Millions out of work - a crumbling infrastructure - I have an idea!

[Rshermr]

So, Oldstyle says a bunch of stupid stuff, then posts this gem. Another lie, of course.

I'm also amused by how you give Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama a "pass" for the lies that you now seem to be willing to admit they told because after all...they're politicians and therefore are expected to lie?

Well, oldstyle, I do not know what to say. I thought you understood english. Because, having said I did not believe the projections, because they were politicians doing what politicians do. So, Oldstyle, is that giving a pass in your mind. Lots of politicians on both sides of the aisle were making irrational statements. But you see, you do not care except to go after the dems. Attack, attack, attack. Maybe I should spend my time going after republicans for what they said. But, oldstyle, it makes no difference. At this point, what makes a difference is how unemployment is affected. If you simply want to attack dems, then just fuck off. You are again wasting my time. dipshit.

You are right that there was a "battle" going on between the Administration and critics of it's proposed stimulus. Those critics correctly pointed out that what was proposed was NOT going to create jobs quickly. Nancy and Barry lied and said that it would. But that's OK with you because...hmmmm...I guess you're going to have to take a stab at explaining WHY it's all right for our political leaders to mislead us in order to get public support for the legislation they are proposing. To me it's a clear sign that they KNOW the legislation won't do what they are promising it will. That's lying.

OK. Now concentrate, oldstyle. Because I have said this before. They lie because they pretty much have to as politicians. Nasty business. Now, you may not have noticed this, and maybe you believe that only two politicians lied. Because, you see, you can not see what is going on with your head up your ass. And the barry thing simply shows who you are. A dipshit, and a con tool. I have no use for anyone who calls a sitting president a name that is not his own preferred name. You are a childish shithead for doing so. I believe no one should call a president by names not approved by that president. I never did so with Bush II, and I never let such bullshit go on that I did not let them know they were assholes for dong so. Just as I do you, asshole. Because, you see, dipshit, I prefer to deal with people that have class, and you do not.

So, did you have anything at all constructive on your mind, or did you just want to show everyone that I was correct about you. That is, that you are completely ignorant. And that you are a ignorant con tool simply posting dogma.
Why don't you just go talk with your ignorant con friends. Between two or three of you, maybe you can muster the IQ of a single normal human being.

 

[daveman]

Republicans don't understand that the previous president's budget is in effect for nearly a year after he leaves office. Obama was sworn in at the beginning of the year, but he is stuck with Bush's budget until the end of October. That's they way it works. But because Obama was president and Bush's policies are failures, they must belong to Obama. Republicans simply can't face the truth. It causes too much pain.

How many budgets has Obama sent to Congress? And what was Congress' reaction?

What has been the Republican Congress reaction to anything Obama as done?

Yeah, that damn GOP-led Senate...


BREAKING: Democrat-Held Senate Rejects Obama's Horrific Budget, 99-0 - Guy Benson

 

[daveman]

This post isn't normal:

Someone who clearly doesn't understand that nothing lasts forever. Pity.

The most famous Republican scientist in the world is Michael Behe who gave us the term "irreducible complexity". A term that has made him a laughing stock and the most discredited scientist in the world. The most famous Republican scientist is also the most discredited. You have to admit, there is a certain "symmetry" there.


Republicans insist there must be more than 6% of scientists who are Republican. After all, NASA was created by Republicans as was the interstate highway system. But like nearly all the racists and KKK joined the Republican Party, so did all the scientists leave. The greatest right wing institutions of learning are no more than tier four. Republicans taking credit for anything scientific is like Republicans taking credit for Lincoln or taking out Bin Laden. If only what they "imagine" were real. But alas, it isn't. It's only what they "imagine".

...but on meth it is.

Republicans are on "meth"? That explains it.

No, you are. There is definitely some sort of recreational pharmaceuticals destroying your brain.

 

[daveman]

Have you given any thought to quality?

Yes, I have. Have you given any thought as to how we can force our corporations to stay in the U.S. and stop manufacturing in China?

We can't and we shouldn't. We should make it more profitable and attractive to manufacture in America whatever it makes sense to manufacture in America.

