Funny hasn't tilted any of the Seniors I know, who are mostly in the Midwest.
They think Obama has not done a thing!
He's the worst President they have seen in decades.
Not saying they like Romney either but 'Obamanation' is what his nickname is,
kind of says it all.
Saying obama is the worse president is influenced not just because of his policies but maybe because they are GOP voters, racist etc.. The fact is the majority of the world disliked Bush so much during his years that it would be hard to top that level of 'worst president'.. either way Obama would be 10 times the president that Romney is. Romney is pretty much the most bland nothing to say candidiate ever.. John Kerry was a close second to that.
I'm just flying around the other side of the world to say I love you
Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl
I love you forever and forever
Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
Funny hasn't tilted any of the Seniors I know, who are mostly in the Midwest.
They think Obama has not done a thing!
He's the worst President they have seen in decades.
Not saying they like Romney either but 'Obamanation' is what his nickname is,
kind of says it all.
Saying obama is the worse president is influenced not just because of his policies but maybe because they are GOP voters, racist etc.. The fact is the majority of the world disliked Bush so much during his years that it would be hard to top that level of 'worst president'.. either way Obama would be 10 times the president that Romney is. Romney is pretty much the most bland nothing to say candidiate ever.. John Kerry was a close second to that.
No the Seniors I know are not racists thank you very much, :fp:
not Republicans either, and yes not fans of the Bush era.
But Obama is just as his nickname says, for them, and again they are not comparing him to
Romney they just think he has been a terrible President.
There are many out there who would agree...
Do you wear blue colored glasses? these Seniors do not.
Funny hasn't tilted any of the Seniors I know, who are mostly in the Midwest.
They think Obama has not done a thing!
He's the worst President they have seen in decades.
Not saying they like Romney either but 'Obamanation' is what his nickname is,
kind of says it all.
And I know plenty of seniors that will vote for him, blah, blah, blah. We can play this game forever, but we would both look like morons. They think"He's the worst president they've seen in decades"--such an idiotic statement. have they been awake over the past few decades as they've seen the middle class that they built be destroyed by Republican policies that always, always favor those at the top.
"Obamanation." Idiotic.
I think the seniors that "you know" need to step back into reality and enter the world of facts. Turn off the channel of con men (Hannity, Huckabee, O'Reilly) and stop listening to the most grotesque Americans in the country (Beck, Limbaugh) and start thinking for yourselves, seniors.
The cost controls in "Obamacare" does not effect seniors, but puts controls on providers.
This is good for seniors.
"Obamacare" reverses the negative effects of the doughnut hole in prescription drug coverage that was implemented by Medicare Part D, which was implemented by the Bush administration.
This is good for seniors as the amount they pay for prescription drugs (only a 25% co-pay.) This is fixed as opposed to Medicare Part D, which had a more progressive payment system where seniors had to pay more for their drugs.
My grandparents--89 and 85--have already seen this take effect, and have benefited from provisions in Obamacare that have already taken place. Unfortunately, they are staunch conservative republicans, so they won't admit it since it goes against the narrative of Obama being an anti-America socialist.
I feel the seniors you know suffer from the same inability to think in an objective, bipartisan manner.
There's plenty more to write, but I have wasted enough time. Facts don't matter.
The cost controls in "Obamacare" does not effect seniors, but puts controls on providers.
This is good for seniors.
"Obamacare" reverses the negative effects of the doughnut hole in prescription drug coverage that was implemented by Medicare Part D, which was implemented by the Bush administration.
This is good for seniors as the amount they pay for prescription drugs (only a 25% co-pay.) This is fixed as opposed to Medicare Part D, which had a more progressive payment system where seniors had to pay more for their drugs.
My grandparents--89 and 85--have already seen this take effect, and have benefited from provisions in Obamacare that have already taken place. Unfortunately, they are staunch conservative republicans, so they won't admit it since it goes against the narrative of Obama being an anti-America socialist.
I feel the seniors you know suffer from the same inability to think in an objective, bipartisan manner.
There's plenty more to write, but I have wasted enough time. Facts don't matter.
Facts don't matter indeed.
Reverses the negative effects? Before Bush implemented Part D, Seniors didn't have a prescription drug benefit from the government. So, how could he have created negative effects? I've seen revisionist history, but this has to top it. Bush created negative effects by implementing a coverage for Seniors that NEVER EXISTED BEFORE he implemented it.
Bush's implementation not only installed this benefit, it helped salvage the BETTER benefits that some folks had through their employers by helping to subsidize those EXISTING benefits that employers were starting to get rid of for their retirees. And in doing so, he made the plan more affordable to the taxpayer (someone has to pay for the benefit) by reducing the number of folks that got dumped out of their employer sponsored retiree coverage because employers would no longer feel the need to provide it. Instead, by providing the 2/3rds subsidy by the gov't, he capped the gov't cost on those retirees that had BETTER drug coverage throught their employers at 2/3rds of the FULL COST of the gov't plan. And, in case you missed it - those retirees ended up with BETTER coverage. Win, win, win all around on that idea.
Now, the so called donut hole - that was created to make an Actuarially sound plan that would be more affordable to the tax payer (someone has to pay for the benefit). So, yes, there were folks that unfortunately had their coverage temporarily reduced in the middle, so it can be more affordable to the whole. However, catastrophic costs were covered (thus the proverbial donut hole). Again, a plan created with an eye to cover the most folks at a more cost efficient basis for the tax payer (someone has to pay for the benefit).
Now, Obama comes in and fills in the donut hole. Thus, pandering to the masses and "drilling for fear" (you might fall in the donut hole!!! Good gracious!!!). The problem is - he just raised your taxes and raised health care costs at the same time. It's easy giving other people's money away and it wins you votes!!!!!
So, you can agree with the donut filling (enjoy the higher taxes). But, you CANNOT say Bush somehow created negative effects. He created the coverage in the first place!!! Folks who had NO coverage, now HAD coverage.
And Obama raised your taxes (or increased the deficit - and probably both).
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Funny hasn't tilted any of the Seniors I know, who are mostly in the Midwest.
They think Obama has not done a thing!
He's the worst President they have seen in decades.
Not saying they like Romney either but 'Obamanation' is what his nickname is,
kind of says it all.
And I know plenty of seniors that will vote for him, blah, blah, blah. We can play this game forever, but we would both look like morons. They think"He's the worst president they've seen in decades"--such an idiotic statement. have they been awake over the past few decades as they've seen the middle class that they built be destroyed by Republican policies that always, always favor those at the top.
"Obamanation." Idiotic.
I think the seniors that "you know" need to step back into reality and enter the world of facts. Turn off the channel of con men (Hannity, Huckabee, O'Reilly) and stop listening to the most grotesque Americans in the country (Beck, Limbaugh) and start thinking for yourselves, seniors.
The cost controls in "Obamacare" does not effect seniors, but puts controls on providers.
This is good for seniors.
"Obamacare" reverses the negative effects of the doughnut hole in prescription drug coverage that was implemented by Medicare Part D, which was implemented by the Bush administration.
This is good for seniors as the amount they pay for prescription drugs (only a 25% co-pay.) This is fixed as opposed to Medicare Part D, which had a more progressive payment system where seniors had to pay more for their drugs.
My grandparents--89 and 85--have already seen this take effect, and have benefited from provisions in Obamacare that have already taken place. Unfortunately, they are staunch conservative republicans, so they won't admit it since it goes against the narrative of Obama being an anti-America socialist.
I feel the seniors you know suffer from the same inability to think in an objective, bipartisan manner.
There's plenty more to write, but I have wasted enough time. Facts don't matter.
I was replying to the tilting of seniors... mine haven't at all.
Didn't claim a thing about yours...
Actually the majority of seniors I know are free thinkers for life ... Independents...
entrepreneurs and not into a bunch of meds.
Boy did you call that wrong
and perhaps you might want to aspire to be like them
I know I have and have done just that, they are impressive indeed.
I'm studying to learn the positives of our current President,
not through blue colored glasses.
I realize why he was elected, it was based in our first black President.
But second term should not be based on race, only accomplishments.
As I have said my biz and us personally are not better off but
I'm researching and remaining unbiased to make an informative decision
not based in party....
making my old folks proud
I think most of which are writing in Ron... gotta make a stand sometime in life :thumbup:
can't be a sellout right?
Funny hasn't tilted any of the Seniors I know, who are mostly in the Midwest.
They think Obama has not done a thing!
He's the worst President they have seen in decades.
Not saying they like Romney either but 'Obamanation' is what his nickname is,
kind of says it all.
