Obama figured out why he is losing the white male vote......

[Chrisj CMA]

Bob........we're cool 

[Bob E.]

Bob........we're cool 

[The Anvil]

How is he setting back race relations??  The only way he is setting back race relations is the fact that there are so many racist people who are pissed that there is a black man in the white house.  How dare he?  Are you suggesting that race relations would improve if black folk would just know their place...which is not the white house or any other level of public prominance? Again I ask, how is he setting back race relations?

I'd like to hear that explanation too. Maybe it was belting out an Al Green song that did it?

I wrote a response....how I really feel.....I just dont think this forum can take it.  So let me just say this.

Wealth redistribution and "social justice" are not peaceful nice fair and good things for society.  They create class warfare and that slips into race warfare many times...........maybe not now, but as soon as Obama runs out of other peoples money and some that were promised rivers of gold never saw anything........they could be mad

Yeah I just don't see it that way. I don't see class warfare here no matter how many time Fox news tries to tell me it is. I see it as the haves paying their fair share. I also don't recall ever being promised a "river of gold". Getting the country back to where it was before Bush turned it into a lawn-dart would have made most people happy. Granted that hasn't happened either... But the point is that your explanation about Obama setting race relations back makes no sense. As a matter of fact, look around you. It turns out that the progress we've made has been something of an illusion. Racism is still alive and well. It was just driven underground. What you have now is that it's bubbling to the surface.

AND! It has nothing to do with Obama being part black and being in the Whitehouse and I resent the pot stirring and way you insinuated thats where Im coming from.  I took a breather from this place because I got tired of statements like yours and people like you that cant have a discussion and just stick to your view you have to attack others. 

Chris, come on. The Al Green comment was a joke. Absurdity. Everyone loves Al Green.
 

[Chrisj CMA]

Anvil......I didnt even understand the Al Green thing.....I was referring to Bob, and that is cleared up

[The Anvil]

Okay, nevermind. 

[Trynt]

#1 My contention is not that it is all Obama's fault. After 3 years in office, it is undeniable the national debt only continues its rapid growth. He was not elected to perpetuate and exacerbate a the problem. After 3 years a decent manager would at least be making progress in the right direction.

#2 I criticized your claim that the NYT was not liberal (not its use). I would not expect you to quote Fox. and I apologized in advance for posting the political ad.  Like I said, I couldn't locate the footage elsewhere. And I don't claim Fox isn't conservative.

#3 I'm aware there are some positive aspects of Obama care, which could have been implemented without creating this bureaucratic monster. My life experience has shown me the gov't is good at two things; blowing things up and spending money.  It does neither in a financially responsible way.  I'll get back to you on those bridge specs.

#1  Fair enough, but what would you have had him do differently?  Debt and deficit are two different things.  The debt is due to the deficit and will increase, even if you reduce the deficit.  As long as you run any deficit at all...anything but a surplus...the debt will increase.  Even if Obama could have halved the deficit on day 1, the debt would have grown by nearly $700B per year.  So the object would be to cut the deficit to the point of having a surplus.  And you would have to do that incrementally over a period of years, especially in a fragile economy.  When the major cause of the massive increase in the deficit is reduced/lost revenue, would you have had him raise taxes by 45% in the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression?  Considering pre-existing mandated expenses that were in place prior to Obama taking office already exceeded revenues by a large margin, there is no way you could cut enough of the budget to balance it...he could have cut discretionary spending by 100%, and there would still be a large deficit...contrary to the Tea Party's demands of cut-cut-cut.

#2  Actually, you dismissed the data because it was from the NYT.  But that's fine.  NYT is liberal (I don't read it and honestly didn't realize it was considered liberal since it wasn't Huff Post, or MSNBC.) and Fox is conservative.  We agree.  

