based in emotion.

In the first Tea Party convention, straw polls asked who was most popular. The top three did not include any Republican politicians. The top three most popular were those who invent facts and inspire emotion to manipulate: Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck. That is where so many lies about Affordable Health Care come from. Tea Party types not only believe what they are told. They even tried to elect a witch to the Senate.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by tw

The backlash from Obamacare comes from the same reasoning and propaganda that called blacks 'niggers'. The same reasoning and propaganda that convinced so many that smoking cigarettes increases health. Ruch Limbaugh simply does what Hitler also advocated in his book. And that so successfully gets so many to smoke cigarettes.

Meanwhile, Obamacare was defined by conservatives think tanks, advocated first by Nixon, implemented successfully by Romney, and not attacked only for reasons based in emotion.

In the first Tea Party convention, straw polls asked who was most popular. The top three did not include any Republican politicians. The top three most popular were those who invent facts and inspire emotion to manipulate: Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck. That is where so many lies about Affordable Health Care come from. Tea Party types not only believe what they are told. They even tried to elect a witch to the Senate.

I'm not defending Limbaugh, nor espousing his positions. Leave Limbaugh (and the Nazi's and Hitler, and racist comments, etc.) out of it. They have no place in this narrative.

Of course the media types are the most popular in any new party's poll. They're the only one's who are on the air, hours at a time, all across the country.

Most voters (or either party), could not name ten federal politicians, from their party.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Adak

Leave Limbaugh out of it. They have no place in this narrative..

They are a major if not #1 reason why so many in extremist districts hate Obamacare while knowing nothing about it and reciting myths such as 'death boards'. Obamacare has not even started. And already these Limbaugh, Beck, and Hannity followers are saying how Obamacare has harmed the economy. When it comes to knowledge from emotions and myths, then listeners to Limbaugh, et al are easy to identify. They recite fables and parables that only exist in talk show fiction. Including 'death boards'.

How did Obamacare already destroy the economy? Even Congressional extremists were preaching that lie. With gerrymandering, then they were elected by margins such as 75%. Where must one usually go to find a 75% voting margin? Cuba? No consequences exist when your district will automatically believe what Limbaugh, Tea Party, et al tell them to believe. Lying has no consequences when a district is so one sided, easily misinformed, and will not vote for moderates.

Americans are looking forward to health insurance available to all - at reduced costs. As proven successful by Romney in MA. That reality is routinely forgotten by extremist talk show hosts and their listener.

These same extremists will not even apologize for their lie about Mission Accomplished - and a multi-trillion dollar debt that it created. We cannot even eliminate the penny and paper dollar bill - to save $billions. Same extremists who stifle progress also believe harming the American economy to attack Obamacare is good.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Adak

<snip>
I remember the Washington Monument and other closed memorials being closed. I believe Lincoln's was barricaded by Clinton. But the WWII memorial - no, I never heard that one was closed. <snip>

Well Aaka, it's OK that you don't remember the WWII Memorial being closed during a government shut down...

Wikipedia:

It opened to the public on April 29, 2004, and was dedicated by President George W. Bush on May 29, 2004, two days before Memorial Day.[1] The memorial is administered by the National Park Service under its National Mall and Memorial Parks group.[2\<snip>

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Adak

That "wacko" was Obama, and no one else. Before he leaves office, he will have increased our national debt TWICE the amount of ALL THE PREVIOUS PRESIDENTS COMBINED.

[b]

Think about that.

We did think about that the last time you posted it, and we found that it was not adjusted for inflation. That makes it extremely dishonest.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

We did think about that the last time you posted it, and we found that it was not adjusted for inflation. That makes it extremely dishonest.

Now that is a very good observation, now ask yourself "WHO is causing the inflation? What is causing the inflation?

Overspending, and printing more and more money, when we don't have the actual increase in our economy's wealth, to cover it.

And WHO is spending more money, and using the treasury dept to print out more money, so we can afford to buy back our own debt with devalued money?

Just because he uses the treasury dept to help him steal from your bank account and wallet, doesn't mean that Obama is a nice guy. He is in fact, a huge thief. Perhaps the worlds largest thief, because of his policies.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Adak

Overspending, and printing more and more money, when we don't have the actual increase in our economy's wealth, to cover it.

If true, then we would have stagflation all over again. You have defined what Nixon did to create great harm to the American economy. We do not have stagflation because we are not making that mistake.

We are, however, still trying to fix a larger mistake that previously created another massive recession in 1929. Back then we also foolishly enriched the rich. At that time, our forefathers did not understand this problem as it was being created. Today we know enriching the rich even destroys jobs. And again we made that mistake. Some still do not appreciate how much damage was created. And why we were so close to a 40% unemployment.

[henry quirk]

Perry,

"contemplating widespread suffering"

Contemplation is not advocacy.

##

Dana,

'in America, who, today, has the biggest stick?'

"Easy: the one with the soldiers' wages."

So: name the wage-holders, the wage controllers.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Adak

Now that is a very good observation, now ask yourself "WHO is causing the inflation? What is causing the inflation?

Overspending, and printing more and more money, when we don't have the actual increase in our economy's wealth, to cover it.

Guess what. Oh you'll never guess. Not only is this criticism not true if you adjust for inflation, it's not true if you DON'T!

Not adjusting for inflation is the second answer on this stackexchange discussion. The first answer is looking at the question without even adjusting for inflation.

See there's criticism, which I'm very open to, and then there's shit-flinging monkeys. Most criticism on both sides comes from shit-flinging monkeys. Don't be a shit-flinging monkey. We already have way too many of those.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Guess what. Oh you'll never guess. Not only is this criticism not true if you adjust for inflation, it's not true if you DON'T!

Not adjusting for inflation is the second answer on this stackexchange discussion. The first answer is looking at the question without even adjusting for inflation.

See there's criticism, which I'm very open to, and then there's shit-flinging monkeys. Most criticism on both sides comes from shit-flinging monkeys. Don't be a shit-flinging monkey. We already have way too many of those.

So in your opinion, inflation is not caused by government and treasury dept. policies, including the Fed. Res. Bank?

You are a national treasure!

Too bad every single economist, politician in either party, and the people who work in the above departments of gov't / institution, disagree with you.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Adak

So in your opinion, inflation is not caused by government and treasury dept. policies, including the Fed. Res. Bank?

You are a national treasure!

Too bad every single economist, politician in either party, and the people who work in the above departments of gov't / institution, disagree with you.

You may not be intelligent or intellectually honest enough for us to have this discussion. It is not about inflation. It is about adjusting for inflation.

Do you know what adjusting for inflation is, and why it's important when comparing dollars from 1970 against dollars from today?