And I know plenty of seniors that will vote for him, blah, blah, blah. We can play this game forever, but we would both look like morons. They think"He's the worst president they've seen in decades"--such an idiotic statement. have they been awake over the past few decades as they've seen the middle class that they built be destroyed by Republican policies that always, always favor those at the top.
"Obamanation." Idiotic.
I think the seniors that "you know" need to step back into reality and enter the world of facts. Turn off the channel of con men (Hannity, Huckabee, O'Reilly) and stop listening to the most grotesque Americans in the country (Beck, Limbaugh) and start thinking for yourselves, seniors.
The cost controls in "Obamacare" does not effect seniors, but puts controls on providers.
This is good for seniors.
"Obamacare" reverses the negative effects of the doughnut hole in prescription drug coverage that was implemented by Medicare Part D, which was implemented by the Bush administration.
This is good for seniors as the amount they pay for prescription drugs (only a 25% co-pay.) This is fixed as opposed to Medicare Part D, which had a more progressive payment system where seniors had to pay more for their drugs.
My grandparents--89 and 85--have already seen this take effect, and have benefited from provisions in Obamacare that have already taken place. Unfortunately, they are staunch conservative republicans, so they won't admit it since it goes against the narrative of Obama being an anti-America socialist.
I feel the seniors you know suffer from the same inability to think in an objective, bipartisan manner.
There's plenty more to write, but I have wasted enough time. Facts don't matter.
I was replying to the tilting of seniors... mine haven't at all.
Didn't claim a thing about yours...
Actually the majority of seniors I know are free thinkers for life ... Independents...
entrepreneurs and not into a bunch of meds.
Boy did you call that wrong
and perhaps you might want to aspire to be like them
I know I have and have done just that, they are impressive indeed.
I'm studying to learn the positives of our current President,
not through blue colored glasses.
I realize why he was elected, it was based in our first black President.
But second term should not be based on race, only accomplishments.
As I have said my biz and us personally are not better off but
I'm researching and remaining unbiased to make an informative decision
not based in party....
making my old folks proud
I think most of which are writing in Ron... gotta make a stand sometime in life :thumbup:
can't be a sellout right?
So, I'm not a free thinker.
I wear blue-colored glasses even though I am a registered independent.
Obama was elected because he was black (not because both he and McCain were running against Bush).
If your biz is not better off, maybe it is time for new management. So when your biz doesn't do well, it is Obama or the government's fault, but if you were doing well, it would be all because of you. I got it now.
Obama voters are sellouts.
The cost controls in "Obamacare" does not effect seniors, but puts controls on providers.
This is good for seniors.
"Obamacare" reverses the negative effects of the doughnut hole in prescription drug coverage that was implemented by Medicare Part D, which was implemented by the Bush administration.
This is good for seniors as the amount they pay for prescription drugs (only a 25% co-pay.) This is fixed as opposed to Medicare Part D, which had a more progressive payment system where seniors had to pay more for their drugs.
My grandparents--89 and 85--have already seen this take effect, and have benefited from provisions in Obamacare that have already taken place. Unfortunately, they are staunch conservative republicans, so they won't admit it since it goes against the narrative of Obama being an anti-America socialist.
I feel the seniors you know suffer from the same inability to think in an objective, bipartisan manner.
There's plenty more to write, but I have wasted enough time. Facts don't matter.
Facts don't matter indeed.
Reverses the negative effects? Before Bush implemented Part D, Seniors didn't have a prescription drug benefit from the government. So, how could he have created negative effects? I've seen revisionist history, but this has to top it. Bush created negative effects by implementing a coverage for Seniors that NEVER EXISTED BEFORE he implemented it.
Bush's implementation not only installed this benefit, it helped salvage the BETTER benefits that some folks had through their employers by helping to subsidize those EXISTING benefits that employers were starting to get rid of for their retirees. And in doing so, he made the plan more affordable to the taxpayer (someone has to pay for the benefit) by reducing the number of folks that got dumped out of their employer sponsored retiree coverage because employers would no longer feel the need to provide it. Instead, by providing the 2/3rds subsidy by the gov't, he capped the gov't cost on those retirees that had BETTER drug coverage throught their employers at 2/3rds of the FULL COST of the gov't plan. And, in case you missed it - those retirees ended up with BETTER coverage. Win, win, win all around on that idea.
Now, the so called donut hole - that was created to make an Actuarially sound plan that would be more affordable to the tax payer (someone has to pay for the benefit). So, yes, there were folks that unfortunately had their coverage temporarily reduced in the middle, so it can be more affordable to the whole. However, catastrophic costs were covered (thus the proverbial donut hole). Again, a plan created with an eye to cover the most folks at a more cost efficient basis for the tax payer (someone has to pay for the benefit).
Now, Obama comes in and fills in the donut hole. Thus, pandering to the masses and "drilling for fear" (you might fall in the donut hole!!! Good gracious!!!). The problem is - he just raised your taxes and raised health care costs at the same time. It's easy giving other people's money away and it wins you votes!!!!!
So, you can agree with the donut filling (enjoy the higher taxes). But, you CANNOT say Bush somehow created negative effects. He created the coverage in the first place!!! Folks who had NO coverage, now HAD coverage.
And Obama raised your taxes (or increased the deficit - and probably both).
A bad plan has negative effects. Yes, it is possible. This plan made taxes go up for seniors AND increased the deficit. Cost were higher=negative effect. (More profits for the drug companies=negative effect for seniors.)
It's that simple.
I've done the research. No need to tread a trodden trail.
Trail of Corruption: Consider the following political payoffs:
From Wikipedia (with sources):
Former Congressman Billy Tauzin, R-La., who steered the bill through the House, retired soon after and took a $2 million a year job as president of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the main industry lobby group.
Medicare boss Thomas Scully, who threatened to fire Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster if he reported how much the bill would actually cost, was negotiating for a new job as a pharmaceutical lobbyist as the bill was working through Congress.
A total of 14 congressional aides quit their jobs to work for the drug and medical lobbies immediately after the bill’s passage.
And I know plenty of seniors that will vote for him, blah, blah, blah. We can play this game forever, but we would both look like morons. They think"He's the worst president they've seen in decades"--such an idiotic statement. have they been awake over the past few decades as they've seen the middle class that they built be destroyed by Republican policies that always, always favor those at the top.
"Obamanation." Idiotic.
I think the seniors that "you know" need to step back into reality and enter the world of facts. Turn off the channel of con men (Hannity, Huckabee, O'Reilly) and stop listening to the most grotesque Americans in the country (Beck, Limbaugh) and start thinking for yourselves, seniors.
There's plenty more to write, but I have wasted enough time. Facts don't matter.
Jeesh. Sometimes you make good points, but I call bullshit on the above. Thanks for insulting my mom and the other "idiotic" senior folks I know.
And for what it's worth, we can (maybe should?) listen to a wide spectrum of views, whether or not there's agreement. Happens here, no? Or...does it? :think: .
For me anyway, I find that opens the mind more than limiting or putting down other sources of information - not to mention those who seek them out.
And I know plenty of seniors that will vote for him, blah, blah, blah. We can play this game forever, but we would both look like morons. They think"He's the worst president they've seen in decades"--such an idiotic statement. have they been awake over the past few decades as they've seen the middle class that they built be destroyed by Republican policies that always, always favor those at the top.
"Obamanation." Idiotic.
I think the seniors that "you know" need to step back into reality and enter the world of facts. Turn off the channel of con men (Hannity, Huckabee, O'Reilly) and stop listening to the most grotesque Americans in the country (Beck, Limbaugh) and start thinking for yourselves, seniors.
There's plenty more to write, but I have wasted enough time. Facts don't matter.
Jeesh. Sometimes you make good points, but I call bullshit on the above. Thanks for insulting my mom and the other "idiotic" senior folks I know.
And for what it's worth, we can (maybe should?) listen to a wide spectrum of views, whether or not there's agreement. Happens here, no? Or...does it? :think: .
For me anyway, I find that opens the mind more than limiting or putting down other sources of information - not to mention those who seek them out.
My apologies. I got carried away; however, I do feel those statements are quite ludicrous, and I feel that they miss the big picture. And, I was pointing out that those statements, were idiotic.
Anyway, back to reading a great New Yorker article that exposes the hypocrisy of the cry-baby ultra-rich who have benefited greatly under the socialist president and a do-nothing Congress. I'll post a link for everyone.
The cost controls in "Obamacare" does not effect seniors, but puts controls on providers.
This is good for seniors.