#3  Such as...?  I actually think the govt does a pretty good job at some things.  People actually love their Social Security and Medicare.  Social Security works very well and has kept alot of seniors above water through the recession.  The funding just needs adjusted to meet the changing demographics, as it was under Reagan.  Also, Medicare, though expensive, actually runs pretty efficiently with about 97% of revenues going towards care and only 3% going to admin costs.  This is in comparison to the typical insurance company that has to be mandated to spend at least 80% of premiums on care and no more than 20% on profit and overhead costs.  Medicare is expensive because health care for the elderly is VERY expensive and therefore not profitable...so much so that insurance companies wouldn't even insure the elderly, which was the reason for developing Medicare in the first place.  Are there some things that could be changed?  Of course, but Paul Ryan's solution of just shifting the cost from the govt to the seniors doesn't solve any problems...it just moves them.  And keep me posted on that bridge.  

#1 One if the simplest things was to let the Bush tax cuts expire. It would have resulted in more revenue and a reduction in expenses when unemployment benefits would lapse for some. Yes I know it is tough love. But some hard choices need to be made. Many would blame the Republicans for as you said holding him hostage. He had an easy out and he didn't take it. I know that is a minor thing but everything helps. Social security needs to be restructured and I say that as someone who is currently drawing benefits. It is short sighted to insist on current benefit plans only to see the entire system collapse and have nothing. As Obama likes to say "shared sacrifice". But to him is means more taxes. It should mean reduced spending. The gov't is like the spend thrift spouse that has maxed out the credit card and wants you to kick in more money so they can continue their spending spree, rather than pay off the balance on the card. I would be in favor of increased taxes to pay down the debt, unfortunately both party's will just continue to piss increased revenue down the spending rat hole.

#3 How can you say they run social security and medicare well when insolvency is on the horizon for both entities? In response to your Ryan comment, I would also like to remind you that Obama Care cut $500 billion from medicare in order to make those CBO figures look better. The reason I put so little faith in CBO numbers, is not because it is biased, but they are required to use assumptions provided by the current administration. One reason for the "net negative" is the fact that administration's scenario includes a ten year span but only six years of implementation.
http://news.yahoo.com/cbo-obamacare-price-tag-shifts-940-billion-1-163500655.html

#1  The problem is that allowing unemployment benefits to expire actually wouldn't have saved money...for a couple of reasons.  First, in terms of the overall economy, according to the CBO (yeah I know you said you don't like them) unemployment bennies are one of the most stimulative things the government can do.  Second, when unemployment runs out, those people now qualify for welfare. So all you do is move the expense from one column to another.  Sure, that might be a reason to have let them expire.  But the the problem is that other column (welfare) is then the responsibility of the states because welfare money is doled out in block grants.  And the states were already having huge problems balancing budgets in the face of the massively reduced revenues.  Most, if not all, states don't have the option of running a deficit.  So this would have crushed them.  The other issue was extending the lower-end Bush tax cuts and allowing only the upper end to expire to help the economy.  The republicans blocked it, unless tax cuts were extended for all.

#3  Choosing to inadequately fund Social Security and Medicare, two programs with the support of over 70% of Americans who want no changes to the benefits (even higher if you add those who support minor changes), is a failure of Congress.  It is not a failure of the programs.  The biggest problem is that too many people want something for nothing.  Everyone wants these programs, but nobody wants to pay their actual costs.  Reagan adjusted the funding for SS back in the 80's.  That was 30 years ago.  Is it so unreasonable to think that after 30 years, it might not need adjusted again?  Medicare needs a similar adjustment.

By the way, I'm glad we settled #2...lol!  

#1 Ahhh Keynesian economic theory. I don't know where to begin. Borrow money you can ill afford and spend it to stimulate the economy. Unemployment will never rise above 8.3 %. Notice the deafening cry from the Left for a second stimulus package? Neither do I. One of the only useful things to come for the stimulus program was proof (to most rational people) Keynes was wrong. Even chief proponent Paul "we need an alien space invasion to save the economy" Krugman conceded  "without saying so explicitly, the Obama administration has accepted the Republican claim that stimulus failed, and should never be tried again." Now in fairness to Krugman, he believes it failed because not enough money was squandered. But you, Krugman, Nancy "we need to pass it to see whats in it" Pelosi are still believers. Rarefied company indeed.

