Obama is a successful President

We'll, if we go by common logic, reason, and actual examples on the ground through Romneycare, I fail to see how it can't. With the exception of course of forcing the law not to work based on the mountain of propaganda against it and republican governors rejecting it. The Kochs have already spent $300,000 million already fighting it. So, we certainly have our own mountain to climb against misinformation and hate.

 

Look it up. I don't feel obligated to do it for you.

 

And he crashed the economy!

 

There isn't anything to look up, that is my point

 

LOL......this has to be one of the more delusional assertions I have seen on here. For starters we are talking somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 million currently signed up. Of these 5 million, nowhere near all of them did not have insurance prior. A very large chunk of that 5 million already had insurance and merely switched it to the exchanges. To my knowledge the exact number that didnt have insurance prior has not yet been announced, but NOBODY is asserting that all 5 million are newly insured people. Secondly, a family of four would be four new signups. A fmily signing up does NOT count as one If we were to be VERY generous in your direction, we could say that half of that 5 million didnt have insurance prior, and that is being generous to the point of almost being ridiculous. So with this generous assessment, we are looking at the possibility that 2.5 million people that didnt have insurance now have insurance. So we arent talking about the plight of 50 million as you assert, we are really talking about the plight of 2.5 million, which only puts your original implication off by a factor of 20. Sincerely, if you want to have an intelligent discussion on this topic, you first need to get your figures somewhere in the ballpark with reality.

To answer your original question how has it affected the 50 million? well, for 47.5 of that 50 million, it hasnt changed their insured status one iota. For all of the upheaval and uncertainty that has resulted across our entire economy as a result of the uncertainty surrounding the ACA, surely expanding Medicaid just a tad could have produced those same results with a whole lot less grief and upheaval.[/QUOTE]

 

Bush, or Obama? It was policies put in place during clinton and corporate greed that led to the dot.com crashes, the housing crash and financial crisis( that really was no crisis) does ACORN ring a bell? And laws that everyone has a right to own a home regardless of income? Those were put in place before Bush. Now he did 0 favors by allowing them to continue. I do not defend Bush in no way in a lot of areas(9/11 could have been prevented during clinton and Bush prior to the events), but it was not him who put the policies in place which led to the economic crashes

 

bwk, I look forward to your continued attempts to debate with FAW. You may want to pack some gauze for the wounds you continue to suffer. Anesthesia, however, is unnecessary; you clearly are oblivious to the pain of being cut to ribbons.

 

Name a president that delayed large programs be executive order until after elections. It is the reason why he does it that makes everyone hate him. He is deeply cynical and disdainful of people.

 

The public doesn't know because this President is making sure they don't know.
In fact,he is running around making sure that leftist Hollywood pat him on
the back for such a job well done with Obamacare.
I never thought I'd live to see the day our President would act like some
tinhorn Dictator.
The purpose of ObamaCare,or so we were told { insisted } was to
cover the uninsured.However as the Washington Post reported we have
48.6 million uninsured Americans.
According to CNBC of the 5 million people the Obama Adm. claims have
enrolled, just 715,ooo are previously uninsured who have chosen and
PAID for new insurance.
That means that Only 1.4% of uninsured americans have gotten coverage.
For those who need more explanation, it means for the vast majority of
americans who have signed up for ObamaCare are merely americans who
already had health coverage but whose plans were cancelled.
Furthermore the CBO { Congressional Budget Office } estimated that between
26 and 27 Million uninsured americans will never receive health care coverage under ObamaCare.
Just 39 % of Americans now support ObamaCare.
Obama's approval is between 38-41%.
ObamaCare will cost taxpayers 2.6 Trillion over the next 10 years.
ObamaCare also gutted $ 716 Billion from Medicare to help fund ObamaCare.

