New Poll Is A Disaster For Obama

Screw the Presidents numbers. Do you think I am here defending Obama, because his name is Obama and because he's black? Wake up! Obama, could be Whiter than YOU and I would STILL defend not the person, but the OFFICE and what the OFFICE has done under the circumstances.

Now, let's examine the remainder of your bizarre offering in this thread - shall we. Buckle up - here it comes.

Iceland lost three of its private banks - and they were significant contributors to its economy because they provided damn near all the liquidity to Icelandic companies. Even Iceland had the biggest per capita blow-out (loss of capital) than any modern nation in World History. How on earth could you pick Iceland, as the poster child for what did not happen during the 2008 to 20012 global crisis? They basically took over the biggest Icelandic banks and removed them from private hands. The FSA now controls them.

I had a currency trading account out of Iceland that I had to close in 2009, with an FX intermediary that was attached to the hip to the largest private bank in that country. My intermediary lost ALL of its extended lines of credit and the underlying ability for any of its insurance claims to be paid, as a direct result of the global crisis. You picked the WRONG country to use an example to counter my previously mentioned arguments in this thread.

Economic growth in Iceland peaked just before the start of 2004 and it ran upwards of something like 7.0%. That was clearly BEFORE the global crunch. The ISK (which I do not trade in my portfolio) relative to the EUR (which I do trade quite frequently) was crushed down to below 0.0040 pips in late 2008. The OMXI-15 crashed from a high of 9000+ to below 500 during the same period. The entire OMXI basically came to a complete halt as trading was suspended in mid October (if I recall correctly) of 2008. The economic output if Iceland and its dependency on global imports meant that Iceland was basically on complete shutdown when all this happened.

How did Iceland move to recovery? Unlike the United States, Iceland, had to rely upon the UK, Germany and a couple of other Nordic countries to fund its recovery. It shut down its old currency exchange and built a new process for handling import and export transactions. It borrowed billions of dollars to help support new bank development and to close deficits. It had to accept loans from the IMF, but more importantly it had to accept dictation from the IMF as to how it would conduct its business internally (bad idea - really bad idea). Iceland still has a problem with its currency (I won't trade it) and it still has a problem with inflation being relatively too high.

So, while you pull Iceland from thin air just remember this - Iceland's best of the best GDP was no more than $20+ billion and a prefect sunny day. In 2013, Iceland's Q3 Current Account was measured at +$56.86 billion (ISK). Today, it is -$12.1 billion. How can that be a positive thing for a country with such a small net GDP?

You don't score any points in this debate by selecting the one country that saw the biggest hit per capita in all of 2008. Iceland, like other countries are on the road to recovery. But, they are not there yet and if inflation is not kept in check, they will suffer Severe Stagnation at a time when they least need it.

I will not open an account for my trading firm in Iceland again, until their CC goes net positive, regardless of their institution of their so-called new "Minimum Deposit Guarantee" on foreign capital.

You have just confused ideas. You are going to have to restate this premise in order for me to respond to it appropriately. As it is written, it contradicts itself. On the one hand you question that increasing supply through scheduled healthcare (covering more people with a primary care physician and regular appointments) will lower costs - or you imply that it won't. On the other hand you imply that increasing un-scheduled healthcare (not covering more people and forcing them into ER treatment at taxpayer expense) will not lower costs.

I am perplexed as to fundamental premise. It is a contradiction. Restate in a way that I can logically respond to it.

Your abject failure to understand Islamic history, is problematic at minimum and it causes you to make statements that expose your naivete on the subject matter. I won't bore you with 1,400 years of human history out of old Mesopotamia, but I will offer you the highlights that directly impact what's happening today in Iraq and I will strongly suggest that you go study the matter for yourself so that you do not continue to delude yourself so readily.

Iraq, was an unwinnable war from the word go. Unless or until you finally get that fact through your head, nothing I or anyone else will say to you will help you to stop making the mistake of believing the lie that Neocons have been pushing since the election of King George W. the 43rd. Ok, so you need to start with that fundamental premise and then work your way backwards to a more realistic understanding about what's going on in Iraq right now.

Over 1,400 years ago when Mohammad died, there was split in the Islamic faith that divided its people into two major factions: Sunni and Shiite. Both consider themselves to be Islamic, but neither side considers each other to be "genuinely Islamic." Both sides consider each other to be facsimiles of the real thing. They both pray to "allah," they both consider Mohammad to be "allah's messenger," and they both follow the five (5) major foundations of the Islamic faith. The problem between the two comes out of their total disagreement about how to interpret their quran. The ONE quran that they BOTH claim to adhere to.

The real fault lines between these two comes primary from the Sunni side of the equation (that is not to say that the Shiites don't contribute to the ongoing conflict). Whether you go to Iraq, Palestine, Jordan, etc., the Sunni typically wear the biggest chip on the shoulder as overwhelmingly they do not credit the Shiites with being full blown Islamic, or being truly dedicated followers of Muhammad and thus, not offering an orthodox/proper interpretation of the quran. It is very important for you to understand this going forward, lest you fall into the trap of the Neocon Fairytale where the Western world led by the United States comes in to provide "stability within the region" amongst these two longtime rivals which is a clandestine pipe dream to say the least.