You know if unemployment benefits are SO stimulative to the economy, we should strive for a higher rate of unemployment and accompanying benefits to even further improve the economy. We've been going about this all wrong!

It is false to assume all those whose unemployment benefits expire would transfer to the welfare rolls. As benefits end, many who actually desire work find it. Admittedly often at less desirable work. But work none the less. For example a bridge engineer accepting  less prestigious work as a CAD draftsman.

Yes states would have had to make tough cuts. Which they did anyway after the stimulus money was spent. All that was done was to delay the inevitable at the cost of a massive increase in debt.

Let the Bush tax cuts expire for only the rich? What happened to that shared sacrifice mantra?  I guess that is a one way street. With 63% of the working population doing so and only 51% of those paying federal income tax, the pool of tax payers is getting rather shallow. BTW my taxes would not have increased under the Dem's plan.

But my hat is off to you. Only the most committed of liberal thinkers can reason that reducing spending will not result in an overall cost savings.

#3 I did not mean to imply the services were poor or undesirable. It is like a business that produces a good product or service but in doing so loses money. It will eventually fail. If the gov't runs programs that will eventually bankrupt the country without adjustments, that is a bad program. In regard to social security, there are those who contend had the gov't not raided the trust fund the program would be paid for. Again irresponsible financial decision on behalf of the gov't haunting us.

In regard to #2. Unless you concede that the Obama administration, its policies and agenda is at least partially responsible for increased gas prices, it remains unsettled. I just thought we had flogged that deceased equine enough.

[Bob E.]

#1 My contention is not that it is all Obama's fault. After 3 years in office, it is undeniable the national debt only continues its rapid growth. He was not elected to perpetuate and exacerbate a the problem. After 3 years a decent manager would at least be making progress in the right direction.

#2 I criticized your claim that the NYT was not liberal (not its use). I would not expect you to quote Fox. and I apologized in advance for posting the political ad.  Like I said, I couldn't locate the footage elsewhere. And I don't claim Fox isn't conservative.

#3 I'm aware there are some positive aspects of Obama care, which could have been implemented without creating this bureaucratic monster. My life experience has shown me the gov't is good at two things; blowing things up and spending money.  It does neither in a financially responsible way.  I'll get back to you on those bridge specs.

#1  Fair enough, but what would you have had him do differently?  Debt and deficit are two different things.  The debt is due to the deficit and will increase, even if you reduce the deficit.  As long as you run any deficit at all...anything but a surplus...the debt will increase.  Even if Obama could have halved the deficit on day 1, the debt would have grown by nearly $700B per year.  So the object would be to cut the deficit to the point of having a surplus.  And you would have to do that incrementally over a period of years, especially in a fragile economy.  When the major cause of the massive increase in the deficit is reduced/lost revenue, would you have had him raise taxes by 45% in the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression?  Considering pre-existing mandated expenses that were in place prior to Obama taking office already exceeded revenues by a large margin, there is no way you could cut enough of the budget to balance it...he could have cut discretionary spending by 100%, and there would still be a large deficit...contrary to the Tea Party's demands of cut-cut-cut.

#2  Actually, you dismissed the data because it was from the NYT.  But that's fine.  NYT is liberal (I don't read it and honestly didn't realize it was considered liberal since it wasn't Huff Post, or MSNBC.) and Fox is conservative.  We agree.  

#3  Such as...?  I actually think the govt does a pretty good job at some things.  People actually love their Social Security and Medicare.  Social Security works very well and has kept alot of seniors above water through the recession.  The funding just needs adjusted to meet the changing demographics, as it was under Reagan.  Also, Medicare, though expensive, actually runs pretty efficiently with about 97% of revenues going towards care and only 3% going to admin costs.  This is in comparison to the typical insurance company that has to be mandated to spend at least 80% of premiums on care and no more than 20% on profit and overhead costs.  Medicare is expensive because health care for the elderly is VERY expensive and therefore not profitable...so much so that insurance companies wouldn't even insure the elderly, which was the reason for developing Medicare in the first place.  Are there some things that could be changed?  Of course, but Paul Ryan's solution of just shifting the cost from the govt to the seniors doesn't solve any problems...it just moves them.  And keep me posted on that bridge.  

