Political Chat Digest for skews13


User avatar
Posted by skews13
01 Nov 2013, 10:22 am

skews13      
User avatar
     

Posts: 2714
golfboy wrote:
Another "I told you so" moment.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101162215
Obamacare does nothing to link doctors' fees to their performance and reduce health-care costs, the head of the Mayo Clinic told CNBC on Friday.

"The Affordable Care Act is basically insurance reform—eligibility and access—and basically, they are going to pay for that by reducing the reimbursement. It doesn't modernize how we drive to higher quality care," Dr. John Noseworthy said in a "Squawk Box" interview.


He said that updating reimbursement methods to reflect better outcomes will lower health-care costs. "Right now, we're in a system where we're reimbursing volume of care not quality and outcomes of care—safety, efficiency and so on. And that's where most of the costs are."

Poor goofy, just can't get over the fact he's a loser in a losers world. Don't worry goofy, the grown ups, that wouldn't be you, will take care of these issues as time goes on. We're just 30 days into the enrollment period, and nothing has taken effect yet. I would be happy to send you some cheese for that whine totally at my expense. No really.

User avatar
Posted by skews13
01 Nov 2013, 10:30 am

skews13      
User avatar
     

Posts: 2714
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/11/01/dianne-barrette-on-fox-news/




In the short period of time since the new health insurance exchanges opened on October 1, opponents of the law have presented a series of Americans who claim that the law is not doing what the president promised. However, the claims of most of these anti-Obamacare “poster children” have been debunked. Thanks to the shoddy reporting of CBS News, the latest poster child is a 56 year old Floridian named Dianne Barrette.
As reported here on October 29, Dianne Barrette was the centerpiece of a thinly disguised Obamacare hit piece that ran on CBS This Morning. In the piece Barrette claimed that she had an insurance policy that she was happy with — one that only cost her $54 a month. Barrette’s story did not hold up to scrutiny. As Tommy Christopher explains onMediaite,
First of all, the plan that Barrette paid $54 a month for is barely health insurance at all. It’s part of a subset of insurance that Consumer Reports calls “junk health insurance” (and which even the company that sells it recommends that customers not rely solely upon) and it pays only $50 towards most of the services it covers. That’s it. If Dianne went to the doctor every week for a year, her plan would pay, at most, $2600. Meanwhile, based on average office visit charges, Diane would pay about $5,600.00. She probably doesn’t go to the doctor every week, of course, which means her plan pays a lot less, while her premium buys her a lot less. If she goes to the doctor, say, six times in a year, she’s paid a $648 premium for the privilege of spending another $600 on office visits. The plan also pays up to $15 per prescription, which will get you a few milligrams of most prescription drugs. The one decent deal on her plan is that it covers 100% of in-network lab services.

CBS also did not bother to explain that certain policies can be “grandfathered” in under the Affordable Care Act. If Dianne Barrette’s policy had been available before the ACA was signed into law on March 23, 2010, she could keep it. The only exception to that rule is if the benefits under the policy are changed. So the cancellation of her policy is the fault of Blue Cross, not Obamacare.
Fox News seeks out Dianne Barrette.
Even though the CBS report has been completely debunked, Dianne Barrette is telling her story on Fox News. Erik Wemple, media reporter for The Washington Post, spoke to Barrette. She confirmed that she spoke to producers from the shows “Fox and Friends,” “Your World,” and “On the Record.” Barrette told Wemple “You guys are going to be sick of my face.”
Barrette appeared on Greta Van Susteren’s show “On the Record” on October 28. In an amazing display of journalism that was lacking from CBS, Van Susteren makes the following observation: “If you are walking across the street and someone runs a red light, you are in deep trouble under your existing policy.” Barrette replies “That is true.”
Van Susteren refers to Dianne Barrette’s existing policy as “bare bones,” and “stripped down.” She asks why Barrette would want to keep that policy. Barrette admits that the policy doesn’t cover hospital stays. At one point Van Susteren suggests that there may be options other than the replacement policy recommended by Blue Cross. Barrette admits that she has received email directing her to other policies. She says that she is interested in looking at them. Like the CBS report, Van Susteren makes no mention of the “grandfather” clause in the ACA. Nor does she explain that due to that provision, it is actually the insurance company that is forcing the cancellation of the policy.
The interview shows that many Americans have no idea of what their health insurance actually covers. A good number of people pay more attention to the cost than to the coverage. What is or isn’t covered only becomes a concern when they get sick. Barrette calls the policy “totally confusing.” Van Susteren, who is a lawyer, agrees. But the brochure about the plan is quite plain: the plan pays up to $50 for most covered services. Lab services are 100% paid for. There is no coverage for hospital stays.
After both women agree that Barrette’s current policy is almost worthless, Van Susteren says “Your promise wasn’t kept. You don’t get to keep your policy.” Yes, damned Obamacare. Forcing people off insurance policies that won’t cover anything they actually need to have covered. The horror!
Here’s the video, from Fox News:

