PDA

View Full Version : Why Would Anyone Want Four More Years Of This?



M&K's Retrievers
06-12-2012, 07:40 PM
Private sector jobs down 4.6 Million or 4% since 2008

Federal employment up 225,000 or 11.4% since 2008

Household net worth down 40% in the last 3 years

Record deficits

Obamacare

Eric Holder

I could go on but why?

Frustrating regards,

Cody Covey
06-12-2012, 08:52 PM
Private sector jobs down 4.6 Million or 4% since 2008

Federal employment up 225,000 or 11.4% since 2008

Household net worth down 40% in the last 3 years

Record deficits

Obamacare

Eric Holder

I could go on but why?

Frustrating regards,

But the private sector is fine and the public sector needs help I thought?

BonMallari
06-12-2012, 09:11 PM
Almost more afraid of four more years with Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader....almost

MAC SQUARED FENDER H
06-12-2012, 09:45 PM
There is always hunting to take our minds off of this!

zeus3925
06-12-2012, 10:02 PM
..and Romney saved the auto industry!

mngundog
06-12-2012, 10:06 PM
Couldn't stand 4 more years of this, worse yet would be 4 more years of George W.

M&K's Retrievers
06-13-2012, 12:26 AM
Couldn't stand 4 more years of this, worse yet would be 4 more years of George W.

And just how is that???

Down East Labs 217
06-13-2012, 06:39 AM
Couldn't stand 4 more years of this, worse yet would be 4 more years of George W.

Gota love how GW keeps coming up in conversations 3 years after he finished his 8 year term. Oh wait that was two 4 year terms. Thats right, the American public elected him and re-elected him. He is what America needed at that time in history. A tough, cowboy style, shoot from the hip kind of guy who would not take $hit from the stupid people who were trying to intimidate us. Note how many attacks have happened since he took care of business. Oh wait that all happened while BC was still with Monica. 911 was the last round of assaults on America because GW had a pair and wasn't afraid to us them.

My opinion

Richard

Matt McKenzie
06-13-2012, 07:36 AM
I'm always amused that whenever one brings up Obama's record, Dems always deflect to someone else. GW, Romney, it doesn't matter. They will discuss anyone but Obama but are either unwilling or unable to see that they will not discuss what they consider positives from his term because they can't come up with any. But he's still preferable to any alternative. Amazing.

road kill
06-13-2012, 08:38 AM
couldn't stand 4 more years of this, worse yet would be 4 more years of george w.


hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

gmhr1
06-13-2012, 01:14 PM
I didnt want the first 4 years of Obama sure dont want the next 4 but you have to admit he brought us "Change"

HPL
06-13-2012, 02:26 PM
He soitanly did!! Change isn't always all that it's cracked up to be.

And........ On a totally unrelated topic; Man! That avatar of yours has a beautiful head!!

gmhr1
06-13-2012, 04:53 PM
Sorry I'm going off the topic for a second, Thanks, thats my boy GMHR Riparian Bearly Behavin MH QAA (Bear ) he takes after his Daddy FC AFC Rebel with a Cause.

gmhr1
06-14-2012, 12:45 PM
Obama is off to a fund raiser being hosted by Sex and the city star Sarah Jessica Parker. The cost is 80,000 a head they expect to raise close to 5 million dollars.
Same with Romney some banker just gave him 10 million what do they do with all this money just spend it on their ads, travel?

HPL
06-14-2012, 01:40 PM
Obama is off to a fund raiser being hosted by Sex and the city star Sarah Jessica Parker. The cost is 80,000 a head they expect to raise close to 5 million dollars.
Same with Romney some banker just gave him 10 million what do they do with all this money just spend it on their ads, travel?

Don't you miss the Clinton years where at least some of it went for cigars, booze, and (pardon the expression) bimbos?!! ;-)

charly_t
06-14-2012, 07:53 PM
One Oklahoma politico running for office is going a good bit overboard with the campaigning. Not asking for donations but multiple mailings and phone calls. I finally told the human who called today that I had thought that I would vote for the man but had decided that there was big money behind him with all these mailings etc. Told the man who called today that I may have changed my mind. The calls were every day for a while.

mjh345
06-15-2012, 05:51 PM
what do they do with all this money just spend it on their ads, travel?