#1 One if the simplest things was to let the Bush tax cuts expire. It would have resulted in more revenue and a reduction in expenses when unemployment benefits would lapse for some. Yes I know it is tough love. But some hard choices need to be made. Many would blame the Republicans for as you said holding him hostage. He had an easy out and he didn't take it. I know that is a minor thing but everything helps. Social security needs to be restructured and I say that as someone who is currently drawing benefits. It is short sighted to insist on current benefit plans only to see the entire system collapse and have nothing. As Obama likes to say "shared sacrifice". But to him is means more taxes. It should mean reduced spending. The gov't is like the spend thrift spouse that has maxed out the credit card and wants you to kick in more money so they can continue their spending spree, rather than pay off the balance on the card. I would be in favor of increased taxes to pay down the debt, unfortunately both party's will just continue to piss increased revenue down the spending rat hole.

#3 How can you say they run social security and medicare well when insolvency is on the horizon for both entities? In response to your Ryan comment, I would also like to remind you that Obama Care cut $500 billion from medicare in order to make those CBO figures look better. The reason I put so little faith in CBO numbers, is not because it is biased, but they are required to use assumptions provided by the current administration. One reason for the "net negative" is the fact that administration's scenario includes a ten year span but only six years of implementation.
http://news.yahoo.com/cbo-obamacare-price-tag-shifts-940-billion-1-163500655.html

#1  The problem is that allowing unemployment benefits to expire actually wouldn't have saved money...for a couple of reasons.  First, in terms of the overall economy, according to the CBO (yeah I know you said you don't like them) unemployment bennies are one of the most stimulative things the government can do.  Second, when unemployment runs out, those people now qualify for welfare. So all you do is move the expense from one column to another.  Sure, that might be a reason to have let them expire.  But the the problem is that other column (welfare) is then the responsibility of the states because welfare money is doled out in block grants.  And the states were already having huge problems balancing budgets in the face of the massively reduced revenues.  Most, if not all, states don't have the option of running a deficit.  So this would have crushed them.  The other issue was extending the lower-end Bush tax cuts and allowing only the upper end to expire to help the economy.  The republicans blocked it, unless tax cuts were extended for all.

#3  Choosing to inadequately fund Social Security and Medicare, two programs with the support of over 70% of Americans who want no changes to the benefits (even higher if you add those who support minor changes), is a failure of Congress.  It is not a failure of the programs.  The biggest problem is that too many people want something for nothing.  Everyone wants these programs, but nobody wants to pay their actual costs.  Reagan adjusted the funding for SS back in the 80's.  That was 30 years ago.  Is it so unreasonable to think that after 30 years, it might not need adjusted again?  Medicare needs a similar adjustment.

By the way, I'm glad we settled #2...lol!  

#1 Ahhh Keynesian economic theory. I don't know where to begin. Borrow money you can ill afford and spend it to stimulate the economy. Unemployment will never rise above 8.3 %. Notice the deafening cry from the Left for a second stimulus package? Neither do I. One of the only useful things to come for the stimulus program was proof (to most rational people) Keynes was wrong. Even chief proponent Paul "we need an alien space invasion to save the economy" Krugman conceded  "without saying so explicitly, the Obama administration has accepted the Republican claim that stimulus failed, and should never be tried again." Now in fairness to Krugman, he believes it failed because not enough money was squandered. But you, Krugman, Nancy "we need to pass it to see whats in it" Pelosi are still believers. Rarefied company indeed.

You know if unemployment benefits are SO stimulative to the economy, we should strive for a higher rate of unemployment and accompanying benefits to even further improve the economy. We've been going about this all wrong!

It is false to assume all those whose unemployment benefits expire would transfer to the welfare rolls. As benefits end, many who actually desire work find it. Admittedly often at less desirable work. But work none the less. For example a bridge engineer accepting  less prestigious work as a CAD draftsman.

Yes states would have had to make tough cuts. Which they did anyway after the stimulus money was spent. All that was done was to delay the inevitable at the cost of a massive increase in debt.