It is very important for you to understand that the Sunni, while being the majority world wide in Islam, are in fact the minority in Iraq, statistically and demographically. It is exceedingly important for you to understand that since World War II, it was the Sunni, who were in control of politics in Iraq. Subsequent to 2003, however, Saddam fell and the Shia took control of Iraq. This set the stage for serious internal conflict on a scale that the United States would NEVER be able to control long-term under ANY circumstances. We basically walked in across the southern deserts of Iraq, and handed Iraq to the Shiites.

In 2006, Nuri al-Maliki, a Shiite Muslim, was propped-up by our government as the new Iraqi Prime Minister. Unfortunately, Mr. Maliki, did not want to build bridges between the new government of Iraq and the minority Sunni population. Instead, he took specific measures to burn existing bridges and renounce the building of any new paths for shared power in Iraq. He began leveling a heavy hand both inside the government of Iraq, against his Sunni opposition as well as leveling harsh treatment of protesting Sunni in the streets of Iraq. This created serious tension between Sunnis and the Iraq government now controlled by Shiites.

In 2011, when we withdrew our troops out of Iraq, Sunni extremist formed ISIS and began launching attacks against the Iraq government through the Iraq Army, which itself was predominantly Shia. The Shia Iraq Army, had already been engaged with Sunni extremist BEFORE the U.S. left Iraq under the U.S. - Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), that required the United States to remove ALL of its troops from inside the boarders of Iraq. And, it was none other than Mr. Maliki himself, who put up the strongest protest against retaining any U.S. Troops to assist the Iraq government in dealing with Sunni extremist. Mr. Maliki, wanted to control the situation on his own and by himself during the discussions about when U.S. Troops would leave Iraq. That was not a decision the United States made, or could dictate to a sovereign country yet again, after deposing Saddam's regime.

Nuri al-Maliki, has behaved much like a Common Criminal since he became Iraq Prime Minister. His actions to not pay Iraq Army Generals and to headhunt for Sunni government officials, firing them for charges that he other trumped up or had trumped up on his behalf, to the way in which he initially handed Sunni protestors who wanted fair treatment and representation within the Iraq government, all combined to present the challenges that he now faces today in Iraq, where those former unpaid generals found solace and support with the anti-government elements of Iraq. Those conducting raids today, were once Iraq Army elements who supported the initial efforts to unite Iraq and share power. But, after being dumped on their heads by Maliki, they have not turned their frustrations against the Iraqi government. This was NEVER something the United States would or could have controlled long-term, regardless of how many troops we might have left behind in clear VIOLATION of the standing Status of Forces Agreement.

We pumped BILLIONS of dollars into training the Iraq Army, so that it could fend for itself and take care of its own business, protecting the Iraqi People. We sacrificed thousands of U.S. lives in the process. We did our part. We stood them up. We armed them, trained them, educated them, assisted them, fought side-by-side with them against militants - teaching them how to defend themselves. We have them 10 YEARS of support and defense education.

However, what we cannot give the Iraqis, is the heart to want to WORK TOGETHER as ONE PEOPLE. That we simply cannot do. No U.S. President. No U.S. Congress. And, no U.S. Special Forces Team is capable of healing the divisions between these two groups of people and their willful desire to continue the 1,4000 year old battle that still rages between them along the lines of who is the most Islamic and the most dedicated to Mohammad and thus, who offers the most genuine interpretation of quranic scripture.

There is no force on earth capable of sustaining long term peace between these two people. So, sitting around and jumping off the high diving platform of Necon blithering hopelessness and fantasy island-like mental masturbation about how wonderful it will be when the United States finally causes peace between the Sunni and Shiia, could not be a more deliberate waste of your time. These people are interesting in one thing and one thing only: The destruction of each other. Until you finally get that fact through your head, you will forever be meandering in the Neocon Wilderness of wishful thinking and oil pipeline dreams.

We cannot, should not and have no legal standing to maintain a Living Force of American Troops on the ground in Iraq, for the NEXT 1,400 YEARS. Because, even THAT length of time will not be enough to settle this dispute between the two.

Do you now understand WHY going into Iraq in the first place was such a bone headed and stupid decision? I hope this has been somewhat helpful to you. Unwinnable means exactly what is says: UNWINNABLE. There is NO United States soluble solution to Iraq. Full Stop.

Now, is there any part of this that you still don't fully understand? I think I have done my absolutely best in trying to explain WHY our pulling out had absolutely ZERO to do with what's going on right now in Iraq. This was coming down the road no matter what we did or did not do in Iraq and President Obama, is not at fault for the flare-ups going on today, obviously.

We got back a U.S. Troop who was a Prisoner of War. How dare you suggest the price tag on the head of a U.S. Soldier. I served this country. I flew combat missions in 91. The last thing I would want or my family would want, is for my country to place a price tag on my head as a POW.