And that means making corporate taxation more attractive to business, and easing the oppressive regulatory burden.

But the left will never support those ideas.

 

[daveman]

https://www.google.com/webhp?source...23ca7c4da5ccfb&bpcl=40096503&biw=1738&bih=931

Home | King Arthur Flour

https://www.youtube.com/user/kingarthurflour

Blurt: The Seven Days Staff Blog: Vermont Lands $47 Million in Broadband Stimulus Grants

One of my favorite stories is "King Authur Flour". An American company that has been around 220 years and makes specialty flour for high end baking. Since Broadband from stimulus money was installed, this "small business" now has expanded and is selling all over the world to high end restaurants. Online baking classes. Specialty baking utensils and pans. I saw a video of an employee pointing to a new and giant warehouse and saying, "All this from broadband". This is only one example. There are many. Republicans simply don't want to hear it. They have to believe the stimulus is a failure, otherwise, it becomes apparent it is they are are the failed.

I thought you opposed corporate welfare...?

You really mean to tell me that King Arthur couldn't have gotten their own high-speed connection to the internet?

Sucker!!

 

[Oldstyle]

So, based on your off the top of the head analysis, you would certainly like the Affordable Care Act to be eliminated entirely. The republican dominated house voted to do so. Of course, that was an exercise in gamesmanship, as the senate simply voted against repealing the aCA, So, Boehner, trying, i suppose, to show it would be a good financial idea to repeal the ACA. So, he asked the CBO to score the effects on the deficit of repealing the ACA. And the CBO complied.
Now, a couple of realities, oldstyle. First, there was never a presidential or democratic requirement that the cbo only analyze the ACA for 10 years, as you have been claiming. Another untruth. Either a lie, or simply an outcome of lazyness on your part. Easy enough to find this out. Is this why you have not found a sourse to back up your contention that the dems purposely limited the length of time? The reason, as the CBO states in the link below, is that they can not be sure enough of what may happen over 10 years out. No dem screwing with the numbers as you keep claiming, simply an effort on the part of the cbo to keep the numbers as accurate as possible.

Second, the effect on the deficit of eliminating the ACA is estimated to be $109B. Here is the quote:

"Assuming that H.R. 6079 is enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2013, CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting that legislation would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013–2022 period."
CBO | Letter to the Honorable John Boehner providing an estimate for H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act

And, that is after the first 2.5 years of the ACA. Not from the beginning. So, about that logic of yours, oldstyle. My money is on the CBO. You are wrong again.
Is this why you can not find a link, oldstyle, and why you insulted me for not buying your logic? i suspect so. And that would make this ANOTHER lie. In my humble but correct opinion. But nice try, oldstyle. After your insults to my rationality about the issue, turns out you were WRONG and I was CORRECT. I suppose I should not wait with baited breath for your thanks for educating you again.

Kindly explain to all us then, "Tommy"...why the ten year projected "costs" of the ACA keep growing with each analysis that the CBO DOES? It's quite obvious to me that the main reason for that cost explosion is that with each passing year one of the years that the ACA wasn't paying out money is eliminated...revealing more and more of what the TRUE cost of ObamaCare is going to be. Do I REALLY need to cite a source for that? It's about as common sense a concept as you could possibly find...which is probably why YOU are having such a difficult time grasping it!

Sure, oldstyle. So you see no costs being offset over time. Just your logic that the costs are going to increase substantially. By the way, since you say you are such an objective guy, did you ever consider that the private insurance that ACA supplements and regulates was inflating at a rate of about 14% per year. That would have been an increase of about 170% over 10 years. But then, that would be ok with you, right? You probably never posted once about the increasing costs of private healthcare, right. And you are probably ok with the fact that we have about double the cost of the average country that comprise the top 35 industrialized nations. If you need a link, i can give you one.