"Obamacare" reverses the negative effects of the doughnut hole in prescription drug coverage that was implemented by Medicare Part D, which was implemented by the Bush administration.
This is good for seniors as the amount they pay for prescription drugs (only a 25% co-pay.) This is fixed as opposed to Medicare Part D, which had a more progressive payment system where seniors had to pay more for their drugs.
My grandparents--89 and 85--have already seen this take effect, and have benefited from provisions in Obamacare that have already taken place. Unfortunately, they are staunch conservative republicans, so they won't admit it since it goes against the narrative of Obama being an anti-America socialist.
I feel the seniors you know suffer from the same inability to think in an objective, bipartisan manner.
There's plenty more to write, but I have wasted enough time. Facts don't matter.
Facts don't matter indeed.
Reverses the negative effects? Before Bush implemented Part D, Seniors didn't have a prescription drug benefit from the government. So, how could he have created negative effects? I've seen revisionist history, but this has to top it. Bush created negative effects by implementing a coverage for Seniors that NEVER EXISTED BEFORE he implemented it.
Bush's implementation not only installed this benefit, it helped salvage the BETTER benefits that some folks had through their employers by helping to subsidize those EXISTING benefits that employers were starting to get rid of for their retirees. And in doing so, he made the plan more affordable to the taxpayer (someone has to pay for the benefit) by reducing the number of folks that got dumped out of their employer sponsored retiree coverage because employers would no longer feel the need to provide it. Instead, by providing the 2/3rds subsidy by the gov't, he capped the gov't cost on those retirees that had BETTER drug coverage throught their employers at 2/3rds of the FULL COST of the gov't plan. And, in case you missed it - those retirees ended up with BETTER coverage. Win, win, win all around on that idea.
Now, the so called donut hole - that was created to make an Actuarially sound plan that would be more affordable to the tax payer (someone has to pay for the benefit). So, yes, there were folks that unfortunately had their coverage temporarily reduced in the middle, so it can be more affordable to the whole. However, catastrophic costs were covered (thus the proverbial donut hole). Again, a plan created with an eye to cover the most folks at a more cost efficient basis for the tax payer (someone has to pay for the benefit).
Now, Obama comes in and fills in the donut hole. Thus, pandering to the masses and "drilling for fear" (you might fall in the donut hole!!! Good gracious!!!). The problem is - he just raised your taxes and raised health care costs at the same time. It's easy giving other people's money away and it wins you votes!!!!!
So, you can agree with the donut filling (enjoy the higher taxes). But, you CANNOT say Bush somehow created negative effects. He created the coverage in the first place!!! Folks who had NO coverage, now HAD coverage.
And Obama raised your taxes (or increased the deficit - and probably both).
A bad plan has negative effects. Yes, it is possible. This plan made taxes go up for seniors AND increased the deficit. Cost were higher=negative effect. (More profits for the drug companies=negative effect for seniors.)
It's that simple.
I've done the research. No need to tread a trodden trail.
Trail of Corruption: Consider the following political payoffs:
From Wikipedia (with sources):
Former Congressman Billy Tauzin, R-La., who steered the bill through the House, retired soon after and took a $2 million a year job as president of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the main industry lobby group.
Medicare boss Thomas Scully, who threatened to fire Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster if he reported how much the bill would actually cost, was negotiating for a new job as a pharmaceutical lobbyist as the bill was working through Congress.
A total of 14 congressional aides quit their jobs to work for the drug and medical lobbies immediately after the bill’s passage.
How did the plan make taxes go up for SENIORS? :? Yes, it resulted in a bigger deficit. I actually wasn't necessarily lauding the overall plan. But, at least there was THOUGHT put in to it to balance the greater good (providering Rx benefit to Seniors) and the financial implications of the country. Obama puts no thought into the latter. And that's a problem. It's easy to give money away.
Funny thing is, what you point out about folks leaving politics for parmacy companies were made RICHER by Obama filling the donut hole. That's the hypocricy of your 2 comments on this topic - Bush sucks because he cost us money and made money for the lobbies, Obama rules because he provided a great benefit. :?
Again - Bush provided a lesser benefit than Obama now does. Yet, Bush is the one to blame for the cost of the program and those that got rich off it? The solution to your supposed problem is that Bush never provide a benefit at all. Was that the intention of your comments?
Wacky.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
And I know plenty of seniors that will vote for him, blah, blah, blah. We can play this game forever, but we would both look like morons. They think"He's the worst president they've seen in decades"--such an idiotic statement. have they been awake over the past few decades as they've seen the middle class that they built be destroyed by Republican policies that always, always favor those at the top.
"Obamanation." Idiotic.
I think the seniors that "you know" need to step back into reality and enter the world of facts. Turn off the channel of con men (Hannity, Huckabee, O'Reilly) and stop listening to the most grotesque Americans in the country (Beck, Limbaugh) and start thinking for yourselves, seniors.
The cost controls in "Obamacare" does not effect seniors, but puts controls on providers.
This is good for seniors.
"Obamacare" reverses the negative effects of the doughnut hole in prescription drug coverage that was implemented by Medicare Part D, which was implemented by the Bush administration.
This is good for seniors as the amount they pay for prescription drugs (only a 25% co-pay.) This is fixed as opposed to Medicare Part D, which had a more progressive payment system where seniors had to pay more for their drugs.
My grandparents--89 and 85--have already seen this take effect, and have benefited from provisions in Obamacare that have already taken place. Unfortunately, they are staunch conservative republicans, so they won't admit it since it goes against the narrative of Obama being an anti-America socialist.
I feel the seniors you know suffer from the same inability to think in an objective, bipartisan manner.
There's plenty more to write, but I have wasted enough time. Facts don't matter.
I was replying to the tilting of seniors... mine haven't at all.
Didn't claim a thing about yours...
Actually the majority of seniors I know are free thinkers for life ... Independents...
entrepreneurs and not into a bunch of meds.
Boy did you call that wrong
and perhaps you might want to aspire to be like them
I know I have and have done just that, they are impressive indeed.
I'm studying to learn the positives of our current President,
not through blue colored glasses.
I realize why he was elected, it was based in our first black President.
But second term should not be based on race, only accomplishments.
As I have said my biz and us personally are not better off but
I'm researching and remaining unbiased to make an informative decision
not based in party....
making my old folks proud
I think most of which are writing in Ron... gotta make a stand sometime in life :thumbup:
can't be a sellout right?
So, I'm not a free thinker.
I wear blue-colored glasses even though I am a registered independent.
Obama was elected because he was black (not because both he and McCain were running against Bush). If your biz is not better off, maybe it is time for new management. So when your biz doesn't do well, it is Obama or the government's fault, but if you were doing well, it would be all because of you. I got it now.
Obama voters are sellouts.
Did I miss anything?
No just misinterpreted everything
hmmmm
I did not say you wore blue colored glasses
and I truly don't know if you are a free thinker, I did not say you weren't,
I mentioned my peeps are.
But you assume a lot and judge the old folks you don't know, that doesn't seem free to me.
You mentioned your seniors as being Republicans and assumed much of mine,
so I told you about mine.
Are you assuming most all small businesses are doing better
under our current administration?
And if not they all need new management? and it is their fault not the state of the economy?
Are you an entrepreneur?
Most know their business good or bad relies heavily on the economy.
We rely on others being employed, we rely on others buying our service and our products.
We rely on other businesses. Pretty basic stuff.
And no most owners do not take the credit, most are just damn thankful and appreciative
when all is going well. We know how fragile this thing called business is.
Funny hasn't tilted any of the Seniors I know, who are mostly in the Midwest.
They think Obama has not done a thing!
He's the worst President they have seen in decades.
Not saying they like Romney either but 'Obamanation' is what his nickname is,
kind of says it all.
And I know plenty of seniors that will vote for him, blah, blah, blah. We can play this game forever, but we would both look like morons. They think"He's the worst president they've seen in decades"--such an idiotic statement. have they been awake over the past few decades as they've seen the middle class that they built be destroyed by Republican policies that always, always favor those at the top.
"Obamanation." Idiotic.
I think the seniors that "you know" need to step back into reality and enter the world of facts. Turn off the channel of con men (Hannity, Huckabee, O'Reilly) and stop listening to the most grotesque Americans in the country (Beck, Limbaugh) and start thinking for yourselves, seniors.
The cost controls in "Obamacare" does not effect seniors, but puts controls on providers.
This is good for seniors.
"Obamacare" reverses the negative effects of the doughnut hole in prescription drug coverage that was implemented by Medicare Part D, which was implemented by the Bush administration.