I am not going to argue this point with you because I doubt seriously (based on your comments) that you have any idea what you are saying.

We do not leave Soldiers behind.

You really need to wake up. The delusions of "enemies" around every international corner where the culture is not like our own, has become the poison of American Society since September 11th, 2001. Any enemy we have is an enemy that WE created. If you fully understood the connection between 1953/54 Iran and how it directly involves the so-called "War On Terror" today, then you would not make such crucially flawed statements as you just made.

Libya, reached out to us, unlike the People of Iraq in 91 or in 03. The People of Libya, wanted us to help them breach a new democracy. Democracy and Freedom, are not free. The People of Libya, now understand this, but you take their struggle and you dishonor it by politicizing their efforts for what you think is gain here in the United States. This demonstrates that you lack knowledge of Causation and you cannot fathom Effect.

The solution that Newt Gingrich and Neocon Karl Rove, gave for Libya, was that we should have put U.S. Troops on the ground unilaterally, yet again! As if they had learned absolutely nothing from such bone headed stupidity they proudly displayed in Iraq, years earlier. These people have never met a conflict in which they would not willingly sacrifice U.S. Troops.

We have a President in office now who cautiously moves to use our Military, and he does it for the right reasons - moral reasons that are far superior to the idiot causes that Neocons wish to dump on the backs of the American People. Saddam, was no threat to the United States and THAT
is not the point. The point is that the People of Libya, cried out to the United States and the International Community (NATO) for our help and support. THAT is the proper way to engage U.S. Military efforts where there is no imminent threat to United States Security.

Any other approach to the deployment of our Military is unwarranted and incredibly foolish. Thus, President Obama, did exactly what a good leading President should do. What Libya, now does with its own future is Libya's darn business, NOT OURS. We cannot babysit the planet. WE DO NOT HAVE THE RESOURCES TO DO SO.

We would go bankrupt, exactly like Rome did, if we tried to play Planetary Police. Just go ask ancient Rome, how that worked out for them. They had Roman Soldiers literally walking off the job, so that they could go engage employment that actually allowed them to put food on the table in support of their families, because the Roman government spent itself into oblivion trying to Police The Galaxy. The foreign policy of a super power that fails to look back at what bankrupted former World Super Powers, is a foreign policy created by fools and not worthy of support from The People.

Syrian is not our damn business! You read like a Republican Talking Point Memo. You have bought into the lie that there is a ********** terrorist lurking around every corner and you have decided that you are going to regurgitate everything Neocons want you to regurgitate. Not because any of their bull makes any sense, but because it is politically expedient to do so, in order to tear down the current President, and install a new Neocon Puppet Clown in the White House, so that the march on Iran can begin post haste and in lock-stop with PNAC and their world domination strategy.

We are not Imperialists. How many U.S. Troops would you deploy to Syria, Egypt, Libya and Iraq - yet again? We do not have the resources both in troop numbers, equipment and budget to be deployed in all the world's hotspots where Neocons see excuses to call people "terrorists." If you actually traveled to these countries and talked to the people who lived there, you would immediately find out that the VAST majority of them have no issues with the United States of America, or its people. The VAST majority of them simply want equal and fair treatment from their damn government, which they mostly do not get from the dictators who run the country.

They simply want clean water (what a concept), jobs and income, paved roads (can you believe that), proper educational facilities for their children, career opportunities for themselves, business opportunities, access to capital, laws and regulations that benefit the citizenry, etc. They want EXACTLY what we want here in the United States of America and many of them are more than willing to sacrifice whatever it takes to bring about a better tomorrow for their respective country. THIS has been been my experience in traveling abroad to places like Alexandra, Cairo, Gaza, Haifa, Istanbul, Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Muscat, Karachi, Mumbai, Sudan, South Africa, Monrovia, Dakar, Senegal and Somalia to round out some of the most interesting places I have visited.

Get on the streets. Live like the locals. Walk into cafes, diners, retail shops, mosques, etc., and talk to the people who actually live there and you will find that there are far fewer "terrorists" on the planet than you have been led to believe, according to wrong headed Neocon Imperialist Doctrine. Get to know your world. Travel more. Engage people where they actually live, not where you THINK they live, or where you have been TOLD they live.

Are there real terrorists in the world? Yes. We some living right here on U.S. soil. They executed 911 in broad daylight and you bought into their "official story" which is a pile of mass confusion and contradiction at best. Yet, you go looking for "terrorists" in other countries? We have home grown terrorists right in our own back yard, spoofing themselves as actually being concerned with American Principles and Americas Security, when all they really care about is the Oil and the profits that it brings to their Global Cabalists. The Minority Elite who use and manipulate you like an Economic Slave.

Wake up, Neo. The dream world that has been pulled over your eyes has blinded you since they day you were born into this mess.

My prescription for your blindness can be summed up in one word: Travel. It would do you a world of good to get out and actually see the world for yourself, instead of through the polluted lends of politicized media and hyper-hallucinogenic politicians who only want to spin and use you for their devious purposes.