User avatar
Posted by skews13
01 Nov 2013, 10:37 am

skews13      
User avatar
     

Posts: 2714
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/01/1252309/-When-is-enough-going-to-be-enough-for-Senate-Democrats-to-go-nbsp-nuclear



So much for gentlemen's agreements with Senate Republicans. Once again, Republicans filibustered two of President Obama's nominees—Rep. Mel Watt at the Federal Housing Finance administration and Patricia Millett for the D.C. Circuit court—Thursday. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will bring the two nominees back, as well as two more D.C. Circuit nominees, and some Democratsare calling for him to use the nuclear option to break the filibuster.
“People are pretty upset,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), who said if he was the Senate leader he’d move toward a rules change. “Support is growing for changing the rules when they play these games.”
“The pattern of ‘obstruct and delay’ has returned as the norm in the U.S. Senate with today’s filibuster of two highly qualified nominees,” said Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) “It proves once again the need to reform the Senate’s rules.”

Senators from Jeff Merkley (D-OR) to Kay Hagan (D-NC) sounded their frustration after these votes, frustration that's going to just build, something Reid might be counting on. Reid apparently wants to give Republicans more rope with other pending nominations, particularly Janet Yellen at the Federal Reserve, a nomination Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham are threatening over Benghazi (because that makes sense).
“I’m going to file cloture on two other D.C. Circuit [nominees] and then make a decision. I’m not making it today,” Reid told reporters following a closed-door Democratic lunch. When informed that Republicans don’t believe Reid will invoke the nuclear option, Reid said, “Well, time will tell, won’t it?”

Reid had the votes and the will of his caucus to end the filibuster for executive nominations this summer, when Republicans backed down and allowed some long-blocked nominees through. He might not have the votes right now for ending the filibuster on judicial nominations, but more specious opposition from Republicans could force a change of mind among the handful of reluctant Democrats.

User avatar
Posted by skews13
01 Nov 2013, 10:47 am

Post 01 Nov 2013, 10:47 am
skews13      
User avatar
     

Posts: 2714
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/obamacares-winners-and-losers





Image


If the Republican National Committee had written the script for the week, it wouldn’t have gone quite this well for the right. The political world took a relatively obscure element of the debate over health care – insurers informing consumers about replacing poor, outdated coverage plans with new, better plans – and turned it into a “controversy.”



In an amazing twist, conservative Republicans who are desperate to take away coverage for millions of Americans are pretending to be outraged on behalf of Americans whose plans are being upgraded.

As we talked about earlier in the week, I’m not terribly impressed by the sudden apoplectic outburst from reporters and Republicans, but let’s consider the above pie chart and get a little more specific.



MIT’s Jonathan Gruber, an economist who helped then-Gov. Mitt Romney (R) shape health care reform in Massachusetts, told Ryan Lizza this week about a percentage breakdown: how many Americans will be unaffected (consumers who’ll keep their current employer-based plan), how many will break even (those who’ll get a new plan, but it’ll cost the same as their current plan), who many will win (those who’ll get new coverage that’s cheaper than what they’re paying now), and how many will “lose” (those whose new plan will be better, but will cost more). It led University of Michigan economist and Brookings fellow Justin Wolfers to put together the above image based on Gruber’s assessment.

To be sure, the point isn’t to say that those 3% in the red slice are unimportant. Obviously, everyone matters.