This is good for seniors as the amount they pay for prescription drugs (only a 25% co-pay.) This is fixed as opposed to Medicare Part D, which had a more progressive payment system where seniors had to pay more for their drugs.
My grandparents--89 and 85--have already seen this take effect, and have benefited from provisions in Obamacare that have already taken place. Unfortunately, they are staunch conservative republicans, so they won't admit it since it goes against the narrative of Obama being an anti-America socialist.
I feel the seniors you know suffer from the same inability to think in an objective, bipartisan manner.
There's plenty more to write, but I have wasted enough time. Facts don't matter.
I was replying to the tilting of seniors... mine haven't at all.
Didn't claim a thing about yours...
Actually the majority of seniors I know are free thinkers for life ... Independents...
entrepreneurs and not into a bunch of meds.
Boy did you call that wrong
and perhaps you might want to aspire to be like them
I know I have and have done just that, they are impressive indeed.
I'm studying to learn the positives of our current President,
not through blue colored glasses. I realize why he was elected, it was based in our first black President.
But second term should not be based on race, only accomplishments.
As I have said my biz and us personally are not better off but
I'm researching and remaining unbiased to make an informative decision
not based in party....
making my old folks proud
I think most of which are writing in Ron... gotta make a stand sometime in life :thumbup:
can't be a sellout right?
Wow, for someone who goes on about being objective, just wow. What an idiotic statement to make, I'm not saying it may not have been a factor for some, but to make such a sweeping statement just reeks of bias.
I know there is little point in leaving this comment as you will somehow try to skew it, but I really just couldn't let it go.
Wow, for someone who goes on about being objective, just wow. What an idiotic statement to make, I'm not saying it may not have been a factor for some, but to make such a sweeping statement just reeks of bias.
I know there is little point in leaving this comment as you will somehow try to skew it, but I really just couldn't let it go.
No it was a huge factor here... did you watch the hundreds of thousands fill the streets
on your telly
No bias just truth... he is our first black President.
Can you try to imagine what this meant to people? More than just some by far.
If you can't understand, that is sad, it was a celebration!
Wow, for someone who goes on about being objective, just wow. What an idiotic statement to make, I'm not saying it may not have been a factor for some, but to make such a sweeping statement just reeks of bias.
I know there is little point in leaving this comment as you will somehow try to skew it, but I really just couldn't let it go.
No it was a huge factor here... did you watch the hundreds of thousands fill the streets
on your telly
No bias just truth... he is our first black President.
Can you try to imagine what this meant to people? More than just some by far.
If you can't understand, that is sad, it was a celebration!
What's sad is you actually believe that. Can you please provide some facts to back up your claim that being the first black president was the main driver to voting for Obama, and that his message of hope and change had little or nothing to do with such.
Why would it be sad if I failed to not understand something, why even equate an emotion to my understanding, I'm asking for facts so as to broaden my understanding, not an emotional response from Yoda.
What's sad is you actually believe that. Can you please provide some facts to back up your claim that being the first black president was the main driver to voting for Obama, and that his message of hope and change had little or nothing to do with such.
95% of African-Americans voted for 1 candidate in 2008.
If 95% of Caucasians voted for 1 candidate, what would the reaction have been?
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
No it was a huge factor here... did you watch the hundreds of thousands fill the streets
on your telly
No bias just truth... he is our first black President.
Can you try to imagine what this meant to people? More than just some by far.
If you can't understand, that is sad, it was a celebration!
What's sad is you actually believe that. Can you please provide some facts to back up your claim that being the first black president was the main driver to voting for Obama, and that his message of hope and change had little or nothing to do with such.
Why would it be sad if I failed to not understand something, why even equate an emotion to my understanding, I'm asking for facts so as to broaden my understanding, not an emotional response from Yoda.
Your comments tried to show me as racist... biased, you sure don't know me.
When seeing race that is not a racist. Celebrating race is not a racist.
Many of the people who went to Washington did not go for other Presidents, this a known fact greatly discussed by the media reporting.
They went because he was like them, a black man, a wonderful black man,
a symbol of where our country has been and where it came to when he took office.
Blacks and whites walked together in celebration. It was beautiful!
Sorry if I base much on emotion, that's me. Not accused of being real logical
most of the time. I do find it sad you don't understand. You say failed but your mind
was made up. You prejudged my words.
If you don't like a bit of Yoda in your life perhaps you should stop quoting me
You seem to resort to that each time you speak to me, what's up with that?
No it was a huge factor here... did you watch the hundreds of thousands fill the streets
on your telly
No bias just truth... he is our first black President.
Can you try to imagine what this meant to people? More than just some by far.
If you can't understand, that is sad, it was a celebration!
What's sad is you actually believe that. Can you please provide some facts to back up your claim that being the first black president was the main driver to voting for Obama, and that his message of hope and change had little or nothing to do with such.
Why would it be sad if I failed to not understand something, why even equate an emotion to my understanding, I'm asking for facts so as to broaden my understanding, not an emotional response from Yoda.
Your comments tried to show me as racist... biased, you sure don't know me.
When seeing race that is not a racist. Celebrating race is not a racist.
Many of the people who went to Washington did not go for other Presidents, this a known fact greatly discussed by the media reporting.
They went because he was like them, a black man, a wonderful black man,
a symbol of where our country has been and where it came to when he took office.
Blacks and whites walked together in celebration. It was beautiful!
Sorry if I base much on emotion, that's me. Not accused of being real logical
most of the time. I do find it sad you don't understand. You say failed but your mind
was made up. You prejudged my words.
If you don't like a bit of Yoda in your life perhaps you should stop quoting me
You seem to resort to that each time you speak to me, what's up with that?
What are you on about. You made a fairly sweeping statement, I asked you to back it up. Let's just stick to that shall we.
What's sad is you actually believe that. Can you please provide some facts to back up your claim that being the first black president was the main driver to voting for Obama, and that his message of hope and change had little or nothing to do with such.
95% of African-Americans voted for 1 candidate in 2008.
If 95% of Caucasians voted for 1 candidate, what would the reaction have been?
88% of African Americans voted for Kerry in 2004.
The Republicans have struggled for some time to secure the black vote, long before Obama
What's sad is you actually believe that. Can you please provide some facts to back up your claim that being the first black president was the main driver to voting for Obama, and that his message of hope and change had little or nothing to do with such.
Why would it be sad if I failed to not understand something, why even equate an emotion to my understanding, I'm asking for facts so as to broaden my understanding, not an emotional response from Yoda.
Your comments tried to show me as racist... biased, you sure don't know me.
When seeing race that is not a racist. Celebrating race is not a racist.
Many of the people who went to Washington did not go for other Presidents, this a known fact greatly discussed by the media reporting.
They went because he was like them, a black man, a wonderful black man,
a symbol of where our country has been and where it came to when he took office.
Blacks and whites walked together in celebration. It was beautiful!
Sorry if I base much on emotion, that's me. Not accused of being real logical
most of the time. I do find it sad you don't understand. You say failed but your mind
was made up. You prejudged my words.
If you don't like a bit of Yoda in your life perhaps you should stop quoting me
You seem to resort to that each time you speak to me, what's up with that?
What are you on about. You made a fairly sweeping statement, I asked you to back it up. Let's just stick to that shall we.
So...any facts yet?
What exactly do you need facts on other than I am not a racist
I think you immediately wanted to pull the racist card, twisting into ugly...
shame on you or was it just not politically correct enough for you?
Nothing ugly about the celebration our country had with our first black President.
Are you challenging the fact that race played a part in his election?
I think most everyone knows this.
Are you challenging that blacks arrived in buses to celebrate their first black President?
That record numbers came to celebrate. I think you can google as well as I.
Again you presumed wrongly that my comment was based in hate,
it is based in love. Is that too much Yoda for ya.
As far as what am I on about... it is you who make personal comments
do you expect another not to acknowledge and address them?
I would ask you as I did already what's up with that?
kind of like "on about" but
maybe best to agree to disagree... you can think race had little effect on
his election or our celebration and I can definitely think otherwise.
Oops, now I'm falling into the stereotype trap, guess it's what happens when one gets overly exposed to it.
I meant to say - 88% of African Americans who voted, voted for Kerry. Like 95% of African Americans who voted, voted for Obama.
Saying that 95% of African Americans voted for Obama is slightly misleading.
romney is polling at 0% among african american likely voters this election cycle. that means, of those surveyed, 0% would vote for romney. as far as i know, that has never ever happened in american presidential election history.
i think that the republicans are not connecting with the african american population. their whole platform reeks of selfishness.
why would any ethnic group vote for any candidate that would cut benefits to programs that people in said ethnic group benefit from?