Travel, clears up a lot of BS you've been told.

 

Translation: You don't understand what's just been posted or you have no rational rebuttal on the merits. Thus, you belong on Twitter, or worse yet, YouBoob and most definitely not on a forum for debate. Full Stop.

 

I was always taught that if you cannot handle the heat, then stay out of the kitchen when a Chef walks in because it is going to get hot and chances are that something will get cooked - like the ridiculous conclusion that somehow, this current President has failed. How absurd a notion.

Polls are for fishing and dancing. I don't see this President on a boat, and I don't seem him preparing bait. What I do see, is a man that has led the country through the worst economic failure since the Great Depression. That's what the data tells me, that what my analysis tells, that what contemporary history tells me and that's what common sense tells me.

Common sense? You remember that - it used to be, oh, common.

I think you reply is more amazing. I lacks a rational attack on the data. It lacks a rational attack on the premise that this President has been highly successful under the circumstances given to him. It lacks a rational attack on the source used to make that conclusion (mostly BLS data) and it lacks good common sense. That is how I define "amazing."

I'll be really honest with you here, I feel pity for those who willfully walk the the planet in a completely self-deluded state that harbors irrational thought processes as some kind of badge of honor. Nobody said he was flawless. It was clearly said that his performance was not perfect, but near perfect under the circumstances which I have clearly outlined for you above.

Your problem is precisely as I stated above - a total lack of intellectual honesty and a high level of complacency in the apathetic condition that robs you ever knowing what is truly going on in your country. If you don't know the data, how can you possibly argue against it?

Answer: You can't and that is precisely why you have not. Drop another quarter and try again.

Failure, is not predicated on your beliefs. Its definition resides in the data that you are completely and utterly unfamiliar with, clearly. Full Stop.

 

Iraq is worse off
Afghanistan is worse off.
The economy has less people in the workforce.
The southern border is a mess
We are lied to by the president
The IRS is targeting innocent Americans because of politics
Benghazi was a coverup---lied to about that...first dead us amb since 1979

Seriously the guys presidency is over, hes gone unhinged. He can't handle anything even simple problems.

 

Dam near flawless has been upgraded to near perfect? Got it. So, now that we have established that you have superior cognitive ability, is it your superiority alone that sets such lofty beliefs in a president who is becoming more disliked by the day? I don't know what kind of water your hallowed chief walks upon, but for the sentient being you pretend he is, why does he learn about his scandals from the press? You'd think he would dam near know what was going on before we do. Why doesn't he have his finger on the pulse instead of wrapped around a golf club?

 

Obviously, the Obama political opponents are completely delusional and have never presented a solitary fact to back up their overcooked claims.

Obama political opponents aren't intelligent enough to read, comprehend or interpret Bureau of Labor Statistics or Periodic Economic Reports to make a rational and coherent appraisal of his performance with the economy, nor are they delusion free enough to see that Sunni and Shia conflicts have been around for 1,400 years and will continue to be around for another 1,400 years, regardless of what any sitting U.S. President does or does not do an any nation where the factions might happen to clash.

Incompetence is found in the opinion that is offered absent any proof to support its underlying premise. Only incompetent people make such incompetent statements.

Placing politics ahead of results is the most incompetent example a political operative can put on public display. That which is inconsequential is that which the incompetent observer holds out as being relevant, when no supportive data affirms such an assumptive close.

Those having on clue and no definition of traditional foundations of this country, are those offering mere ad hominem banter which was heard by the people both in 2004 and again in 2008, without acceptance.

Insanity has been defined as doing the same damn thing over and over again, while expecting a different result.

Self-delusion based on a complete lack of factual substantiation about the beliefs held, is often the cornerstone of an emergent Psychotic disorder. So, honestly, I am not surprised.

Describing the details of the actions taken by those the President and then explaining why their actions were partisan, is the starting point for making statements that are believable and credible in and of themselves.

In the absence of such definition, detail and abstraction, the one offering such statements has done nothing but proven him or herself to be the partisan hack that he or she claims they witness others to be.

Absurdly ridiculous and Saturnalian (look it up if you don't already understand its definition) commentary such as that which gives no show of proof, no demonstration of factual detail to support the claim, nor any grasp of even our most recent history as a nation, only serves to prove that the pontification of such wild notions without rational basis, is nothing more than the continued echos of the chopping block upon which the offerer once had its head handed to it during the past two Presidential Election cycles.

Have a better day.

 

See this post as it articulates precisely why your post is lacking in believability: Ad Hominem Offerings Do Not Equate to The Proffering of Fact.

 

Some people just can't face the truth.

 

Thank you and no thank, at the same time. You see - believe it or not, I don't have my rear-end up the wazzoo of any Political Party. If you have read any of my posts on this forum regarding "politics," you would know by now that I despise the game and the players. THAT is your problem. You kiss the rear-end of the players and you live by their playbook.