Cyndi, I would liken this to seeing some whore buying some expensive baubles.

Im not so curious as to what she is spending her money on, I'm more concerned with what load she had to swallow, and integrity she had to forfeit to get that money

menmon
06-16-2012, 01:24 PM
I'm always amused that whenever one brings up Obama's record, Dems always deflect to someone else. GW, Romney, it doesn't matter. They will discuss anyone but Obama but are either unwilling or unable to see that they will not discuss what they consider positives from his term because they can't come up with any. But he's still preferable to any alternative. Amazing.

Nothing is wrong with his record. He has a good record. Everthing you are upset about he did not do. I guess you got to blame someone other than W. We understand.

ARay11
06-16-2012, 01:29 PM
Nothing is wrong with his record. He has a good record. Everthing you are upset about he did not do. I guess you got to blame someone other than W. We understand.

You cannot tell me you are still as in love as ever with BHO after he CIRCUMVENTED CONGRESS over illegal immigrants.

If he will screw the electorate over immigration... elect him again and see what he does to you.

Matt McKenzie
06-16-2012, 03:26 PM
Lay it out for us then. Everything positive our President has accomplished since he took office. You can start by listing his campaign promises and then stating whether or not he achieved them. I'm willing to listen to reason.

Gerry Clinchy
06-16-2012, 05:38 PM
On the lighter side, you can take this Econ 101 quiz.
(You do not have to fill in your name & address unless you want a chance to win a book. I don't give out my name & address for silly stuff like this)
http://www.yaf.org/Quizzes/economicsquiz.html

I learned something on this ... part of Obamacare ... while the kids get to stay on their parents' health insurance until they're 26, after that their health insurance premiums will be higher than the are today simply to subsidize health insurance premiums for other age groups (or previously uninsured?)

Whether there is any other increase in health insurance premiums or not, this is part of the "no free lunch" consequences. You simply cannot insure people who weren't insured before by subsidizing the high premiums they couldn't pay and not have to get the $ from SOMEwhere (and maybe some extra taxes as well). Younger, healthier individuals are the obvious ones to help out for this. Many young singles (especially) may not have any health insurance (unless their employer is supplying it), so the new law would compel them to buy it or to pay the "fine" for not doing so. Either way, the govt then gets some funds out of these younger people to put toward those who need subsidization.

Another thing that blew my mind ... with all our talk about defense spending being the largest item in the national budget: in 5 years the INTEREST ALONE on the national debt will be larger than the spending for defense or Medicare!

A team
06-16-2012, 11:04 PM
Nothing is wrong with his record. He has a good record. Everthing you are upset about he did not do. I guess you got to blame someone other than W. We understand.

This is classic denial. The correct reply is there is nothing right with his record, what little record he has. If reelected this man with rage a full scale assault on our personal freedoms. The only thing that has kept this man and his wife in check these past four years is the fact that he needs the moderate vote for reelection if he does indeed pull off another four years his socialist style of governing will know no bounds.

Pray hard and vote!

gmhr1
06-17-2012, 11:49 AM
Only reason I can see wanting him for 4 more years is ... You want to lose your home... you want to lose your job... you want to lose any money you have saved up...Just sit back and watch it all go away. He will destroy us in 4 more years he wont be running again so this will be his last years to make sure he gets everything passed that he wants no matter who likes it.

menmon
06-17-2012, 03:20 PM
Lay it out for us then. Everything positive our President has accomplished since he took office. You can start by listing his campaign promises and then stating whether or not he achieved them. I'm willing to listen to reason.

He has kept us out of a great depression like europes in...main thing.

He followed through with us exiting Iraq

Bin Laden was killed under his watch and many other bad guys.