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Funny hasn't tilted any of the Seniors I know, who are mostly in the Midwest.
They think Obama has not done a thing!
He's the worst President they have seen in decades.
Not saying they like Romney either but 'Obamanation' is what his nickname is,
kind of says it all.
And I know plenty of seniors that will vote for him, blah, blah, blah. We can play this game forever, but we would both look like morons. They think"He's the worst president they've seen in decades"--such an idiotic statement. have they been awake over the past few decades as they've seen the middle class that they built be destroyed by Republican policies that always, always favor those at the top.
"Obamanation." Idiotic.
I think the seniors that "you know" need to step back into reality and enter the world of facts. Turn off the channel of con men (Hannity, Huckabee, O'Reilly) and stop listening to the most grotesque Americans in the country (Beck, Limbaugh) and start thinking for yourselves, seniors.
The cost controls in "Obamacare" does not effect seniors, but puts controls on providers.
This is good for seniors.
"Obamacare" reverses the negative effects of the doughnut hole in prescription drug coverage that was implemented by Medicare Part D, which was implemented by the Bush administration.
This is good for seniors as the amount they pay for prescription drugs (only a 25% co-pay.) This is fixed as opposed to Medicare Part D, which had a more progressive payment system where seniors had to pay more for their drugs.
My grandparents--89 and 85--have already seen this take effect, and have benefited from provisions in Obamacare that have already taken place. Unfortunately, they are staunch conservative republicans, so they won't admit it since it goes against the narrative of Obama being an anti-America socialist.
I feel the seniors you know suffer from the same inability to think in an objective, bipartisan manner.
There's plenty more to write, but I have wasted enough time. Facts don't matter.
I was replying to the tilting of seniors... mine haven't at all.
Didn't claim a thing about yours...
Actually the majority of seniors I know are free thinkers for life ... Independents...
entrepreneurs and not into a bunch of meds.
Boy did you call that wrong
and perhaps you might want to aspire to be like them
I know I have and have done just that, they are impressive indeed.
I'm studying to learn the positives of our current President,
not through blue colored glasses. I realize why he was elected, it was based in our first black President.
But second term should not be based on race, only accomplishments.
As I have said my biz and us personally are not better off but
I'm researching and remaining unbiased to make an informative decision
not based in party....
making my old folks proud
I think most of which are writing in Ron... gotta make a stand sometime in life :thumbup:
can't be a sellout right?
Ok, one more time. I am asking you to explain the bolded comment above, where you mention that Obama was elected because he would be the first black president.
That's it, I'm asking you to simply back it up. Either back it up or don't, but all this other nonsense about racist bollocks is simple deflection.
Again, please just back up you above comments, with fact.
Oops, now I'm falling into the stereotype trap, guess it's what happens when one gets overly exposed to it.
I meant to say - 88% of African Americans who voted, voted for Kerry. Like 95% of African Americans who voted, voted for Obama.
Saying that 95% of African Americans voted for Obama is slightly misleading.
romney is polling at 0% among african american likely voters this election cycle. that means, of those surveyed, 0% would vote for romney. as far as i know, that has never ever happened in american presidential election history.
i think that the republicans are not connecting with the african american population. their whole platform reeks of selfishness.
why would any ethnic group vote for any candidate that would cut benefits to programs that people in said ethnic group benefit from?
That is simply outrageous. This plus the 47% comment have gone a long way to show how he's percieved, and to be fair, it's all his own doing. No one only himself to blame.
why would any ethnic group vote for any candidate that would cut benefits to programs that people in said ethnic group benefit from?
So, if [insert candidate here] doesn't give my group more money, I shouldn't vote for him even if his/her policies would benefit everyone? Why are we considering anything other than on the terms of how it would effect the country? We should all look at the election only via the prism of what benefits our own individual group? Can you please let me know which group I belong to, so I know how to view the election?
It's strange the way you put that and actually converges EXACTLY with what Romney was criticized for a couple weeks ago. Hmmm. Interesting. Though, the way you put it certainly is a bit more elegant.
Though, your point is spot on. Promising to give money to folks is certainly the easy way to win an election. You don't actually SOLVE anything, mind you. But, why would that bother anyone?
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
why would any ethnic group vote for any candidate that would cut benefits to programs that people in said ethnic group benefit from?
So, if [insert candidate here] doesn't give my group more money, I shouldn't vote for him even if his/her policies would benefit everyone? Why are we considering anything other than on the terms of how it would effect the country? We should all look at the election only via the prism of what benefits our own individual group? Can you please let me know which group I belong to, so I know how to view the election?
It's strange the way you put that and actually converges EXACTLY with what Romney was criticized for a couple weeks ago. Hmmm. Interesting. Though, the way you put it certainly is a bit more elegant.
Though, your point is spot on. Promising to give money to folks is certainly the easy way to win an election. You don't actually SOLVE anything, mind you. But, why would that bother anyone?
i don't understand what you are getting at. if i am on medicare or disability why would i vote for someone who would implement a budget that would have drastic effects on my health insurance or my subsidy? this is what the paul ryan budget would do.
if i were in the middle class why would i vote for romney when the details coming out now say that he will raise my taxes by nearly $2000. why would a billionaire vote for obama if they were so concerned about having to pay more in taxes?
people have their own interests at heart most times when they enter the voting booth.
i see what you did there though....
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Ok, one more time. I am asking you to explain the bolded comment above, where you mention that Obama was elected because he would be the first black president.
That's it, I'm asking you to simply back it up. Either back it up or don't, but all this other nonsense about racist bollocks is simple deflection.
Again, please just back up you above comments, with fact.
I must repeat myself here :fp:
There is no deflection but yours. You thought my comment was racist
and attempted to call me out on something I am not.
Again,... google away and you will see the black vote
and participation in celebration at record numbers in 2008.
It goes hand in hand with, of course, the party switch that takes place
after 8 years rule.
Do you agree? This a great effect on the vote?
If not, then agree to disagree as I have already stated.
In this election, the state of the economy and 50% of our population relying
on the government's money,
funny money,
certainly gets voters out for their slice of the pie. Will we see more of the same?
Will we see the working taxpayers and business owners,
get out to stop the entitlement trend our country is sieged in?
or will we continue to move towards Socialism like some European countries?
why would any ethnic group vote for any candidate that would cut benefits to programs that people in said ethnic group benefit from?
So, if [insert candidate here] doesn't give my group more money, I shouldn't vote for him even if his/her policies would benefit everyone? Why are we considering anything other than on the terms of how it would effect the country? We should all look at the election only via the prism of what benefits our own individual group? Can you please let me know which group I belong to, so I know how to view the election?
It's strange the way you put that and actually converges EXACTLY with what Romney was criticized for a couple weeks ago. Hmmm. Interesting. Though, the way you put it certainly is a bit more elegant.
Though, your point is spot on. Promising to give money to folks is certainly the easy way to win an election. You don't actually SOLVE anything, mind you. But, why would that bother anyone?
i don't understand what you are getting at. if i am on medicare or disability why would i vote for someone who would implement a budget that would have drastic effects on my health insurance or my subsidy? this is what the paul ryan budget would do.
if i were in the middle class why would i vote for romney when the details coming out now say that he will raise my taxes by nearly $2000. why would a billionaire vote for obama if they were so concerned about having to pay more in taxes?
people have their own interests at heart most times when they enter the voting booth.
i see what you did there though....
And there you've highlighted the problem. Folks only see - what money are you taking from me? What money are you giving me? It has to be THAT simple. Unfortunately, it's also become - even if it won't help ME, how much money can I TAKE from you.
Nobody's looking at the big picture. So, if you're comment were - that's what folks LOOK at - I'm 100% sadly in agreement with you. But, when you pose it as - why would anyone consider the overall picture instead of their own immediate selfishness? Then, I have to say - that's the problem. And Obama has fostered that.
I still don't get where folks are saying Romney is the one raising taxes on the middle class. He advocates extending the current tax rates (no change while Obama intends on INCREASING taxes), and repealing Obamacare (won't be successful) which would reduce the tax on the Middle Class that Obama has already approved.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Ok, one more time. I am asking you to explain the bolded comment above, where you mention that Obama was elected because he would be the first black president.
That's it, I'm asking you to simply back it up. Either back it up or don't, but all this other nonsense about racist bollocks is simple deflection.