What you see in this thread from me is the second thing I despise the most. It is what I now call Political Fracking. You see, when you hug the base of your absurdly ridiculous political party (left or right wing) and you do nothing but use it to spew lies and engage in obstruction, then you are doing nothing more than Politically Fracking the American People and our Republic.

The real damage over the past 16 years to our country has come from a Republican Party Gone Wild. Eight years of killing people in Iraq, Afghanistan and 3,000 on U.S. soil, coupled to eight years of total domestic policy neglect, is precisely what brought us here today. You see, this is not my opinion - these are provable facts. There are approximately 700,000 innocent Iraqi, Men, Women and Children who had their lives either taken away or completely ruined by the illegal acts of George W. Bush and his Cabal. That is a fact. That is not my irrational and assumptive conclusion, similar to the crap you just posted in this thread. Depending on whose numbers you trust, approximately 700k were either killed or seriously wounded in Iraq, alone. That's not including Afghanistan, which was another illegal War Crime committed by none other than George W. Bush.

That eight year long set-up came to a head on or about October, 2008, when our economy imploded because we spent the past 30+ years shipping good ole fashion American Middle Class Jobs overseas and because in our infinite wisdom, we basically shut down our ability to export our own manufactured goods and we allowed China, to manipulate its way to prosperity such that its economy was growing at a breakneck 14.2% at peak. At least, this President, was able to get China, to allow its currency to float - something that no other President was able to accomplish - yet another forgotten success story of the Obama Presidency.

The current President took a job that only Superman himself should have applied for, but he did not know throughout the two years of his campaign until the last minute that everything he campaigned on would have to take a back seat to restoring the economy. Mod Edit ~ Don't make it personal. Had you taken this into account and had you actually paid attention to the key components of this particular White House and its actions to place a foundation under our economy, there would be no way on earth that you would have accused this White House of being incompetent because the real record that I have outlined in this thread clearly demonstrates otherwise - yet you and people just like you, want to ignore his successes because you know that they fly directly in the fact of your campaign trail slogan that he was too junior for the job, which itself flew in the face of American Presidential Candidate History going back as far as George Washington himself.

Thus, you and people just like you put on a farce. You walk around pretending as if intelligent people cannot study the BLS, the many Economic Reports and the BEA data that have come out since 2008, for themselves. In fact, you and people just like you are counting on the apathy and ignorance of the American People and you hope they never do the actual homework. However, doing the required homework makes things very clear. It shows me a White House that was under some of most difficult pressure that any White House has ever been under since Hoover and Roosevelt, to solve both Domestic AND International crises at the same time.

I then turn to the Economic Data itself and when I do, I find a White House whose policies put a floor under the economy (eventually) and allowed real GDP to begin a move to the upside along with most of the critical Economic Reports that matter along the way. Now, pay close attention to what I am about to say next. From 1960 through Today, the United States has never had a good Current Account status where the Current Account was actually making real gains to the upside. That is NOT to say that our Current Account has never been more positive than it is today, because from 1960 to about 1982/83 (sound like a familiar date range to you? it should - we elected Reagan, in 80), our Current Account was near the BE level.

Then what happened? Well, as they say, the rest is truly history. From about 1982/83 the Current Account began what can only be described as a death spiral until about 2006. Does that date range sound familiar? It should - we elected Obama. Around the the 1992 period, the Current Account made a wonderful surge back up to the BE level. Does that date range sound familiar? It should - we elected Clinton. However, that was short lived because from that same time period the United States Current Account simply dropped off the face of the earth down to a disgusting -$800 billion by 2006, 6.7% of GDP. Absolutely, none of it was Obama's fault.

From 2006 (roughly), the United States saw the biggest gain in positive Current Account ever recorded in modern U.S. Economic History since 1960. That rush of positive gain in Current Account lasted from about 2006 to almost 2010. It was the largest continuous move up ever. That happened under Barack Obama. Current Account moved to -$390 billion. It was cut in half under President Obama, primarily because of the way he handled the recovery allowing for more exports of automobiles and partly because foreign demand dropped off while foreign investment increased.

I don't sit here and toss out one liner statements of ad hominem gibberish and pretend that I'm actually proving something in the process, nor am I one of those who believes that continually borrowing from foreign countries to fuel out economy is a wise thing to be doing or in any way sustainable. I give you rational explanation for WHY I believe this White House has succeeded. This is very much unlike that meandering propositions that others put forth without delineating any rational component in the expression of their beliefs. The ONLY way for you to be able to do this, is to have at least some command of the facts. Else, all you can do is continually offer partisan commentary without substantiation of your claims - something I do not appreciate.

I don't support this President because I think he's perfect. I support him because I think he's right. When you do the homework and inject some intellectual honesty into your study, you can't help but conclude that he LED at a time when his country needed him most and he did so in ways that helped our nation survive the assault of eight years of total domestic neglect.

The VAST majority of his Presidency has been spent cleaning up crap left behind by Necon Puppet Masters who think that War For Oil (proven by the PSA contracts issued to many who were former Oil Conglomerate globalists themselves) is an actual Foreign Policy.