Kept us out of more wars

Saved detriot

Etc.

menmon
06-17-2012, 04:45 PM
Only reason I can see wanting him for 4 more years is ... You want to lose your home... you want to lose your job... you want to lose any money you have saved up...Just sit back and watch it all go away. He will destroy us in 4 more years he wont be running again so this will be his last years to make sure he gets everything passed that he wants no matter who likes it.

You are blaming the wrong guy. George W. Bush did that to you...not him.

menmon
06-17-2012, 04:50 PM
On the lighter side, you can take this Econ 101 quiz.
(You do not have to fill in your name & address unless you want a chance to win a book. I don't give out my name & address for silly stuff like this)
http://www.yaf.org/Quizzes/economicsquiz.html

I learned something on this ... part of Obamacare ... while the kids get to stay on their parents' health insurance until they're 26, after that their health insurance premiums will be higher than the are today simply to subsidize health insurance premiums for other age groups (or previously uninsured?)

Whether there is any other increase in health insurance premiums or not, this is part of the "no free lunch" consequences. You simply cannot insure people who weren't insured before by subsidizing the high premiums they couldn't pay and not have to get the $ from SOMEwhere (and maybe some extra taxes as well). Younger, healthier individuals are the obvious ones to help out for this. Many young singles (especially) may not have any health insurance (unless their employer is supplying it), so the new law would compel them to buy it or to pay the "fine" for not doing so. Either way, the govt then gets some funds out of these younger people to put toward those who need subsidization.

Another thing that blew my mind ... with all our talk about defense spending being the largest item in the national budget: in 5 years the INTEREST ALONE on the national debt will be larger than the spending for defense or Medicare!

He said his healthcare plan would be paid for...so you are right...there is no free lunch. But if you have a kid that is not going to college and can carry him on your healthcare and it cost a little more, what is wrong with that. Still better than them being uninsured or having to pay a high price to have it.

Does not make anyone happy because nothing is being given away and the ones that profit from it profit less. Sounds like what everyone is always saying they want on here....accountability and people paying their way.

Please figure out what you want and let us know. The right answer is not a republican.

luvmylabs23139
06-17-2012, 06:06 PM
He said his healthcare plan would be paid for...so you are right...there is no free lunch. But if you have a kid that is not going to college and can carry him on your healthcare and it cost a little more, what is wrong with that. Still better than them being uninsured or having to pay a high price to have it.

.

Because for one thing everyone is paying for it. Beyond that they are adults and need to grow up and learn to be responsible for themselves. I can't imagine the concept of being 25 and still dependent on my parents.
You do realiize that with this nonsense a 22 year old who is working full time can opt to not have their own insurance and just stay on the parents' insurance.
Let's use for example a parent has family coverage and must maintain it because there is a younger child in the house that is still in high school.
This means that rather than the 22 year old being responsible they will pay zero and the parent will pay no more to keep that ADULT covered. This is just down right stupid!
I will confess that there were a few years that I had double insurance way back when. However, although I was on my Dad's insurance because I was a full time college student, I was also eligable for insurance thru my employer as I also worked full time. I paid for the insurance thru my job, Dad's rules. This taught me to be responsible! The only reason I had double was that he had family coverage because I had a younger brother. His was much better than mine for the first part tof the time I had double.

menmon
06-17-2012, 06:56 PM
Most jobs kids get don't currently offer insurance and they are not required to have it. So they go uninsured.

You keep refering to yourself as being responsible. So was I, and good for us.

The problem is many are not and the cost of providing access to insurance is cheaper than the alternative.

You could have been one of those kids that did not recieve good parenting and based on your apporach...you would be sh%t out of luck!

luvmylabs23139
06-17-2012, 07:22 PM
Most jobs kids get don't currently offer insurance and they are not required to have it. So they go uninsured.

You keep refering to yourself as being responsible. So was I, and good for us.

The problem is many are not and the cost of providing access to insurance is cheaper than the alternative.

You could have been one of those kids that did not recieve good parenting and based on your apporach...you would be sh%t out of luck!

