Ok, JimNtexas,
(lacing on the gloves...)
:beer:
Good example of the kind of irrational hate-speech that spews from Obama's herd like followers.
What's irrational? Bush was definitely sharp as a bowling ball!
Sorry that you are having trouble with reality. Obama's "herd" won. "Dinosaurs" lost (Tit for Tat, can do that all day long). Keep up the good work, it will insure that in two years the House will be under Democratic control too...
Oh boy, Keith Hennessey? Really??
Assistant to "W" for Economic Policy and Director of the U.S.
National Economic Council from 2007 until the end of Bush's second term in office. That means he was there during the crash. If that is who you see as an expert, no wonder you're confused.
BTW: Obama is a real as it gets bro. Get used to it. As much as you would like to deny it, he is your President and in your case your Commander in Chief to boot!
I wonder... by your logic, was President Lincoln not a "real" President either because he freed the slaves? At the time that was not viewed by some as a very sound economic decision either.
Like all Democrats, when confronted with the many failures of socialism your argument boils down to 'they didn't do it right, but when I'm in charge socialism will finally work'.
There is not enough storage on this server to related all the disastrous effects that Obamacare is going to inflict on this country. One current Obamacare fiasco is an exact analog to the luxury tax on boats we discussed earlier.
Obamacare taxes medical devices. This of course means that there will be fewer medical devices, that many people who make medical devices will lose their jobs, and that medical care will be both more expensive and less effective than it would have been without Obamacare.
Like most of Obamacare, it starts kicking in right after the election. Having voted for Obama, Democrats are now scrambling to avoid blame for this Obamacare disaster.
A group of 17 Democratic U.S. senators and senators-elect have signed a letter urging for a delay in implementing a tax on the medical-device industry that is scheduled to go into effect Jan. 1.”
Obamacare hasn't even been fully implemented yet and already it's a complete failure? Please could you be any more dramatic?
I don't very much like it either because it still allows private interests (Health Insurance & Pharmaceutical Companies, etc) to make usury like profits from other human beings' illnesses, but it's not the end of the world.
Health Insurance will very soon be seen as a Human Right and not just a privilege arbitrarily determined by your economic status of the moment.
Single Payer Systems are the fairest way, both medically and economically, to take care of all borne out by statistics everywhere else on this planet. Please refer to my previous post because you must have missed my link.
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
Comparing medical devices to Luxury Yachts? Let's see more expensive yacht due to taxation, I think I'll by a row boat, but even rich people won't choose to die rather than go get a little more expensive x-ray or MRI. LOL
The only thing this tax will do is it may reduce some of the medically unnecessary and pure profit driven purchases of such devices. That will reduce overall costs for both the government and us, the consumer, because there will be less economic incentives to over-prescribe these types of procedures. It may hurt the profit margins of some medical device makers but they will adapt. They always do. They also have lots of lobby money to try to influence our politicians, hence your link.
Obamacare is no reason for panic, really. The sky will not fall unless of course the Mayans turn out to be right, in which case all of it and your concerns become truly irrelevant.
BTW: Why not apply your bias to another part of socialized US Federal Government by privatizing our single payer military? I would love to opt out and lobby for your immediate grounding. Who needs human Military Navs today when we have Drones and GPS??
You're right, it's 15 percent of the population (including I think non-citizens), not 15 million as I incorrectly stated. The sad thing is that these 15%, along with people with prior existing condition issues, could have been easily covered a combination of allowing interstate competition in medical insurance, high deductible medical plans combined with medical savings accounts designed to encourage people to buy them before they get sick and some reform of regulations concerning pre-existing conditions.
Its sad that neither Bush nor Clinton elected to pursue such a simple course that would not have involved creation the gigantic Frankenstein monster that is Obamacare.
The fact that you think there is anything simple about National Healthcare just illustrates how little you actually know and how biased you are about the rest. None of what you mention here resolves the basic problem that Healthcare in the US is not universally accessible and therefore is still a privilege determined by your income status. It also has very negative economic consequences, don't believe me? read what the Oracle of Omaha has to say about it:
" Impact on U.S. economic productivity
On March 1, 2010, billionaire investor Warren Buffett said that the high costs paid by U.S. companies for their employees' health care put them at a competitive disadvantage. He compared the roughly 17% of GDP spent by the U.S. on health care with the 9% of GDP spent by much of the rest of the world, noted that the U.S. has fewer doctors and nurses per person, and said, "[t]hat kind of a cost, compared with the rest of the world, is like a tapeworm eating at our economic body." "
There was more regulation under Bush than under Clinton. Had we not had Barney Frank then the crash would have been much softer had Bush been allowed to change regulations on mortages to allow banks to not give loans to people for houses that they couldn't afford.
The crash was caused by regulations.
Barney Frank is to blame?? LMFAO
One openly gay US Representative has that much power? No wonder you and your peeps don't want him to be able to marry.... Imagine they might make more then....

You are hilarious.. Best laugh of the day, thanks.
We agree on this, but why do you think more effective government will fix this problem?
There fixed it for ya.
That's a good one for mythbusters.
District of Columbia schools have some of the highest spending per student in the country, and Washington DC is the richest city in the country. By your logic, they should therefore have the best schools. In fact, DC schools are among the worst in the country.
Pumping money into government monopoly schools does nothing to help students.
What myth? President Reagan did gut the Federal Money spent on Education. The rest here I agree with. As I stated before, Public Education is an unmitigated disaster. Ever wonder if this is just an accident or maybe it's planned? Reduce people's ability to reason critically and then pump em full of "we are the greatest...blah blah blah," all day long. Perfect recipe to keep the public docile while you then proceed to rape them blind. Ooops did I just give away one of the prized secrets of the Skull and Bones Society? Sorry.
President Bush sent his kids to public schools here in Austin. Where do Obama's kids go to school?
????
Who cares? Looks like in both cases parents making smart choices for their families, what's the issue with that? In "W" case I'm actually surprised...must've been the wife.
oh almost forgot; gret, how many words is it this time?