 

Indeed, some people can't because they feel the truth hurts their partisan obstructionist agenda that does nothing but further destroy our Republic. Case in point.

 

How do we know how many total entities were looked at? And, how do we know that there were simply more right leaning entities than left? So, I have no idea how stating the truth becomes desperation. Both sides were tagged.

Now, as for the tagging and disappearing emails - I'm not one to want to play games with the system and I'm not one to see the system used to target any one particular group. Thus, if you take my sincere belief that we need to do away with Political Parties entire in American National Politics, then this problem goes completely away. In fact, it could never happen, if we had the kind of truly fair system of Management without Politics that I suggest on other areas on this forum.

We don't need Political Representatives who come from Political Parties. That system has clearly failed and the proof is combative nature of Capital Hill today. What we need are National Managers whom we hire to conduct the nations business, not Representative whom we elect. That's the problem right now, they believe they are The Elect, The Elite among us. We set them up for having a god-like complex when they arrive in Washington, we allow them to play around with slush funds, get lathered up by special interests on K street and then we wonder why we have a problem with getting them to do the right thing for The People. They are not interested on Capital Hill with The People, they are interested in maintaining their position and status as the "Elected," The Elite.

To heck with that. This is our country, not theirs. We pay the bills, not them. It is our money and the United States Constitution belongs to US, not someone who actually believes that they are The Elect, The Elite.

See my post on how we change the Rules of Congress without a bloody revolution an finally do what Jefferson, told us to do when government stops serving our needs.

Nobody is talking about changing the structure of Congress. Everybody is talking about changing politicians from one Party to another Party. That won't work anymore. The entire Congressional branch of government needs to be completely replaced with a Congressional Office of National Business Management. We don't need people walking around Capital Hill figuring out new ways to spend out money, we need to be establishing the Metrics by which they follow our lead on how our money is utilized for the best interest of the Union.

None of that can be done in the current Congressional House of Elites. The Elected. The Special. The Above All Others.

Wake up, people. Take Congress back into YOUR hands where it always belonged. Go do your homework on what the founders actually wrote about the United States Congress. It was supposed to be a House that belonged to US. Yet, we have surrendered it to THEM, The Elites, The Elect. The Chosen Ones.

It is our House. Bought and paid for with the blood of our ancestors (black and white). How the heck did we ever lose it.

 

Yes, you do provide a perfect example of that. You make my point for me better than I ever could. Thanks.

 

You might as well have told me to go Frack myself. Hey, maybe you did. I'll have to think about that one. I'm much slower than you, so give me a couple days.

Anyway, I have no interest in going back to read any of your posts in order to evaluate your stance on this or that. You simply are not that important. And you obviously haven't taken the time to study mine. I don't blame you nor do I think I'm owed such a review. But in the off chance you did, you'd know I'm Conservative. I'm Republican. And my representatives might say they agree with me on key points, but often they vote another way. I don't blindly follow, but I do get tripped up from time to time, get sucked in, that kind of thing. I'm human, it happens. But, you accuse me of kissing the rear end of the players when I've given you no cause to come to that conclusion.

I do hug the base, but not the players. I hold an elected seat even though I dislike the way my party operates. I'm disgusted, actually.

Anyhow, you are as left as they come, and your positions on things are so removed from where I begin, that I simply don't reply. The pile of issues, mismanagement, and ineptitude displayed by Obama on the IRS, Benghazi, trading with terrorists, the VA, Obamacare lies, Russia, Iraq, Global Warming, 18 trillion, the list goes on. I simply wish he'd step aside and let his youngest daughter run things for the duration.

 

More lame excuses for him. I'm glad he got two terms. He's fresh out of excuses.

 

The "office" is a room. It by itself, does absolutely nothing. It's not a person, or an organic lifeform. But if this is the latest excuse for our US President, it's rather fitting. It's as empty and hollow as he is.

That's cute, then there's this. Populist revolt leading to economic reforms

The whole contingency was on that IMF Loansharking. The people didn't accept the terms and recently rejected a proposal of 3.0%. So it still remains very much unresolved. Frankly, I hope they stick to their guns. That debt is indeed privately owned by corporations and banks. Not by and for the Nordic People.

You're perplexed because you falsely interpreted what was written. I'm arguing that the premise of artificial demand lowering costs(Mandated Insurance) is insane. It's not only insane, but economically nonexistent! The owner(Insurance companies) are of course going to charge the MAX that they can. Partially to ensure their own profitability, but also to meet the rising costs associated with insuring people.

Only that economically incompetent fool and his equally inept party thought it was a good idea. Or that creating a "cap" on price increase would somehow "manage" costs. Secondly, the newly insured consumers do not in any way lower costs for hospices. The insurance industry only pays out so much, doctors have to be paid and there's a scarcity of goods(take body transplants as an example). And the best idea they could come up with was to add more to the burden?

Basically, if either tip of the Supply/Demand scale is tilted, it leads to an economic imbalance. As was the case prior to and especially after those moronic Democrats pushed a heavy burden on the demand side. Nancy Pelosi didn't just need to read the bill, she needed economic counseling.