Rather, if all you relied upon was general media coverage over the last several days, one might assume that that the “losers” under the Affordable Care Act represented nearly 100% of the U.S. population.

They’re not. It’s not even close.

Gruber told Lizza that 97% of Americans will either be left alone or will be clear winners. “We have to as a society be able to accept that,” he said. “Don’t get me wrong, that’s a shame, but no law in the history of America makes everyone better off.”

I’ve seen some overnight pushback, arguing that Gruber’s numbers are rough estimates, not precise assessments. That’s true. What’s more, results will also vary by state.

But let’s not miss the forest for the trees – even if the totals are off by a few percentage points, the key takeaway here is that the hair-on-fire coverage about Americans “losing” their current health plans, and having insurance get “canceled” on them, has been exaggerated to levels that clearly mislead the public at large.

For that matter, in case this isn’t obvious, the “losers” in this scenario aren’t actually losing – they’re paying more for better coverage and more health care security, which will almost certainly save them money if, say, they get sick.



Dylan Scott explained this morning, “What really matters is, what happens to the people who are receiving those cancellation letters that congressional Republicans have been parading in front of the cameras?

The bottom line: Almost all of them are going to receive the same or much better coverage, and many of them are going to receive financial help to purchase it.”

If this week is any guide, we’ll see just about every single American in that 3% tell their story very soon, but to think they’re representative of most of the country is an important mistake.



Postscript: Let’s also try to remember that phasing out old, substandard plans is something to be celebrated, not condemned. As Jon Chait noted this morning, the sooner the awful insurance goes away, the better it is for all consumers and the health care system in general.

User avatar
Posted by skews13
01 Nov 2013, 11:37 am

skews13      
User avatar
     

Posts: 2714
Have you been seeing media stories sounding the alarm about how Obamacare is creating “rate shock” and causing people’s health care costs to go up? Don’t worry, folks! There’s one thing I want you to remember about those stories, as alarming as they are. They are good, old-fashioned




Image


I asked on Twitter earlier this week for wingnuts who are up in arms about the people who are supposedly seeing a rate hike for their insurance a very simple question: Can they give me a single example of someone who is now, because of the ACA, paying more for a comparable plan on the health care exchange? I got hundreds, probably thousands of replies, which was very time-consuming! In order of most common to least-common, here is the “proof” offered:
Exclamations that I was some kind of idiot, libtard, or feeble-minded due to being femaleDeclarations that they would not enjoy sexual intercourse with meLinks to news stories that did not actually demonstrate that people are getting charged more for comparable plansLibertarian wanking about how the right of insurance companies to rip you off is sacred because Founding Fathers and also Ayn RandWhining that now that poor people are going to get health care, there will be less of it for them, and they clearly deserve it more because reasonsWay, way at the bottom: Screenshots of people showing that their crappy plans were being cancelled and the insurance company is charging them more for a new one
Zero people sent me evidence that they went to the health care exchange, shopped around for a plan that’s comparable to the one they have now, and found it’s more expensive. ZERO.
That is because that claim, that people are losing their insurance and finding that they can’t replace it as it was on the exchange is, as noted before,
Image
Think Progress has a good rundown why. Basically, the plans that are getting cancelled are getting cancelled because they were, to be blunt, rip-offs. They had high deductibles, didn’t cover shit, and often had caps.