No forcing people to be responsible would save me a ton of money!!! There is an old saying, no tickie no laundry. In other words no free lunches or ER visits!
Time to hold parents responsible for their actions instead of the " but it is for the children" BS.
I would not have been out of luck as I always had personal goals and motivation. I wanted good grades etc.

teddyg
06-17-2012, 07:22 PM
He has kept us out of a great depression like europes in...main thing.

He followed through with us exiting Iraq

Bin Laden was killed under his watch and many other bad guys.

Kept us out of more wars

Saved detriot

Etc.

Goodness, you sure have a bad case of it, don't even think Penicillin could clear up your thought process.

Gerry Clinchy
06-17-2012, 07:40 PM
You do realiize that with this nonsense a 22 year old who is working full time can opt to not have their own insurance and just stay on the parents' insurance.
Let's use for example a parent has family coverage and must maintain it because there is a younger child in the house that is still in high school.
This means that rather than the 22 year old being responsible they will pay zero and the parent will pay no more to keep that ADULT covered. This is just down right stupid!

I don't think I've seen it mentioned anywhere that the adult "child" who gets to stay on the parents' insurance will do so for no additional premium. Maybe there will be an additional premium for "children" who are not full-time students who are over age 21? I think the present rule would be that children can be kept on parents' insurance until age 21 ... as long as they are full-time students. Unless these legislators are truly morons, (always a possibility) they should allow for additional premium charge for the "kids" who are over age 21. It is mathematically impossible to add 5 more years of coverage ("exposure") and not have an actuarial impact on costs for the insurors. To require the insurors to go broke with no recourse simply does not make sense.

Who would be next on the hit list? Would farmers have to give away food because food is a "right"? Would an apartment complex be required to give away rent since shelter is a "right"? Would doctors be "required" to give away health care since health care is a "right"? I thought there was an amendment to the Constitution that did away with slavery?

luvmylabs23139
06-17-2012, 08:15 PM
I don't think I've seen it mentioned anywhere that the adult "child" who gets to stay on the parents' insurance will do so for no additional premium. Maybe there will be an additional premium for "children" who are not full-time students who are over age 21? I think the present rule would be that children can be kept on parents' insurance until age 21 ... as long as they are full-time students.?
The last I knew, I haven't been an HR manager for a while, The rule prior to Obamma care was 22 for college students or graduation from college whichever came first. Remember that the normal age for a college senior should be 21 to 22 depending upon their birthday so many would be 22 at graduation time. IN other words if the kid turned 22 before graduation they were off of family coverage and also if they were under 22 but graduated they were off.
High school was 19 off regardless if they had graduated yet, and also for graduates, the 18th birthday if not enrolled in college full time.
The new law states that they can remain on their parent's insurance at no additional charge until the age of 26

Gerry Clinchy
06-17-2012, 10:47 PM
The new law states that they can remain on their parent's insurance at no additional charge until the age of 26

Well, there you have it ... they really ARE morons. It boils down to saying you should get two years' of car insurance for one year's premium. Premiums are computed based on actuarial mathematics. What are the chances that you'll have to pay a claim for a kid up to age 21? Add four more years to the coverage exposure & the answer changes. And there will be no increase in premium for mom and dad? I hope we remember that when the law has been on the books for 5 years ... not only will premiums go up for the moms and dads that have such 25 year olds on their insurance; they will go up for everybody to make everything actuarily sound.

If the premiums don't go up, the insurors will end up not having the $ to pay claims ... so the govt will just bail them out or take over the health care system entirely. Welcome to the UK ... which is now encouraging people to get health care outside of their govt system.


Of course, math is obviously not a real strong suit for a bunch of people who bounced thousands of checks not so very long ago.

Don't understand why the WH is concerned that there are not enough govt workers. They could just require the remaining workers to work 41 hours/week for the wages of 40 hours.

menmon
06-18-2012, 08:32 AM
No forcing people to be responsible would save me a ton of money!!! There is an old saying, no tickie no laundry. In other words no free lunches or ER visits!
Time to hold parents responsible for their actions instead of the " but it is for the children" BS.
I would not have been out of luck as I always had personal goals and motivation. I wanted good grades etc.