Let the Bush tax cuts expire for only the rich? What happened to that shared sacrifice mantra?  I guess that is a one way street. With 63% of the working population doing so and only 51% of those paying federal income tax, the pool of tax payers is getting rather shallow. BTW my taxes would not have increased under the Dem's plan.

But my hat is off to you. Only the most committed of liberal thinkers can reason that reducing spending will not result in an overall cost savings.

#3 I did not mean to imply the services were poor or undesirable. It is like a business that produces a good product or service but in doing so loses money. It will eventually fail. If the gov't runs programs that will eventually bankrupt the country without adjustments, that is a bad program. In regard to social security, there are those who contend had the gov't not raided the trust fund the program would be paid for. Again irresponsible financial decision on behalf of the gov't haunting us.

In regard to #2. Unless you concede that the Obama administration, its policies and agenda is at least partially responsible for increased gas prices, it remains unsettled. I just thought we had flogged that deceased equine enough.

Dude, my grandmother, whose parents immigrated from Finland, grew up in Minnesota.  If I ever find my way up there, first round is on me. This has been fun. 

#1  There's no cry for more stimulus because everyone knows it won't happen, nor is it politically popular, although there are many economists who believe it would help.  The original stimulus was passed when they thought the rate of the economic recession was about 3% in the last quarter of 2008.  The original size of the stimulus that was estimated to be needed to deal with 3% was $1.8T.  However, as we know, the stimulus was whittled down to about $800B and actually structurally changed from more expenditure spending to tax breaks.  So we ended up with less than half of what was thought to be needed for a 3% recession. Later in 2009 when the final analysis was in, it was found that the economy had actually shrunk by about 9%.  So it is no surprise that the stimulus was less effective than originally projected.  However, for those that claim it was a total failure, the 24 straight months of private sector job growth certainly shows it helped.  There is a chart showing the turnaround in job loss/growth since before Obama took office.  If I find it, I'll link it.

As to unemployment, I'm surprised that republicans don't embrace it because it works pretty much on the same theory that cutting taxes increases revenues laffer-curve theory.  You actually have it backwards in that the stimulative effect actually ends up creating the jobs (more people buying things, creating demand, requiring more workers to meet demand).  So unemployment rate goes down.

As to them taking less desireable jobs, sure this would happen if there were jobs available.  But with something like 5 applicants for every job opening, this thinking is flawed.  So you would might get 20-25% working, but the rest end up on welfare.

#2 I'll only agree that the horse is thoroughly beaten...as the rest of this thread is getting. 

#3  You think a program that cannot operate without adjustments to deal with changes to demographics every 30 years or so is "bad"?  I guess I'll just respectfully agree to disagree there. 

[G-Man]

I will vote for you MP

Oh, no!  Please, do NOT vote for me!  LOL   Thanks

MP

That's the way it was when I was a young adult.  There was health insurance and then there was major medical.  Health insurance covered you like auto insurance.  In the event something happens and you need care, you were covered.  Auto insurance doesn't cover oil changes and tune-ups.  Neither should health insurance cover physical examinations.  That is where major medical comes in. 

The reason businesses offer health coverage to employees was to attract better candidates.  Some offered at their expense, or with a payroll contribution from the employee, major medical which covered doctor visits.  Aaaaaaand, the patient paid the doc at the time of the office visit.  The doc or the secretary would complete YOUR insurance form which YOU had to send to YOUR insurance company and YOU got reimbursed.  The doc got paid for his service, like any other business transaction. 

I don't know how it got so out of control.  More and more responsibility was placed on the provider to get paid, instead of the customer having to pay for the service.  So much so that now the provider has to pay for billing services, or to continually train their office staff in the latest and greatest billing procedures.  And the gov't and insurance companies keep changing the rules at their whim.  All this increases operating costs which increases the cost of the services.  So, by making it more difficult, they also made it more expensive. 

But, if you listen to the schmuck in charge, docs perform unnecessary surgical procedures to make money. 

[G-Man]

And as the good Dr (article) predicted he IS a disaster and he is setting race relations back YEARS and history will have way more negatives nailed to his presidency than positives. 