Again, please just back up you above comments, with fact.
I must repeat myself here :fp:
There is no deflection but yours. You thought my comment was racist
and attempted to call me out on something I am not.
Again,... google away and you will see the black vote
and participation in celebration at record numbers in 2008.
It goes hand in hand with, of course, the party switch that takes place
after 8 years rule.
Do you agree? This a great effect on the vote?
If not, then agree to disagree as I have already stated.
In this election, the state of the economy and 50% of our population relying
on the government's money,
funny money,
certainly gets voters out for their slice of the pie. Will we see more of the same?
Will we see the working taxpayers and business owners,
get out to stop the entitlement trend our country is sieged in?
or will we continue to move towards Socialism like some European countries?
still waiting Pandora.... You made a massive over generalisation, I want facts please. 88% of african americans registered to vote, voted for Kerry in 04, Kerry was white. I don't know how many African Americans voted for Obama based on his color, but then, I didn't make the statement.
How many African Americans voted on Obama's policies or views?? These are the statistics I am looking for Pandora, plain and simple.
that point about "taking money from you", edson, is shit. people like you that make that claim sound like petulant children. taxes are like paying dues. i don't like them, but it is part of my duty as a citizen. it is your duty as a citizen to pay, and those that can afford to do so should pay more. afterall, who is complainimg more about deficits? the poor? no, but the rich... come on man...
also, answer this question please. why would any voter vote for anyone who is going to do things against the voter's own interests? you act like your average voter is all altruistic and thinks, "hmmm, i am cutting my own throat by voting for romney, but if it is for the betterment of the country so be it.." people do not vote that way. i am sorry, but they don't. people are selfish by nature... why is it such a compliment these days for someone to be called selfless? because sadly selflessness is not a virtue that most people possess these days.
and selfish voters have been around forever. for you to say that obama created that or fostered that is simply laughable.
and by the way, there are articles all over the wed stating that romney's plan will cut taxes on the rich and raise them on the middle class. here is one of those articles.
FACT CHECK: Yes, Romney’s Tax Plan Requires A Middle-Class Tax Increase
A recent study by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center found that Mitt Romney’s tax plan, which purports to be “revenue neutral,” would require households with incomes under $200,000 to pay higher taxes, on average, in order to finance tax cuts for the rich. In response, Romney economic advisor Martin Feldstein penned an op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal claiming that Romney’s plan does not require such a tax increase.
Though Feldstein uses at least three sleights of hand to obscure the point, his analysis actually confirms TPC’s central finding. Here’s why:
1) Feldstein ignores Romney’s $1 trillion corporate tax cut, which is paid for by individual income tax increases.
Feldstein purports to show how reductions in tax breaks for high-income households could pay for a handful of Romney’s tax policies, including cuts in tax rates for individuals. But Feldstein conveniently ignores Romney’s tax cuts for corporations.
Romney’s plan would give corporations an “immediate” tax cut, cutting their rates from 35 percent to 25 percent. This tax cut would cost $96 billion in 2015 according to the Tax Policy Center (TPC) and more than $1 trillion over ten years. The TPC report did not even factor this massive corporate tax cut in their analysis of Romney’s plan under the very generous assumption that it would be fully paid for by eliminating business tax breaks.
But the Romney campaign has since made clear that the $1 trillion in corporate tax cuts aren’t paid for by any reductions in corporate tax breaks. Therefore, as the TPC researchers have noted, Romney’s corporate tax cuts would require “even larger cuts to tax expenditures [i.e. tax breaks], and correspondingly larger increases in taxes on middle- and/or lower-income taxpayers,” than their original study found. Feldstein simply ignores all of this.
2) Feldstein redefines the “middle class.”
In crunching numbers to try to make Romney’s tax plan add up, Feldstein counts only those households with incomes under $100,000 as “middle class.” He purports to demonstrate that Romney’s plan can add up if deductions are eliminated for households over $100,000. But this simply confirms the Tax Policy Center’s conclusion that Romney’s plan does not add up without a tax increase on households with incomes under $200,000. (This table from TPC shows that households in the $100,000-$200,000 range stand to lose much more from the elimination of tax breaks than they would gain from Romney’s tax rate cut.)
3) Feldstein cherry-picks his numbers to overstate savings.
Finally, Feldstein uses selective and static numbers that overstate the possible savings from tax expenditure reductions. Feldstein seems to belittle the Tax Policy Center study as being based on “inevitably speculative” forecasts from a computer model. But TPC’s model is highly regarded and the same type regularly used by the Congressional Budget Office, Joint Tax Committee, the Treasury Department — and Feldstein himself — to analyze tax policies. There’s a reason everyone uses such models — it’s the only way to capture the complex interactions between tax rates and tax expenditures such as deductions and exemptions.
For his op-ed, Feldstein simply looks at numbers from tax returns from a single year, 2009. Then he makes some selective adjustments: For example, he inflates income levels on the assumption that lower tax rates would lead to higher levels of taxable income and therefore offset some of the revenue loss. Yet he fails to make corresponding adjustments to deductions to reflect behavioral responses, which means that he is probably vastly overstating the potential revenue from eliminating those deductions. Feldstein also fails to adjust for the fact that under Romney’s plan, where tax rates are reduced by 20 percent, the potential revenue gain from eliminating tax exclusions or deductions is automatically 20 percent less.
All of these choices by Feldstein have the effect of overstating how much tax revenue can be gained by cutting upper-income tax breaks. Feldstein’s rough and selective calculations are nowhere near as credible as TPC’s analysis.
Feldstein makes other highly questionable leaps and assumptions. He asserts that eliminating the estate tax would be a “revenue gainer in the long term” (because fewer inheritances would go to tax-exempt charities and more would go to wealthy heirs!). Eliminating the estate tax would cost hundreds of billions in revenue according to CBO.
In all, Feldstein’s op-ed serves only to confirm what TPC and others have found: Mitt Romney would pay for his tax cuts for the rich by raising middle-class taxes.
And there you've highlighted the problem. Folks only see - what money are you taking from me? What money are you giving me? It has to be THAT simple. Unfortunately, it's also become - even if it won't help ME, how much money can I TAKE from you.
Nobody's looking at the big picture. So, if you're comment were - that's what folks LOOK at - I'm 100% sadly in agreement with you. But, when you pose it as - why would anyone consider the overall picture instead of their own immediate selfishness? Then, I have to say - that's the problem. And Obama has fostered that.
I still don't get where folks are saying Romney is the one raising taxes on the middle class. He advocates extending the current tax rates (no change while Obama intends on INCREASING taxes), and repealing Obamacare (won't be successful) which would reduce the tax on the Middle Class that Obama has already approved.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Comments
Saying obama is the worse president is influenced not just because of his policies but maybe because they are GOP voters, racist etc.. The fact is the majority of the world disliked Bush so much during his years that it would be hard to top that level of 'worst president'.. either way Obama would be 10 times the president that Romney is. Romney is pretty much the most bland nothing to say candidiate ever.. John Kerry was a close second to that.
Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl
I love you forever and forever
Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
not Republicans either, and yes not fans of the Bush era.
But Obama is just as his nickname says, for them, and again they are not comparing him to
Romney they just think he has been a terrible President.
There are many out there who would agree...
Do you wear blue colored glasses? these Seniors do not.
And I know plenty of seniors that will vote for him, blah, blah, blah. We can play this game forever, but we would both look like morons. They think"He's the worst president they've seen in decades"--such an idiotic statement. have they been awake over the past few decades as they've seen the middle class that they built be destroyed by Republican policies that always, always favor those at the top.
"Obamanation." Idiotic.
I think the seniors that "you know" need to step back into reality and enter the world of facts. Turn off the channel of con men (Hannity, Huckabee, O'Reilly) and stop listening to the most grotesque Americans in the country (Beck, Limbaugh) and start thinking for yourselves, seniors.
Or, are they the type to be swayed by bull shit like this?:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/over75.asp; and death panels, etc.
A few ways that seniors are benefiting:
The cost controls in "Obamacare" does not effect seniors, but puts controls on providers.
This is good for seniors.
"Obamacare" reverses the negative effects of the doughnut hole in prescription drug coverage that was implemented by Medicare Part D, which was implemented by the Bush administration.
This is good for seniors as the amount they pay for prescription drugs (only a 25% co-pay.) This is fixed as opposed to Medicare Part D, which had a more progressive payment system where seniors had to pay more for their drugs.
My grandparents--89 and 85--have already seen this take effect, and have benefited from provisions in Obamacare that have already taken place. Unfortunately, they are staunch conservative republicans, so they won't admit it since it goes against the narrative of Obama being an anti-America socialist.