The new plans have to cover essential servicesand cannot have caps. Some of the rates the insurance companies sent out are, in fact, really high. But for many people who got those rates, if you go onto the exchange, you’ll find that you can get a better rate for the same plan there. Many people will also qualify for subsidies. It’s as simple as that.
Yes, the website is glitchy and things are screwed up on that front, but let’s be clear: That is moving the goal posts. If the claim is that this is not affordable for people, you have to prove it.
Anyway, I recommend reading that Think Progress piece, bookmarking it, and sending it to anyone bitching about the supposedly higher rates under Obamacare. High rates are a problem and we need to fix them, but we can’t even begin to have that conversation unless we agree to compare apples to apples. Wingnuts screaming about how unfair it is that men have to pay into a system that covers maternity care—as if men don’t benefit from having been given birth to and play no role in the act that makes babies happen—is just noise and should be ignored in order to have a real world-based discussion on how to make sure people are not bankrupted by the health care system. That discussion needs to include not just the cost of insurance, but the cost of medical bills if your crappy insurance doesn’t cover them.
Obamacare has a lot of problems, but they are on the implementation side and hopefully will get fixed. In fact, I’m sure they will get fixed eventually. That is a separate conversation than the mostly-to-utterly fictional rate hikes for comparable plans.
Why is the media reporting these half-witted stories instead of telling the full tale, you may ask. The answer is simple: Most media outlets are chomping at the bit to give conservatives a story. Liberals are right 99% of the time—99.9% in recent years—and so the opportunities to “prove” that they’re objective and not the “liberal media” are really thin on the ground. So they’re a little eager to report this story, even though you have to elide the deeper truth to tell it. It’s pretty dumb, since it never actually stops conservatives from accusing the media of being the “liberal media”. I really do wish truth was considered a greater value than handicapping the media so the right can score a few points once in awhile, no matter how unfairly.

User avatar
Posted by skews13
01 Nov 2013, 4:56 pm

skews13      
User avatar
     

Posts: 2714
golfboy wrote:
bingster wrote:
It was knocked down once. It will be knocked down again.

It was reinstated once, it will be... oh, wait. It doesn't have to be reinstated again.


It will be knocked down at the polls in coming elections. Here's what you fringe nut jobs are going to be faced with when that happens. Every judicial opening on every absent seat in the country will be filled with a very Progressive anti gun judge. Let's see where your smart ass, self righteous attitude is then. Oh yeah, in case you weren't aware, this will be heard again in January by a higher court. But keep on living the dream, because that's all it's going to end up being. And before you go self righteous on 2nd amendment rights, women have just as much a constitutional right to reproductive choices. So don't whine and cry when the time comes when somebody starts fucking with your rights.

User avatar
Posted by skews13
01 Nov 2013, 4:57 pm

skews13      
User avatar
     

Posts: 2714
golfboy wrote:
Bad news for women that prefer risky abortions with no medical backup.

http://news.yahoo.com/court-reinstates-most-texas-abortion-rules-000638572.html
A federal appeals court on Thursday ruled that most of Texas' tough new abortion restrictions can take effect immediately — a decision that means a third of the state's clinics that perform the procedure won't be able to do so starting as soon as Friday.

A panel of judges at the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans said the law requiring doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital can take effect while a lawsuit challenging the restrictions moves forward. The panel issued the ruling three days after District Judge Lee Yeakel said the provision serves no medical purpose.

In its 20-page ruling, the appeals court panel acknowledged that the provision "may increase the cost of accessing an abortion provider and decrease the number of physicians available to perform abortions." However, the panel said that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that having "the incidental effect of making it more difficult or more expensive to procure an abortion cannot be enough to invalidate" a law that serves a valid purpose, "one not designed to strike at the right itself."


So your premise is women prefer risky abortions?

User avatar
Posted by skews13
01 Nov 2013, 5:00 pm

skews13      
User avatar
     

Posts: 2714
golfboy wrote:
Debunking the Debunkers: Yes, Obamacare Rate Shock is Real

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/conncarroll/2013/10/31/debunking-the-debunkers-yes-obamacare-rate-shock-is-real-n1733694

But now, The Los Angeles Times' Michael Hiltzik is trying to "debunk" his own paper's reporting. Cavallaro, Hiltzik now says, is wrong about her options under Obamacare and "is the product of her own misunderstandings, abetted by a passel of uninformed and incurious news reporters."

To recap: with her old plan, Cavarallo paid $480 less in premiums every year (even with subsidies included), got to keep the doctor she sees now, and had no fear that the IRS would come after her if she earned more money next year.

Under Obamacare, her premiums are higher, she probably will not be able to keep her doctor, she can't even find out which doctors will see her, and if she underestimates her income, she gets to fight with the IRS.

User avatar
Posted by skews13
01 Nov 2013, 5:06 pm

skews13      
User avatar
     

Posts: 2714
RichClem wrote:
skews13 wrote:
Don't Believe The Hype About "Rate Shock".