I'll spare the impact of employees(as that's seen as a Republican talking point) but from a pure economics standpoint regarding cost/accessibility the president's right: Nothing's changed. Crap Care is the weakest reform in U.S History.


I'll discuss Foreign Policy with you later. For now, sleep calls me.

 

Just want to tell you that I do not read walls of text (I do not believe, majority of PF'ers do either. That is not what I'm here for.

As for the snippet of your wall of text I've chosen to reply to (and the only reason I've spotted it, 'cos it was at the bottom), nothing could be further from truth, and we all know it. Lately, I've been finding myself less and less interested in discussing Obama this, and Obama that - I just want him gone. If he's gonna be replaced by a Democrat, its fine with me too, so long as he/she is not black and can, therefore, be held accountable for his/her actions/inactions.

If I sound racist, so be it, and I blame Obama for it.

 

I love how people use "defend the office" after the horrible things said and done to Bush while in office. Partisanship at its finest.

I'd say I agree with about 15% of what Obama has done, however I have never seen or read about a president being so divisive to the country.

 

Or... sum it up man.

 

Show me one thing in six (6) years that Republicans have done on Capital Hill other than obstruct the progress of the United States of America through the playing of political games. I won't be holding my breath, that's for certain.

 

The get out of this debate forum. If you don't or can't keep up, then you have no basis for a reply. Thus, the rest of your struggling post was ignored. If you can debate on the merits, then do so. If not, go hide under your political party's rock where the delusions of being warm and protected are the strongest.

In the meantime, your country will be eaten away by the parasitic worms that such party affiliation garners.

 

Unfortunately, you have yet to identify a solitary reason to produce an excuse. I'll stick to the data as opposed to your opinion and actual history instead of your revision of it.

 

The divisiveness was due to their own actions, the President did not cause it, oh except for a small number that went moonbat crazy because the man happens be darker than they are, but he has no control of the color is was born with.

 

The Office of the President is where Executive Power resides in our nation's federal government architecture. The other two power structures are the United States Congress and the United States Supreme Court. The use of executive power over the past six years in an attempt to right the wrongs of the previous eight years, is something that factually cannot be denied. You can lie about it, but people who can read the record for themselves will know you to be a liar when and if you do.

Cute is as cute does. You asked how Iceland corrected its problems - replacing the entire government did not solve Iceland's economic problems - that's the point made in my reply. I spoke the data driving Icelandic economic issues after 2008, not the emotions that drive its people to want to make permanent structural changes in the way they govern themselves.

Yes. The IMF (International Mafia Fund) is an international loan shark. They have perfected their craft. But, they have been doing this in places like Grenada and Jamaica for years - anther form of Economic Slavery. That is what the so-called "New World Order" is all about. They don't want to kill you, they want to use you as an indebted slave. These guys are Bank Running Strategists and their plan is total consolidation whenever and wherever possible. Their crash doctrine would see banks come to near collapse, the people get scared and then run on the bank, riots, collapse of stock markets and ultimately bargain shopping and the dictation of new terms by the Mafia. That's their MO in the NWO.

I'm fairly confident that what you wrote speaks for itself and that I cannot reply unless I know what I am replying to.

Why not simply come out and say it that way the first time. I would agree, that in any market (regardless of the product or service be sold), if the demand is temporal, that providers won't bring pricing into alignment with a new demand as the expectation for contraction persists. That is not the case with National Healthcare.

The primary reason for the increases in healthcare costs is not because government spends more on Medicare. The primary reason can be seen on your medial patient records documentation. The explosive proliferation of multiple and redundant procedures related to testing and analysis and their associated costs, the increases in variety of pharmaceuticals for the treatment of the same diagnosis and their associated costs, the repetitive nature of certain medical tests prescribed by physicians and their associated costs, the bloated and always rising costs associated with medical equipment and supplies for the routine treatment of patients in hospitals, etc.

Sure, if you take the flawed Milton Friedman model for rising medical costs, then you come away with a failed understanding of something very simple - increased demand lowers costs - not merely because there is an increase in demand, but because there must be a corresponding increase in lateral supply, meaning not less, but more active supplier participation in the market which itself drives competition and competition therefore, is what ultimately places pressure on downward pricing. I don't believe in the Milton Friedman theory on rising health care costs for these reasons.

Those rising costs will come down as a direct result of more competition driving customer retention. You would see that same thing take shape with Wireless and Wired services as well, if regional monopolies did not exist throughout the country to provide things like HSI and 4G services. If you increase demand enough, you have to expand service delivery horizontally and that means more healthy competition (no pun intended) - and that places pressure on prices to the downside as companies now have to prove themselves worthy to receive market share through improved customer retention which includes a whole range of things companies must do - not just offering lower prices.

You keep lumping Hospice Care with routine Health Care. Long term hospice does not have the same model of care as regular health care. I went through that for many years with my own mother. Hospice drives its own inefficiencies and that entire subset if health care needs to be redesigned and re-architected from the ground up to be more efficient. The main problem is the huge gap in care provided from government funded Hospice care facilities vs private facilities. One the one hand you say that government only pays so much, yet you turn right around and complain that increasing coverage won't decrease costs. Again, that makes little sense, if any at all.