All that sounds good...but it is not reality. That is because of good breeding and a good environment.

Take a puppy that is whelped in a dirty environment...grows up to be a dirty dog.

Think about how many good dogs are ruined by not being properly socialized and bad training.

Read your history books when there were too many people and not enough work...Europe in the 1800s is a great example.

Taxes are a way of life....just have to get where you are earning enough that you can afford them.

No wellfare means high crime and many more prisions....disfuncional people are not going away and starving them does not fix the problem.

Like I spoke about in an earlier thread....even the offspring of upper and middle class folks are disfunctional in the work force.

menmon
06-18-2012, 08:35 AM
I don't think I've seen it mentioned anywhere that the adult "child" who gets to stay on the parents' insurance will do so for no additional premium. Maybe there will be an additional premium for "children" who are not full-time students who are over age 21? I think the present rule would be that children can be kept on parents' insurance until age 21 ... as long as they are full-time students. Unless these legislators are truly morons, (always a possibility) they should allow for additional premium charge for the "kids" who are over age 21. It is mathematically impossible to add 5 more years of coverage ("exposure") and not have an actuarial impact on costs for the insurors. To require the insurors to go broke with no recourse simply does not make sense.

Who would be next on the hit list? Would farmers have to give away food because food is a "right"? Would an apartment complex be required to give away rent since shelter is a "right"? Would doctors be "required" to give away health care since health care is a "right"? I thought there was an amendment to the Constitution that did away with slavery?

Insurance companies will be ok...don't worry about them.

Doctors not taking advantage of the system would be a nice change though.

Gerry Clinchy
06-18-2012, 10:41 AM
Insurance companies will be ok...don't worry about them.

Doctors not taking advantage of the system would be a nice change though.

Wasn't AIG an insurance company?

Well, if doctors (or other providers like rehab, eldercare, hospitals, device providers) are taking advantage of the system, wouldn't it be the govt's job to not allow that? Except, of course, that the govt just spent $102 million on a study to uncover $20 million of Medicaid fraud. I'm guessing American Express could have stopped the fraud much sooner, at a lot less cost. Am Ex is motivated by its bottom line; Medicaid bureaucrats & workers are not.

Gerry Clinchy
06-18-2012, 10:54 AM
All that sounds good...but it is not reality. That is because of good breeding and a good environment.

Take a puppy that is whelped in a dirty environment...grows up to be a dirty dog.

Think about how many good dogs are ruined by not being properly socialized and bad training.

Through schools and community, most children are not raised in the same isolated environment as a dog can be subject to. That is not to negate the importance of environmental influences in dogs or humans, but probably not a good example.

Read your history books when there were too many people and not enough work...Europe in the 1800s is a great example.

Taxes are a way of life....just have to get where you are earning enough that you can afford them.

Meaning: turn non-taxpayers into taxpayers. Provide those at the bottom of the economic ladder a way up. Very elementary.

No wellfare means high crime and many more prisions....disfuncional people are not going away and starving them does not fix the problem.

Like I spoke about in an earlier thread....even the offspring of upper and middle class folks are disfunctional in the work force.

The problem has been that the social welfare programs that we have used have not been successful. It's time to innovate & come up with some new ideas. Our schools spend more $ now to produce an inferior product. Time to look over the whole concept of how we provide education. Merit reward for teachers and schools would be a good start there.

How about some merit reward for some of our social welfare programs as well? How about letting a person on welfare work at a legitimate job, and NOT taking away the welfare benefits until the job actually can make some financial difference to the recipient. The self-esteem gained from an honest job could be just the kind of motivation that someone needs to get more skills and/or education. It will only work for a portion of that group, but it could save a lot of money in the long run. And, essentially, it won't cost more in taxes ... just the same amount already in those programs. But those jobs & "disposable" income would be fed into the economy in products and services that are purchased. There has to be some incentive for someone to leave their social welfare program behind. There is no incentive when one can collect the same amount of $ for not working as they can for having a job.

And there will still be those who are not "wired" for motivation.