 

I wonder who can explain to me how much Obama Likes the tea party or
even the House republicans.Of course this is unprecented.
President Bush NEVER ran around like Obama insulting at every fundraiser
the likes of his opposition.That's all Obama does.Every once in a while he'll
have some event and call for civility.Then he's right back to ridiculing and
hurling accusations at his opposition.
This is unprecented.Our country has never seen the likes of this kind of
Demagoguery.

 

Obama was handed a mess and a 10 trillion dollar debt! Oh Republicans get a free pass for everything how silly of me to forget that rolleyes

 

And it has turned into a 17 trillion dollar debt that is growing by hundreds of billions a year. Who gave anyone a free pass? Please state where I gave anyone a free pass, or are you just angry to be angry? If you read my whole response you'll find what I actually said.
my response actually didn't mention Obama at all did it?

 

Well anyone with any brains knows it could not be fixed without spending money. Jeez I guess some people tend to live in fantasy land!

 

you do realize that you have completely shackled your self to the whims of a government that hasn't has a balanced budget, at least in the past 75 yrs?
What makes you believe that this is any better than before? People who had insurance before this (*)(*)(*)(*)ing mess and dropped by their insurance, now have to pay more for less? What choice is there in freedom when compared to do it or else? Where's the personal liberty?
The moochers and deadbeats, generational welfare recipients, why should I care when they don't want to take care of themselves?
Here's what's happened. Those of us who weren't dependent on government for our survival, are now being forced to worship at the government pool of Kool-aide supply for the socialist and communists. You know, the people who are now glad to have your money when they didn't earn it, nor deserve it. You'd think they'd be a bit humble instead of referring to us as obstructionists. Trust me, it wont be enough.
Once the middle class is done, who will pay for you health then? Do you think Maobama is going to write you a personal check to pay for your wants and whims?

- - - Updated - - -

beautifully put

 

So you are giving Obama a free pass. something you asserted I was doing with Bush and Clinton before him. wow OK. Nope but I know the financial bail out under Bush and auto bail out under Obama and all the stimulus packages passed under both Bush and Obama were not necessary and have done little to nothing to benefit anybody outside of corporations.
You correctly stated Obama inherited a 10 trillion dollar debt (5 trillion in 8 years under Bush) but then want to defend 7 trillion more in debt spending in 5 years under Obama as necessary and just? How double standard of you. The economy has fixed itself despite the government, not because of the government. Now it can be argued that the government is falsely propping up the economy with billions of dollars being infused into the economy. What's going to happen when these dollars dry up, or are we gonna be a country on government economic welfare forever?

 

[/QUOTE]

I'd say in response, if "YOU" decide to have an intelligent conversation, you wouldn't ignore the fact that you conveniently left out of this conversation that a good half of the 50 million couldn't sign up, even if they wanted to. So no, we are talking about the plight of 25 million realistically who can only play in this game. Folks like these can't play the game we are talking about; http://on.msnbc.com/1dL4izF. And out of the 5 million signed, you haven't a clue how many didn't have insurance.

 

Boy, you are trying really hard to ignore reality... First you claim it is Obama causing the huge deficits. Then it isn't him, it is the democrats who passed a budget for 2008... completely ignoring the housing bubble burst in 2006 and the economy starting shrinking in 2007, All before democrats passed any budgets. Also being ignored is that our government is funded by income taxes and has entitlements like unemployment benefits that kick in when a recession starts. So when a recession which started in 2007 under the republicans begins, without any manual intervention revenues fall and spending increases by design.

You obviously have been chugging the cool-aid and will reach desperately to ignore that deficits increase under republicans and fall under democrats, that is just a fact. And then the desperate and delusional start inane justifications, Oh, it was Reagan's economic policies that caused Clinton's boom 5+ years later, but in fact the democrats managed to destroy Bush's prosperity not only immediately, but before they were even elected...

 

He's welcome along with you to throw all the nonsense you both have my way.

 

Republicans call that game, "REVERSE LOGIC". They like to play that game when they think no one's paying attention. You weren't supposed to have been paying attention. Isn't great when people pay attention.