There are a lot of people out there that "private pay" Hospice care. The average family however, simply cannot handle that kind of expense. Thus, you have to cover, reduce costs and increase quality at the same time when it comes to Hospice or Palliative care. Again, you have to get to the heart of the Causation behind rising costs, instead of merely focusing on the politics. The problem is the inefficiencies within our current system and the greed that drives it internally. This translates into higher premiums, deductibles and co-pays. We've been living with a system that legally soaks the patient/consumer for so long, that we hardly know how to get out of that situation.

That is not the inherent truth. America, across the board, needs more competition for your health care dollar. You can walk into a 7-Eleven on just about any corner of our country, but some people literally have no hospital offering services for MILES where they live. We have a scarcity of services availability in the aggregate, proven by the absurdly ridiculous long and ever growing lines in emergency rooms across the country. That is jacking costs through the roof, because there is little to no competition and a growing population base.

Somehow, when it comes to health care, we lose all sense of economic reality and we get political, while clinging to party dogma, which only serves to muddy the waters and frustrate people even more. Increase demand (cover more people fully), increase horizontal services, increase competition and then drive down costs. This is not necessarily rocket science but there are those who don't like Obama enough to turn it into something beyond comprehension.

Tell that to this person:
[video=youtube;uGKE0rZF644]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGKE0rZF644[/video]

These are not people who could not pay for health care, which is the mantra echoed by wrong thinking Republicans. These are people who insurances companies flat out denied coverage to, because of a pre-existing condition.

You will spare it because you have not yet done the homework, and you've listened to the obstructionists who told you what you should think, instead of actually reading what the new national health care provisions do for Small Businesses. The truth is that National Health Care actually HELPS most Small Business with less than 25 employees right now and more than 100 employees in 2016. The average employee count in the United States is 20 employees. The National Health Care plan now covers the almost half of all uninsured, which were Small Business Owners, their Employees and their Families. That's very important for you to understand.

Taxes and tax credits are based off of the number of full-time equivalent employees (FTE) and their average annual wages, not solely on the number of full-time employees. Small businesses with fewer than 25 full-time equivalent employees with average annual wages below $50,000 can get tax credits (as adjusted for inflation beginning in 2014) to help pay for employee premiums. Tax credits are retroactive since 2010 so you can still claim your health insurance tax credit for any year since 2010. Small businesses with more than 100 full-time equivalent employee with average annual wages above $250,000 must provide health coverage to at least 70% of full-time employees starting in 2015 and 95% of full-time employees starting in 2016.

So, the smaller the businesses the better the tax breaks. Businesses with over 50 full-time equivalent employees are exempt from the fee on their first 30 full-time workers greatly reducing the negative affect the law could have on businesses who just barely qualify as a large firm. Small employers can see up to a 50% reduction in their share of the cost of employee premiums. The amount employers do pay is tax deductible and can be carried forward or backward. 96% of all firms in the United States - or 5.8 million out of 6 million total firms - have under 50 employees and Will not Be Penalized for choosing not to provide health coverage to their employees. 96% of those firms already cover full time workers. That means less than .2% of small businesses (10,000 out of 6 million) will actually have to provide insurance to full-time employees or pay the shared responsibility fee due to ObamaCare.

When you actually take the time to educate yourself on Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP), how it works, why it works the way it does and the resultant Tax Credits available to Small Business to offset the costs of providing their employees with health insurance, you will come to know the truth about Obamacare as it relates to Small Businesses. The insurances companies don't like it partly because they now have to cover people with pre-existing conditions, so they have spent a lot of money in PR, snowing you under with misconceptions about what National Health Care actually does for Families and Small Businesses.

You should spend more time studying this than politicizing it.

 

Wow, now you are the PF police? Where do you gain such superiority? Will you be escorting me out?

I can't help it that your post are not a worthy study. Please don't be offended. It isn't personal.

I've been getting a kick out of watching you prop up Obama as if his low rating can only be attributed to ignorance. It all comes off as self importance on your part, or perhaps that you are hiding behind Obama's skirt. Only my perception, which of course should be chalked up to my ignorance and unworthiness.

Obama's poll numbers suck because he's a fool. His basis for making decisions is flawed. The evidence for how the people see him can be seen in the poll. It is so embarrassing that even NBC won't even talk about it much, which should give some indication of how big a lap dog they are. Even with the left press propping Obama up, the people see the obvious on their own. It took long enough.

 

You said you did not read the post. So, what's the point of you being in this thread? Don't offer a reply after you've concluded that you don't know what you are replying to. Moreover, I'd be just as wrong as you are for responding to the merits of what you say, when you admit you don't even know what you are responding to. That's called pointless drivel. Either know what you are responding to, or don't bother responding.

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Or, you don't like the smell of jet fuel, don't try to be a Crew Chief.