How is he setting back race relations??  The only way he is setting back race relations is the fact that there are so many racist people who are pissed that there is a black man in the white house.  How dare he?  Are you suggesting that race relations would improve if black folk would just know their place...which is not the white house or any other level of public prominance? Again I ask, how is he setting back race relations?

Bob, if you can't see how more polarized this country has become in the last 3 years, you're not living in the same world as the rest of us.  I'm very sorry for being so blunt or harsh, but really now.  If there was ANY disagreement on his issues or policies, you were automatically called a racist.  That has died down a bit as of late (I suspect it was toned down for the upcoming election), but it was rampant and pissed off a lot of good people who didn't like being called racist because they had a different political belief.  Then there was the labeling of the TEA party as a racist movement when all it is is a group of folks who are tired of gov't overreach and the squandering of tax money.  There were even racial cries of wolf (where it never even happened). 

Now before I read that all this was the press, or the media, or the this or that, Obama did NOTHING to put an end to it.  He rode it as far as it would take him. 

This is not some right winger's rant.  This is fact.  Oh, and on top of this, he's anti-semitic so he can kiss my tuchas in Macy's window!

[Jess from VA]

I'm an infidel, and he can kiss mine too!!   

[Trynt]

[/quote]

Dude, my grandmother, whose parents immigrated from Finland, grew up in Minnesota.  If I ever find my way up there, first round is on me. This has been fun. 

[/quote]

+1
I respect your ability to argue your liberalism without resorting to insult or profanity. It seems many of your ilk are incapable so doing. Too bad you're so misguided!

[Master Blaster]

Bob, if you can't see how more polarized this country has become in the last 3 years, you're not living in the same world as the rest of us.  I'm very sorry for being so blunt or harsh, but really now.  If there was ANY disagreement on his issues or policies, you were automatically called a racist.  That has died down a bit as of late (I suspect it was toned down for the upcoming election), but it was rampant and pissed off a lot of good people who didn't like being called racist because they had a different political belief.  Then there was the labeling of the TEA party as a racist movement when all it is is a group of folks who are tired of gov't overreach and the squandering of tax money.  There were even racial cries of wolf (where it never even happened). 

Now before I read that all this was the press, or the media, or the this or that, Obama did NOTHING to put an end to it.  He rode it as far as it would take him. 

This is not some right winger's rant.  This is fact.  Oh, and on top of this, he's anti-semitic so he can kiss my tuchas in Macy's window!
 

 
Dont forget that the Military past and present were labeled potential terrorist.   The very people that sacrificed so much for love of country handed the ultimate insult by those that dont have a clue.

[Bob E.]

Dude, my grandmother, whose parents immigrated from Finland, grew up in Minnesota.  If I ever find my way up there, first round is on me. This has been fun. 

[/quote]

+1
I respect your ability to argue your liberalism without resorting to insult or profanity. It seems many of your ilk are incapable so doing. Too bad you're so misguided!
[/quote]

 

[G-Man]

Bob, if you can't see how more polarized this country has become in the last 3 years, you're not living in the same world as the rest of us.  I'm very sorry for being so blunt or harsh, but really now.  If there was ANY disagreement on his issues or policies, you were automatically called a racist.  That has died down a bit as of late (I suspect it was toned down for the upcoming election), but it was rampant and pissed off a lot of good people who didn't like being called racist because they had a different political belief.  Then there was the labeling of the TEA party as a racist movement when all it is is a group of folks who are tired of gov't overreach and the squandering of tax money.  There were even racial cries of wolf (where it never even happened). 

Now before I read that all this was the press, or the media, or the this or that, Obama did NOTHING to put an end to it.  He rode it as far as it would take him. 

This is not some right winger's rant.  This is fact.  Oh, and on top of this, he's anti-semitic so he can kiss my tuchas in Macy's window!
 

 
Dont forget that the Military past and present were labeled potential terrorist.   The very people that sacrificed so much for love of country handed the ultimate insult by those that dont have a clue.

And that the police acted stupidly and docors perform surgery just to make money.  He polarizes any way he can.