Now, I just posted on the cost of eliminating the ACA, as calculated by the CBO for Boener. Just an oversight, I am sure. So, if it costs $109 BILLION over the next 10 years, which would be starting at year 2.5 of the ACA, then it appears to me that your logic is completely blown. Big surprise. There is that pesky CBO telling Boehner exactly what he did not want to hear. And, coincidentally, exactly what oldstyle did not want to hear. And, surprise of all surprises, Oldstyle is trying to ignore that.

CBO: Obamacare Will Spend More, Tax More, and Reduce the Deficit Less Than We Previously Thought - Forbes Yawn...

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

You want to compare a third world country that is emerging as an economic superpower because it is moving away from a centrally managed economy with the US? Are you aware that the only reason they are spending that much money on infrastructure is because they don't fracking have any?

I wasn't comparing China with the U.S., merely pointing out that a strong infrastructure supports economic growth. They are investing it, and their economy is growing. It's no mystery that U.S. companies let China do their manufacturing. There are multiple reasons, infrastructure is merely one of them and that was the only point I was trying to make.

If you would prefer an American example then look at the Interstate Highway System. The Interstate Highway system enacted in the 1950's corresponded with economic growth. It's a pretty simple connection. When things run efficiently, so does business. Thomas Jefferson believed in roads and public works too, because he recognized that it stimulated economic expansion and growth. It has already proven to be true, which is exactly why emerging economies are putting so much stock in it. They learned it from us. Why have we suddenly forgotten about it?

The thing is, we have a strong infrastructure. Politicians like to talk about how it is crumbling, but the fact is that the bridges that are inspected, and actually slated for repair or replacement, before they crumble. There are a few spectacular exceptions, but they are extremely rare.

I don't doubt that politicians overstate their case. That's very....political. If you recognize the importance of infrastructure that's good enough for me. And yes, I do understand that we are going to spend less of GDP on it than developing economies because of much of it already being in place. I'm just countering the extremist notion that infrastructure can largely be ignored.

 

[Oldstyle]

So, Oldstyle says a bunch of stupid stuff, then posts this gem. Another lie, of course.

I'm also amused by how you give Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama a "pass" for the lies that you now seem to be willing to admit they told because after all...they're politicians and therefore are expected to lie?

Well, oldstyle, I do not know what to say. I thought you understood english. Because, having said I did not believe the projections, because they were politicians doing what politicians do. So, Oldstyle, is that giving a pass in your mind. Lots of politicians on both sides of the aisle were making irrational statements. But you see, you do not care except to go after the dems. Attack, attack, attack. Maybe I should spend my time going after republicans for what they said. But, oldstyle, it makes no difference. At this point, what makes a difference is how unemployment is affected. If you simply want to attack dems, then just fuck off. You are again wasting my time. dipshit.

You are right that there was a "battle" going on between the Administration and critics of it's proposed stimulus. Those critics correctly pointed out that what was proposed was NOT going to create jobs quickly. Nancy and Barry lied and said that it would. But that's OK with you because...hmmmm...I guess you're going to have to take a stab at explaining WHY it's all right for our political leaders to mislead us in order to get public support for the legislation they are proposing. To me it's a clear sign that they KNOW the legislation won't do what they are promising it will. That's lying.

OK. Now concentrate, oldstyle. Because I have said this before. They lie because they pretty much have to as politicians. Nasty business. Now, you may not have noticed this, and maybe you believe that only two politicians lied. Because, you see, you can not see what is going on with your head up your ass. And the barry thing simply shows who you are. A dipshit, and a con tool. I have no use for anyone who calls a sitting president a name that is not his own preferred name. You are a childish shithead for doing so. I believe no one should call a president by names not approved by that president. I never did so with Bush II, and I never let such bullshit go on that I did not let them know they were assholes for dong so. Just as I do you, asshole. Because, you see, dipshit, I prefer to deal with people that have class, and you do not.

So, did you have anything at all constructive on your mind, or did you just want to show everyone that I was correct about you. That is, that you are completely ignorant. And that you are a ignorant con tool simply posting dogma.
Why don't you just go talk with your ignorant con friends. Between two or three of you, maybe you can muster the IQ of a single normal human being.