Gosh, who should we believe, our lying eyes or your stupid leftist source? :lol:

Think Progress has a good rundown why. Basically, the plans that are getting cancelled are getting cancelled because they were, to be blunt, rip-offs. They had high deductibles, didn’t cover ****, and often had caps.


Because I rarely get sick or hurt and pay cash out of pocket, I want a high deductible and a plan that doesn't cover things I don't want and don't use.

Obama and Dems lied, troll, and I hope his party gets crushed next year.


So tell us cletis, what exactly is it that your eyes see? You've been debunked cletis. You can whine and cry until next year, and nothing is going to change. You got your ass kicked so badly on Obamacare it's not even worth getting into a pissing contest anymore over the subject. Obama won, you lost, it is the law of the land, it isn't going anywhere, deal with it. Oh yeah, hoping isn't going to do you any good either, every poll on the planet has tea party nutjob Republicans getting their asses handed to them next year in national and state elections. Our first order of business? Fill every judicial opening in the country with the most Liberal judges we can find. Have a nice day.

User avatar
Posted by skews13
01 Nov 2013, 8:16 pm

skews13      
User avatar
     

Posts: 2714
golfboy wrote:
Bad news for women that prefer risky abortions with no medical backup.

http://news.yahoo.com/court-reinstates-most-texas-abortion-rules-000638572.html
A federal appeals court on Thursday ruled that most of Texas' tough new abortion restrictions can take effect immediately — a decision that means a third of the state's clinics that perform the procedure won't be able to do so starting as soon as Friday.

A panel of judges at the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans said the law requiring doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital can take effect while a lawsuit challenging the restrictions moves forward. The panel issued the ruling three days after District Judge Lee Yeakel said the provision serves no medical purpose.

In its 20-page ruling, the appeals court panel acknowledged that the provision "may increase the cost of accessing an abortion provider and decrease the number of physicians available to perform abortions." However, the panel said that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that having "the incidental effect of making it more difficult or more expensive to procure an abortion cannot be enough to invalidate" a law that serves a valid purpose, "one not designed to strike at the right itself."


Rachel Maddow is currently doing a show on just who these judges are. One Patricia Owen was rejected by Roberto Gonzalez of all people as far to radical and activist to have the post. Looking at some of her rulings she is indeed a far right nut job judicial activist. I will be on her ass like shit on stink. There will be more on her later.

User avatar
Posted by skews13
06 Nov 2013, 5:32 pm

Post 06 Nov 2013, 5:32 pm
skews13      
User avatar
     

Posts: 2714
SQL error message page again. They seem to have some path issues going on over there.

User avatar
Posted by skews13
06 Nov 2013, 8:07 pm

Post 06 Nov 2013, 8:07 pm
skews13      
User avatar
     

Posts: 2714
Wow, I still have digg ratings?

User avatar
Posted by skews13
11 Nov 2013, 12:07 am

skews13      
User avatar
     

Posts: 2714
Reply to: The Theory of Divine Creation Goes Down in Flames!: post #59

Where's the flames? As an agnostic I don't see anything in your article to debunk Christian beliefs.

You just debunked it with that question. Beliefs, and knowledge of what's actually tangible evidence are two entirely different things. You can believe anything. But you cannot deny evidence in fact. And beliefs never, ever trump evidence in fact. Ever. Once tangible evidence is proven, belief is debunked. Facts in evidence are beyond reproach, and requires no further proof. Belief requires proof at every turn, and can never be taken at face value. If you maintain a belief is true, the burden of proof is on you, and anything short of solid physical evidence of that belief falls short, and the belief is debunked, and discredited until proven otherwise. Belief and faith are not, and cannot ever be held up as evidence of anything.



User avatar
Posted by skews13
09 Nov 2013, 8:27 pm

skews13      
User avatar
     

Posts: 2714
Reply to: New aircraft carrier gerald ford: post #8

But in honor of it's namesake will it clumsily bump into a sandbar?

No, but it would probably pardon it.