I feel the seniors you know suffer from the same inability to think in an objective, bipartisan manner.
There's plenty more to write, but I have wasted enough time. Facts don't matter.
Facts don't matter indeed.
Reverses the negative effects? Before Bush implemented Part D, Seniors didn't have a prescription drug benefit from the government. So, how could he have created negative effects? I've seen revisionist history, but this has to top it. Bush created negative effects by implementing a coverage for Seniors that NEVER EXISTED BEFORE he implemented it.
Bush's implementation not only installed this benefit, it helped salvage the BETTER benefits that some folks had through their employers by helping to subsidize those EXISTING benefits that employers were starting to get rid of for their retirees. And in doing so, he made the plan more affordable to the taxpayer (someone has to pay for the benefit) by reducing the number of folks that got dumped out of their employer sponsored retiree coverage because employers would no longer feel the need to provide it. Instead, by providing the 2/3rds subsidy by the gov't, he capped the gov't cost on those retirees that had BETTER drug coverage throught their employers at 2/3rds of the FULL COST of the gov't plan. And, in case you missed it - those retirees ended up with BETTER coverage. Win, win, win all around on that idea.
Now, the so called donut hole - that was created to make an Actuarially sound plan that would be more affordable to the tax payer (someone has to pay for the benefit). So, yes, there were folks that unfortunately had their coverage temporarily reduced in the middle, so it can be more affordable to the whole. However, catastrophic costs were covered (thus the proverbial donut hole). Again, a plan created with an eye to cover the most folks at a more cost efficient basis for the tax payer (someone has to pay for the benefit).
Now, Obama comes in and fills in the donut hole. Thus, pandering to the masses and "drilling for fear" (you might fall in the donut hole!!! Good gracious!!!). The problem is - he just raised your taxes and raised health care costs at the same time. It's easy giving other people's money away and it wins you votes!!!!!
So, you can agree with the donut filling (enjoy the higher taxes). But, you CANNOT say Bush somehow created negative effects. He created the coverage in the first place!!! Folks who had NO coverage, now HAD coverage.
And Obama raised your taxes (or increased the deficit - and probably both).
I was replying to the tilting of seniors... mine haven't at all.
Didn't claim a thing about yours...
Actually the majority of seniors I know are free thinkers for life ... Independents...
entrepreneurs and not into a bunch of meds.
Boy did you call that wrong
and perhaps you might want to aspire to be like them
I know I have and have done just that, they are impressive indeed.
I'm studying to learn the positives of our current President,
not through blue colored glasses.
I realize why he was elected, it was based in our first black President.
But second term should not be based on race, only accomplishments.
As I have said my biz and us personally are not better off but
I'm researching and remaining unbiased to make an informative decision
not based in party....
making my old folks proud
I think most of which are writing in Ron... gotta make a stand sometime in life :thumbup:
can't be a sellout right?
So, I'm not a free thinker.
I wear blue-colored glasses even though I am a registered independent.
Obama was elected because he was black (not because both he and McCain were running against Bush).
If your biz is not better off, maybe it is time for new management. So when your biz doesn't do well, it is Obama or the government's fault, but if you were doing well, it would be all because of you. I got it now.
Obama voters are sellouts.
Did I miss anything?
A bad plan has negative effects. Yes, it is possible. This plan made taxes go up for seniors AND increased the deficit. Cost were higher=negative effect. (More profits for the drug companies=negative effect for seniors.)
It's that simple.
I've done the research. No need to tread a trodden trail.
This is a start:
http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/19/republ ... tlett.html
Trail of Corruption: Consider the following political payoffs:
From Wikipedia (with sources):
Former Congressman Billy Tauzin, R-La., who steered the bill through the House, retired soon after and took a $2 million a year job as president of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the main industry lobby group.
Medicare boss Thomas Scully, who threatened to fire Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster if he reported how much the bill would actually cost, was negotiating for a new job as a pharmaceutical lobbyist as the bill was working through Congress.
A total of 14 congressional aides quit their jobs to work for the drug and medical lobbies immediately after the bill’s passage.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/ ... 5305.shtml
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/200 ... oison-pill
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/08/more-mediscare/
And for what it's worth, we can (maybe should?) listen to a wide spectrum of views, whether or not there's agreement. Happens here, no? Or...does it? :think: .
For me anyway, I find that opens the mind more than limiting or putting down other sources of information - not to mention those who seek them out.
My apologies. I got carried away; however, I do feel those statements are quite ludicrous, and I feel that they miss the big picture. And, I was pointing out that those statements, were idiotic.
Anyway, back to reading a great New Yorker article that exposes the hypocrisy of the cry-baby ultra-rich who have benefited greatly under the socialist president and a do-nothing Congress. I'll post a link for everyone.
How did the plan make taxes go up for SENIORS? :? Yes, it resulted in a bigger deficit. I actually wasn't necessarily lauding the overall plan. But, at least there was THOUGHT put in to it to balance the greater good (providering Rx benefit to Seniors) and the financial implications of the country. Obama puts no thought into the latter. And that's a problem. It's easy to give money away.
Funny thing is, what you point out about folks leaving politics for parmacy companies were made RICHER by Obama filling the donut hole. That's the hypocricy of your 2 comments on this topic - Bush sucks because he cost us money and made money for the lobbies, Obama rules because he provided a great benefit. :?
Again - Bush provided a lesser benefit than Obama now does. Yet, Bush is the one to blame for the cost of the program and those that got rich off it? The solution to your supposed problem is that Bush never provide a benefit at all. Was that the intention of your comments?
Wacky.
hmmmm
I did not say you wore blue colored glasses
and I truly don't know if you are a free thinker, I did not say you weren't,
I mentioned my peeps are.
But you assume a lot and judge the old folks you don't know, that doesn't seem free to me.
You mentioned your seniors as being Republicans and assumed much of mine,
so I told you about mine.
Are you assuming most all small businesses are doing better
under our current administration?
And if not they all need new management? and it is their fault not the state of the economy?
Are you an entrepreneur?
Most know their business good or bad relies heavily on the economy.
We rely on others being employed, we rely on others buying our service and our products.
We rely on other businesses. Pretty basic stuff.
And no most owners do not take the credit, most are just damn thankful and appreciative
when all is going well. We know how fragile this thing called business is.
Wow, for someone who goes on about being objective, just wow. What an idiotic statement to make, I'm not saying it may not have been a factor for some, but to make such a sweeping statement just reeks of bias.
I know there is little point in leaving this comment as you will somehow try to skew it, but I really just couldn't let it go.
No it was a huge factor here... did you watch the hundreds of thousands fill the streets
on your telly
No bias just truth... he is our first black President.
Can you try to imagine what this meant to people? More than just some by far.
If you can't understand, that is sad, it was a celebration!
What's sad is you actually believe that. Can you please provide some facts to back up your claim that being the first black president was the main driver to voting for Obama, and that his message of hope and change had little or nothing to do with such.
Why would it be sad if I failed to not understand something, why even equate an emotion to my understanding, I'm asking for facts so as to broaden my understanding, not an emotional response from Yoda.
95% of African-Americans voted for 1 candidate in 2008.
If 95% of Caucasians voted for 1 candidate, what would the reaction have been?
When seeing race that is not a racist. Celebrating race is not a racist.
Many of the people who went to Washington did not go for other Presidents,
this a known fact greatly discussed by the media reporting.
They went because he was like them, a black man, a wonderful black man,
a symbol of where our country has been and where it came to when he took office.
Blacks and whites walked together in celebration. It was beautiful!
Sorry if I base much on emotion, that's me. Not accused of being real logical
most of the time. I do find it sad you don't understand. You say failed but your mind
was made up. You prejudged my words.
If you don't like a bit of Yoda in your life perhaps you should stop quoting me
You seem to resort to that each time you speak to me, what's up with that?
What are you on about. You made a fairly sweeping statement, I asked you to back it up. Let's just stick to that shall we.
So...any facts yet?
88% of African Americans voted for Kerry in 2004.
The Republicans have struggled for some time to secure the black vote, long before Obama
I meant to say - 88% of African Americans who voted, voted for Kerry. Like 95% of African Americans who voted, voted for Obama.
Saying that 95% of African Americans voted for Obama is slightly misleading.
I think you immediately wanted to pull the racist card, twisting into ugly...
shame on you
Nothing ugly about the celebration our country had with our first black President.
Are you challenging the fact that race played a part in his election?