So let me see if I've got this straight...me calling Barack Obama by the name he went by for years...Barry... shows a lack of "class" but your calling me "dipshit" and "shithead" is perfectly acceptable and oh so classy? Just want to make sure I understand how things work in your strange little world!

Just so you know, Rshermr? One of the great things about living in America is that we don't bow down to our President. He works for us...not the other way around. I don't have to kiss his ring...I don't have to genuflect in his direction and I don't have to refer to him as "Mr. President" unless I choose to do so. I refer to Barack Obama as Barry in a tongue in cheek way because of the way so many of you grovel at the feet of someone who's performance AS President has been underwhelming at best.

 

[Rshermr]

Kindly explain to all us then, "Tommy"...why the ten year projected "costs" of the ACA keep growing with each analysis that the CBO DOES? It's quite obvious to me that the main reason for that cost explosion is that with each passing year one of the years that the ACA wasn't paying out money is eliminated...revealing more and more of what the TRUE cost of ObamaCare is going to be. Do I REALLY need to cite a source for that? It's about as common sense a concept as you could possibly find...which is probably why YOU are having such a difficult time grasping it!

Sure, oldstyle. So you see no costs being offset over time. Just your logic that the costs are going to increase substantially. By the way, since you say you are such an objective guy, did you ever consider that the private insurance that ACA supplements and regulates was inflating at a rate of about 14% per year. That would have been an increase of about 170% over 10 years. But then, that would be ok with you, right? You probably never posted once about the increasing costs of private healthcare, right. And you are probably ok with the fact that we have about double the cost of the average country that comprise the top 35 industrialized nations. If you need a link, i can give you one.

Now, I just posted on the cost of eliminating the ACA, as calculated by the CBO for Boener. Just an oversight, I am sure. So, if it costs $109 BILLION over the next 10 years, which would be starting at year 2.5 of the ACA, then it appears to me that your logic is completely blown. Big surprise. There is that pesky CBO telling Boehner exactly what he did not want to hear. And, coincidentally, exactly what oldstyle did not want to hear. And, surprise of all surprises, Oldstyle is trying to ignore that.

CBO: Obamacare Will Spend More, Tax More, and Reduce the Deficit Less Than We Previously Thought - Forbes Yawn...

So, are you just trying to help prove that you are a con tool. Lets see what you have here in the first and only link you have provided to support your contention. You go to a forbes opinon piece. Forbes is neutral enough, but they provide articles from far left and far right sources. Opinion pieces are fine, if you have a neutral author. But if you do not know that the author is impartial, a quick check will tell you what you are looking at. So, the author is Avik Roy. Familiar name?? Yes, indeed. He was involved with Romney in his campaign. You remember, Romney, the guy who said he would repeal Obamacare immediately.

So, he is a Senior Fellow, at the Manhattan Institute.
The Manhattan Institute (MI) is a right-wing 501(c)(3) non-profit think tank founded in 1978 by William J. Casey, who later became President Ronald Reagan's CIA director.
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research - SourceWatch

"He also writes regularly for National Affairs, The American Spectator the National Review. In 2012, he served as an adviser to the Romney campaign on health care policy."
And lots of other far right sources. Like for instance FOX, a whole lot.
Manhattan Institute Scholar | Avik Roy

So, Oldstyle, you found a right wing con tool who did a very biased piece for Forbes. Nice job, oldstyle. On the up side you showed you could use google and produce a link. But the idea is IMPARTIALITY. I am sure you are going to argue this point, because you can not find an impartial source you like. But you failed again in the area of INTEGRITY. Here is an example, should you not understand that simple idea. I could get an article from MoveOn authors. But i don't. You see, I value impartiality, and do not like to ruin my integrity. Look it up, Oldstyle.
So, you found a con tool who bent a CBO piece from earlier this year, which I am very familiar with. The CBO piece said only that they increased the costs of the ACA in their estimates. Which is something that they tend to do. And they increased them only marginally. Not as much as, say, private insurance companies have raised insurance rates to consumers for many years. But again, you just want to show the ACA as being a bad idea.
But here is the more important thing, and one that you are ignoring. In a more recent release, the CBO has said that eliminating the ACA and going back to whence we came, as in private insurance that you so like, the costs would be INCREASED to the consumer, and that the result would be an increase in the DEFICIT by $1.8B. You are giving me whiplash. You absolutely want to decrease the deficit. Typically, cons say that the deficit is the biggest economic problem. But at the same time, cons universally are against the ACA, which is projected to decrease the deficit. Why would that be? Simple enough, oh economic expert. Because the health insurance companies PAY republican politicians. Big time pay. And I would be very, very, very surprised if they did not pay your source, Mr. Roy.
So, I suspect it is too much to ask for a non partisan source, eh, oldstyle. Say the CBO itself.