User avatar
Posted by skews13
09 Nov 2013, 9:11 pm

skews13      
User avatar
     

Posts: 2714
Reply to: Natural Born Job Killers GOP Set To Kill 1Million More Jobs In 2014: post #1

http://www.politicus...-jobs-2014.html

boehner-jobs-lost.jpg

During eight years of the Bush administration, Republicans managed to squander a substantial budget surplus, wage two unnecessary and unfunded wars at a cost of $6 trillion over the next generation, and drove the country into a Great Recession. Along the way they destroyed Americans retirement savings, the housing industry, and successfully killed tens of millions of Americans’ jobs.

For two short years after the Republican economic catastrophe ended, President Obama saved the economy, staunched job losses with a meager stimulus, and created millions of jobs and yet, by 2011 Republicans went against conventional economic wisdom and embarked on a job-killing austerity spree under the guise of reducing long term deficit they blew up during the Bush years.

For the past three years, besides attacking women’s rights, Republicans have made killing jobs their raison d’tre and according to a new report, their economic insanity will cost the nation immense long term economic damage.

On Friday the government reported that the country added around 204,000 jobs in October, but despite the increase, the unemployment rate rose to 7.3% over the same period. The October report took into account that 800,000 government workers were furloughed for all or part of the Republican shutdown, and although many were counted as unemployed and on temporary layoff for purposes of the unemployment rate, they were also counted as employed by the government in employment figures because they were eventually paid. Still, federal government jobs were reduced by 12,000 for the October report that certainly excited Republicans.

Likely, the unemployment rate increase is a result of the Republicans’ precious sequestration cuts that were predicted to kill about a million jobs over the next fiscal year, and Americans should brace themselves for more job losses due to, at the very least, the food stamp cuts that began on November first. There will certainly be more jobs lost due to House Republicans’ intention to cut food stamp spending by ten-fold, or more, according to Paul Ryan and Republican budget negotiations founded on austerity madness.

When Republicans swept into the House in 2011, they promised their highest priority was job creation, but they started the 112th session with budget cuts that killed over a million jobs causing Speaker John Boehner to say “so be it.” Boehner’s cavalier attitude about killing jobs was a portent of the next three years of Republican austerity insanity, and according to an International Monetary Fund (IMF) report, “the evidence is overwhelming that by failing to respond effectively to mass unemployment, by not even making unemployment a major policy priority, austerity has done immense long-term damage to America’s economy” that Republicans claim is doomed unless they enact more job killing austerity over the next decade.

The consensus at the International Monetary Fund research conference was that by not focusing on unemployment, the Republicans’ austerity has already reduced America’s economic potential by around 7% which means America is poorer by more than $1 trillion a year. Unfortunately for the American people and the nation’s economy, the damage is not just for one year, it is long-term damage of $1 trillion a year for multiple years.

Republicans have screamed that the long-term deficit poses an existential threat to America as a reason to slash domestic spending, and it is the primary reason absolutely nothing has been done about the unemployment epidemic killing the economy and Americans’ financial security.

Republicans have been successful garnering support from their jobless and dirt-poor electorate because they preach and wrap themselves under a veil of long-run economic responsibility made up entirely of holding down government debt. However, one of the main things keeping the economy weak and jobs slow in coming is the depressing effect of cutbacks in public spending.

As Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman says, “It is the devastating cuts in public investment, all justified in the name of protecting the future from the wildly exaggerated threat of excessive debt” that is killing jobs at the same rate as a recession. Krugman also says that the lack of investment in the private sector is lagging because of the weak economy and lack of jobs that creates more long-term damage in multiple channels. He notes that “the long-term unemployed eventually come to be seen as unemployable; business investment lags thanks to weak sales; new businesses don’t get started; and existing businesses skimp on research and development.”

It is likely that most Americans, especially those supporting Draconian domestic cuts, fail to comprehend that every dollar taken out of the economy ultimately kills jobs. The Republicans certainly understand, and next to sheer cruelty to punish Americans living in poverty, they are well aware their spending cuts kill jobs that, next to attacking women’s rights, has been their stock and trade since sweeping into power after the 2010 midterm elections.

Take, for example, the recent $5 billion cuts in food stamps that went into effect on November 1st. Not only do Republicans get to create hardship for low-wage, elderly, and unemployed hungry Americans, they are weakening the economy and killing more jobs. According to the Congressional Budget Office, every one dollar in food stamp spending returns $1.73 to the economy and that $5 billion turns into $8.65 billion taken out of the economy just in one year.