I think most everyone knows this.
Are you challenging that blacks arrived in buses to celebrate their first black President?
That record numbers came to celebrate. I think you can google as well as I.
Again you presumed wrongly that my comment was based in hate,
it is based in love. Is that too much Yoda for ya.
As far as what am I on about... it is you who make personal comments
do you expect another not to acknowledge and address them?
I would ask you as I did already what's up with that?
kind of like "on about" but
maybe best to agree to disagree... you can think race had little effect on
his election or our celebration and I can definitely think otherwise.
i think that the republicans are not connecting with the african american population. their whole platform reeks of selfishness.
why would any ethnic group vote for any candidate that would cut benefits to programs that people in said ethnic group benefit from?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Ok, one more time. I am asking you to explain the bolded comment above, where you mention that Obama was elected because he would be the first black president.
That's it, I'm asking you to simply back it up. Either back it up or don't, but all this other nonsense about racist bollocks is simple deflection.
Again, please just back up you above comments, with fact.
:fp:
The reason he won is because he had a very convincing campaign and and actually made most of us believe in hope and change in Washington.
Fools we were.
That is simply outrageous. This plus the 47% comment have gone a long way to show how he's percieved, and to be fair, it's all his own doing. No one only himself to blame.
So, if [insert candidate here] doesn't give my group more money, I shouldn't vote for him even if his/her policies would benefit everyone? Why are we considering anything other than on the terms of how it would effect the country? We should all look at the election only via the prism of what benefits our own individual group? Can you please let me know which group I belong to, so I know how to view the election?
It's strange the way you put that and actually converges EXACTLY with what Romney was criticized for a couple weeks ago. Hmmm. Interesting. Though, the way you put it certainly is a bit more elegant.
Though, your point is spot on. Promising to give money to folks is certainly the easy way to win an election. You don't actually SOLVE anything, mind you. But, why would that bother anyone?
if i were in the middle class why would i vote for romney when the details coming out now say that he will raise my taxes by nearly $2000. why would a billionaire vote for obama if they were so concerned about having to pay more in taxes?
people have their own interests at heart most times when they enter the voting booth.
i see what you did there though....
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
There is no deflection but yours. You thought my comment was racist
and attempted to call me out on something I am not.
Again,... google away and you will see the black vote
and participation in celebration at record numbers in 2008.
It goes hand in hand with, of course, the party switch that takes place
after 8 years rule.
Do you agree? This a great effect on the vote?
If not, then agree to disagree as I have already stated.
In this election, the state of the economy and 50% of our population relying
on the government's money,
funny money,
certainly gets voters out for their slice of the pie. Will we see more of the same?
Will we see the working taxpayers and business owners,
get out to stop the entitlement trend our country is sieged in?
or will we continue to move towards Socialism like some European countries?
0% of the black vote...
One poll :? and some interesting stats here to add ...http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 ... ort-romney
And there you've highlighted the problem. Folks only see - what money are you taking from me? What money are you giving me? It has to be THAT simple. Unfortunately, it's also become - even if it won't help ME, how much money can I TAKE from you.
Nobody's looking at the big picture. So, if you're comment were - that's what folks LOOK at - I'm 100% sadly in agreement with you. But, when you pose it as - why would anyone consider the overall picture instead of their own immediate selfishness? Then, I have to say - that's the problem. And Obama has fostered that.
I still don't get where folks are saying Romney is the one raising taxes on the middle class. He advocates extending the current tax rates (no change while Obama intends on INCREASING taxes), and repealing Obamacare (won't be successful) which would reduce the tax on the Middle Class that Obama has already approved.
still waiting Pandora.... You made a massive over generalisation, I want facts please. 88% of african americans registered to vote, voted for Kerry in 04, Kerry was white. I don't know how many African Americans voted for Obama based on his color, but then, I didn't make the statement.
How many African Americans voted on Obama's policies or views?? These are the statistics I am looking for Pandora, plain and simple.
Please stick to just answering the question.
also, answer this question please. why would any voter vote for anyone who is going to do things against the voter's own interests? you act like your average voter is all altruistic and thinks, "hmmm, i am cutting my own throat by voting for romney, but if it is for the betterment of the country so be it.." people do not vote that way. i am sorry, but they don't. people are selfish by nature... why is it such a compliment these days for someone to be called selfless? because sadly selflessness is not a virtue that most people possess these days.
and selfish voters have been around forever. for you to say that obama created that or fostered that is simply laughable.
and by the way, there are articles all over the wed stating that romney's plan will cut taxes on the rich and raise them on the middle class. here is one of those articles.
FACT CHECK: Yes, Romney’s Tax Plan Requires A Middle-Class Tax Increase
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/0 ... ?mobile=nc
A recent study by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center found that Mitt Romney’s tax plan, which purports to be “revenue neutral,” would require households with incomes under $200,000 to pay higher taxes, on average, in order to finance tax cuts for the rich. In response, Romney economic advisor Martin Feldstein penned an op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal claiming that Romney’s plan does not require such a tax increase.
Though Feldstein uses at least three sleights of hand to obscure the point, his analysis actually confirms TPC’s central finding. Here’s why:
1) Feldstein ignores Romney’s $1 trillion corporate tax cut, which is paid for by individual income tax increases.
Feldstein purports to show how reductions in tax breaks for high-income households could pay for a handful of Romney’s tax policies, including cuts in tax rates for individuals. But Feldstein conveniently ignores Romney’s tax cuts for corporations.
Romney’s plan would give corporations an “immediate” tax cut, cutting their rates from 35 percent to 25 percent. This tax cut would cost $96 billion in 2015 according to the Tax Policy Center (TPC) and more than $1 trillion over ten years. The TPC report did not even factor this massive corporate tax cut in their analysis of Romney’s plan under the very generous assumption that it would be fully paid for by eliminating business tax breaks.
But the Romney campaign has since made clear that the $1 trillion in corporate tax cuts aren’t paid for by any reductions in corporate tax breaks. Therefore, as the TPC researchers have noted, Romney’s corporate tax cuts would require “even larger cuts to tax expenditures [i.e. tax breaks], and correspondingly larger increases in taxes on middle- and/or lower-income taxpayers,” than their original study found. Feldstein simply ignores all of this.
2) Feldstein redefines the “middle class.”
In crunching numbers to try to make Romney’s tax plan add up, Feldstein counts only those households with incomes under $100,000 as “middle class.” He purports to demonstrate that Romney’s plan can add up if deductions are eliminated for households over $100,000. But this simply confirms the Tax Policy Center’s conclusion that Romney’s plan does not add up without a tax increase on households with incomes under $200,000. (This table from TPC shows that households in the $100,000-$200,000 range stand to lose much more from the elimination of tax breaks than they would gain from Romney’s tax rate cut.)
3) Feldstein cherry-picks his numbers to overstate savings.
Finally, Feldstein uses selective and static numbers that overstate the possible savings from tax expenditure reductions. Feldstein seems to belittle the Tax Policy Center study as being based on “inevitably speculative” forecasts from a computer model. But TPC’s model is highly regarded and the same type regularly used by the Congressional Budget Office, Joint Tax Committee, the Treasury Department — and Feldstein himself — to analyze tax policies. There’s a reason everyone uses such models — it’s the only way to capture the complex interactions between tax rates and tax expenditures such as deductions and exemptions.
For his op-ed, Feldstein simply looks at numbers from tax returns from a single year, 2009. Then he makes some selective adjustments: For example, he inflates income levels on the assumption that lower tax rates would lead to higher levels of taxable income and therefore offset some of the revenue loss. Yet he fails to make corresponding adjustments to deductions to reflect behavioral responses, which means that he is probably vastly overstating the potential revenue from eliminating those deductions. Feldstein also fails to adjust for the fact that under Romney’s plan, where tax rates are reduced by 20 percent, the potential revenue gain from eliminating tax exclusions or deductions is automatically 20 percent less.
All of these choices by Feldstein have the effect of overstating how much tax revenue can be gained by cutting upper-income tax breaks. Feldstein’s rough and selective calculations are nowhere near as credible as TPC’s analysis.
Feldstein makes other highly questionable leaps and assumptions. He asserts that eliminating the estate tax would be a “revenue gainer in the long term” (because fewer inheritances would go to tax-exempt charities and more would go to wealthy heirs!). Eliminating the estate tax would cost hundreds of billions in revenue according to CBO.
In all, Feldstein’s op-ed serves only to confirm what TPC and others have found: Mitt Romney would pay for his tax cuts for the rich by raising middle-class taxes.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."