 

You said YOU wonder how the 50 million feel. It was YOU whom brought up the subject of 50 million, NOT I . All I did was reply to YOUR statement. To whatever extent that using 50 million is misleading and disingenuous, that would be on YOU. In fact, that is the entire reason why I called you out on it. I am glad that we can both now agree how preposterous that was.

 

Not at all! The 50 million still stand. Half of those can't play because of republican (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*), to not give access to those most vulnerable for no good reason other than their own selfish hate.

 

We'll, 47 months of continued job growth without having to bail out the banks is a big one I'd say. Getting rid of tax cuts for the wealthy who never contributed to job creation in this country, where that money went overseas, is another big one.

 

Hmmmmmmm. I would say this is a nonsensical response which doesn't logically follow what has been said in this conversation even remotely. While I don't like being redundant or taking the time to do it, I have no choice other than to re quote our entire conversation. Sometimes you encounter a chatter that rather than admitting their shortcomings, would rather use innuendo to imply they have just made a point, for the purpose of convincing someone that hasn't followed the conversation ( which is most) that it is the other person that is talking nonsense. Of course to anyone that bothered to follow the conversation, whom is being nonsensical is blatantly obvious

First you said.....

To which I replied with

"Before being able to answer your question, one would first have to know how many of these 50 million now have insurance? Can you provide that number? Then and only then can we have a legitimate discussion as to how much better or worse those 50 million actually are. "

To which you replied with....

Which I in turn pointed out that somewhere in the neighborhood of 47.5 out of that 50 million are still uninsured


You replied with this gem...

To which I correctly pointed out

"You said YOU wonder how the 50 million feel. It was YOU whom brought up the subject of 50 million, NOT I . All I did was reply to YOUR statement. To whatever extent that using 50 million is misleading and disingenuous, that would be on YOU. In fact, that is the entire reason why I called you out on it. I am glad that we can both now agree how preposterous that was. "

and now you say

In summation....

This conversation is about..... you asking how the 50 million were better off.... then me asking you to quantify how many are newly insured out of that 50 million.....then you saying that 30 out of the 50 would be covered....me saying that maybe 2.5 are covered....you coming back out of left field that im being disengenous because im using the 50 million figure ( which was only in response to you)......me pointing out that the 50 million figure came from you and im only responding to you.....then you claiming that the 50 million figure still stands.

LOL...CMON.....the totality of your conversation amounts to gibberish!

 

The 47 months of job growth had nothing to do with any president policies and more to do with the circle of the economy. wanna bet a downturn is coming within the next two years?
Getting rid of tax cuts does nothing to promote growth in anything, except government spending

 

Lol! This is truly hilarious. Again, the 50 million still stand. What you never picked up on in this whole conversation is that the 50 million were never a reality knowing not all could get coverage anyway. That is why I stressed only half were in reality able to play, early on in my posting if you recall? But, what happened was, you changed the whole subject to a numbers game. This was my original post in its entirety. "How was it that the 50 million uninsured fit into your claim of less wrong than with the old system"? "Can you explain how the 50 million were better off back then than they are today"? Bottom line I was talking about apples with someone else and you butted into the conversation talking about oranges. You made it into a numbers game when that was not the point of my questioning. It would have never mattered if we were talking 5 or 50. You never understood the context of the 50 million to begin with. That is why your post is such a joke.

The 50 million was used as a rule of thumb knowing that the 50 million couldn't all play in the game to begin with, and that I already pointed that out to find out if they were better off or not back then or today, knowing that the ACA was available today. That was the gist of my question. It was never really about numbers. You were the one who changed the conversation to numbers. And yes, in time the whole 50 million could be positively impacted, but not now. That was your conversation, not mine. I was asking a different question. Then you hijacked the post to distort it.

What you failed to do was to conveniently leave out my entire questioning that you cherry picked to distort what the real meaning was in my the original questioning. This is typical right wing nonsense. Take a post and totally dilute it so as to create something convenient to cherry pick. Lol! You folks are a real trip.