Since food stamp recipients spend the money immediately to survive, farmers, grocery businesses, and food processors all benefit and keep other Americans employed. Eliminating $8.65 billion is tantamount to killing hundreds-of-thousands of jobs that is just a drop in the bucket compared to the tens-of-billions of dollars being taken out of the economy with the sequester that is slated to destroy a million jobs in the next year.

Republicans have opposed every single one of President Obama’s job creation proposals as too costly for the nation, and yet they lavish hundreds of billions in subsidies on corporate agriculture, the oil industry, corporations, and the religious industry. With every job lost, the economy grows weaker and like the IMF researchers concluded, their job-killing austerity agenda is killing America’s economy now and in the long term.

The Federal Reserve researchers are very pessimistic the Republican economic damage can be reversed, and it is highly probable that the country will spend the next decade, at least, paying for the Republican austerity and job-killing of the past three years. It is economic terrorism, and literally self-inflicted economic damage.

The tragedy is that President Obama’s attempt to right the economy and provoke a vibrant recovery would have solved the nation’s financial woes, but even he fell victim to the phony “deficit reduction” scam under the guise of fiscal responsibility.

With an entire year before Americans can elect Democrats to support the President’s job creation and economically sustainable agenda, it appears that there will continue to be anemic job growth and dire warnings from economic experts that America has ignored the unemployment epidemic for too long because Republicans are Hell-bent and duty-bound to hamper economic recovery by doing what they do best; kill Americans’ jobs.



User avatar
Posted by skews13
09 Nov 2013, 9:34 pm

skews13      
User avatar
     

Posts: 2714
Reply to: Natural Born Job Killers GOP Set To Kill 1Million More Jobs In 2014: post #4

:lol: at this thread! Getting desperate screws?

Glad you find it so funny. The people who are unemployed because of Republican failure aren't so amused. But they can count. We'll be counting their votes by the millions next year and in 2016, to make as many Republicans unemployed as possible.



User avatar
Posted by skews13
09 Nov 2013, 9:38 pm

skews13      
User avatar
     

Posts: 2714
Reply to: The Slut Shaming Of Sexually Active Women: post #88

:)

Yes, it's cheaper to pay for contraception than children.



User avatar
Posted by skews13
09 Nov 2013, 10:07 pm

skews13      
User avatar
     

Posts: 2714
Reply to: You all owe me $500. I expect payment ASAP!: post #3

I had a vasectomy done about 5 years ago and it cost me $500 out of pocket. I DEMAND you all pay for it since YOU are ALL responsible for my birth control.

Thanks in advance,

Steril Str8

You owe me. I expect. I demand. Somebody else is responsible.

Spoken like a true Republican.



User avatar
Posted by skews13
09 Nov 2013, 10:26 pm

skews13      
User avatar
     

Posts: 2714
Reply to: Natural Born Job Killers GOP Set To Kill 1Million More Jobs In 2014: post #8

"Hope and Change".....just a slogan afrer all, huh?? Maybe we don't hire a community organizer next time??

Hope and change has actually been very effective. For a community organizer even more effective. More effective than the entire 112th, and 113th Congress combined. Whatever skills they allegedly have. Which if you go by actual results, don't amount to any skill at all. Summary of the narrative? 1 community organizer= millions of jobs created. 435 worthless millionaires = millions of jobs lost.

1 community organizer > 435 millionaire Congressmen.



User avatar
Posted by skews13
10 Nov 2013, 11:06 am

skews13      
User avatar
     

Posts: 2714
Reply to: Natural Born Job Killers GOP Set To Kill 1Million More Jobs In 2014: post #25

More Democrat Talking Point Lies and Disinformation.

Obama's been president for almost five years after getting his full set of economic policies, which he promised would lower unemployment to 5% by now.

Only a hopeless lying troll would still be blaming Bush and Repubs.

You fool no one.

I love psychotic moonbat humor. :D

Get some meds, moonbat.

No cletis, you fool know one.

http://www.bing.com/...addow&FORM=IGRE

Unfortunately for you, you don't count. The wave of voters that are going to make sure you don't even have a voice in the next few elections are the only ones that count.