So, you have managed to again keep padding your right wing con tool credentials. You said, oh great con tool, that you only read impartial information. Lying again, eh oldstyle???

 

[Oldstyle]

And thank you for finally setting the record straight that Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi both DID lie about the jobs that ObamaCare would create!

 

[Oldstyle]

Sure, oldstyle. So you see no costs being offset over time. Just your logic that the costs are going to increase substantially. By the way, since you say you are such an objective guy, did you ever consider that the private insurance that ACA supplements and regulates was inflating at a rate of about 14% per year. That would have been an increase of about 170% over 10 years. But then, that would be ok with you, right? You probably never posted once about the increasing costs of private healthcare, right. And you are probably ok with the fact that we have about double the cost of the average country that comprise the top 35 industrialized nations. If you need a link, i can give you one.

Now, I just posted on the cost of eliminating the ACA, as calculated by the CBO for Boener. Just an oversight, I am sure. So, if it costs $109 BILLION over the next 10 years, which would be starting at year 2.5 of the ACA, then it appears to me that your logic is completely blown. Big surprise. There is that pesky CBO telling Boehner exactly what he did not want to hear. And, coincidentally, exactly what oldstyle did not want to hear. And, surprise of all surprises, Oldstyle is trying to ignore that.

CBO: Obamacare Will Spend More, Tax More, and Reduce the Deficit Less Than We Previously Thought - Forbes Yawn...

So, are you just trying to help prove that you are a con tool. Lets see what you have here in the first and only link you have provided to support your contention. You go to a forbes opinon piece. Forbes is neutral enough, but they provide articles from far left and far right sources. Opinion pieces are fine, if you have a neutral source. But if you do not know that the author is impartial, a quick check will tell you what you are looking at. So, the author is Avik Roy. Familiar name?? Yes, indeed. He was involved with Romney in his campaign. You remember, the guy who said he would repeal Obamacare immediately.
So, he is a Senior Fellow, at the Manhattan Institute.
The Manhattan Institute (MI) is a right-wing 501(c)(3) non-profit think tank founded in 1978 by William J. Casey, who later became President Ronald Reagan's CIA director.
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research - SourceWatch

He also writes regularly for National Affairs, The American Spectator. In 2012, he served as an adviser to the Romney campaign on health care policy.
Manhattan Institute Scholar | Avik Roy

So, Oldstyle, you found a right wing con tool who did a very biased piece for Forbes. Nice job, oldstyle. On the up side you showed you could use google and produce a link. But the idea is IMPARTIALITY. I am sure you are going to argue this point, because you can not find an impartial source you like. But you failed again in the area of INTEGRITY. Here is an example, should you not understand that simple idea. I could get an article from MoveOn authors. But i don't. You see, I value impartiality, and do not like to ruin my integrity. Look it up, Oldstyle.
So, you found a con tool who bent a CBO piece from earlier this year, which I am very familiar with. It said only that they increased the costs of the ACA in their estimates. Which is something that they tend to do. And they increased them only marginally. Not as much as, say, private insurance companies have raised insurance rates to consumers for many years. But again, you just want to show the ACA as being a bad idea.
But here is the more important thing, and one that you are ignoring. In a more recent release, the CBO has said that eliminating the ACA and going back to whence we came, as in private insurance that you so like, the costs would be INCREASED to the consumer, and that the result would be an increase in the DEFICIT by $1.8B. You are giving me whiplash. You absolutely want to decrease the deficit. Typically, cons say that the deficit is the biggest economic problem. But at the same time, cons universally are against the ACA, which is projected to decrease the deficit. Why would that be? Simple enough, oh economic expert. Because the health insurance companies PAY republican politicians. Big time pay. And I would be very, very, very surprised if they did not pay your source, Mr. Roy.
So, I suspect it is too much to ask for a non partisan source, eh, oldstyle. Say the CBO itself.

So, you have managed to again keep padding your right wing con tool credentials. You said, oh great con tool, that you only read impartial information. Lying again, eh oldstyle???

Only someone who is head over heels delusional thinks that ObamaCare is going to decrease the deficit. It's going to add to the deficit and it's going to add to it in a major way.

 

[Oldstyle]

I'm curious...in what way did the Forbes piece bend the CBO reports? It's a straightforward examination about how the costs for ObamaCare keep increasing with each subsequent report that the CBO makes and why that is.

I know you don't LIKE what he's saying...but what is incorrect about it? Are those NOT the CBO's figures?

 

[Oldstyle]

The major flaw in the CBO reports, that allow a conclusion that ObamaCare will save money, is the double counting of trust-fund financing that is simultaneously being used to extend the trust-fund while at the same time being used to pay for coverage expansions that ObamaCare mandates.

 

[The Rabbi]

The major flaw in the CBO reports, that allow a conclusion that ObamaCare will save money, is the double counting of trust-fund financing that is simultaneously being used to extend the trust-fund while at the same time being used to pay for coverage expansions that ObamaCare mandates.

Nobody believes the CBO reports. Even the head of the CBO, who wrote explaining his agency's absurd conclusion was mandated by rules stating he must use only what was provided.

 

[Rshermr]

So, Oldstyle, the con tool. says:

So let me see if I've got this straight...me calling Barack Obama by the name he went by for years...Barry... shows a lack of "class" but your calling me "dipshit" and "shithead" is perfectly acceptable and oh so classy? Just want to make sure I understand how things work in your strange little world!

So, oldstyle, here is a news flash. You are NOT a sitting president. If you were, I would not call you a shithead. But you are not. What you tell me, and I accept, is that you are a food services professional. And you are a con tool. And so you spend a lot of time posting bullshit, and wasting my time. So yes, in my opinion, you are a shithead. And, because you are a con tool, you are a shithead. But, if you can just get elected president, by the majority of the people in this country, I will not call you my pet name.

Just so you know, Rshermr? One of the great things about living in America is that we don't bow down to our President. He works for us...not the other way around. I don't have to kiss his ring...I don't have to genuflect in his direction and I don't have to refer to him as "Mr. President" unless I choose to do so. I refer to Barack Obama as Barry in a tongue in cheek way because of the way so many of you grovel at the feet of someone who's performance AS President has been underwhelming at best.

Jesus, that was a really stupid and ignorant paragraph. No, you do not. But your opinion is your opinion, dipshit. And nothing more. And your actions are your actions. And you own them. And no, Oldstyle, this pres does not and has not gone by Barry in his adult life. And you know why you call him by that name. And so does everyone else who reads your posts. So, you own your actions. And you have no class. In fact you could care less about class. You are just a con tool who works as a food services guy in a position so trivial that you can post during your working day. But we should care about your opinion. Got it.

 

[Rshermr]

CBO: Obamacare Will Spend More, Tax More, and Reduce the Deficit Less Than We Previously Thought - Forbes Yawn...

So, are you just trying to help prove that you are a con tool. Lets see what you have here in the first and only link you have provided to support your contention. You go to a forbes opinon piece. Forbes is neutral enough, but they provide articles from far left and far right sources. Opinion pieces are fine, if you have a neutral source. But if you do not know that the author is impartial, a quick check will tell you what you are looking at. So, the author is Avik Roy. Familiar name?? Yes, indeed. He was involved with Romney in his campaign. You remember, the guy who said he would repeal Obamacare immediately.
So, he is a Senior Fellow, at the Manhattan Institute.
The Manhattan Institute (MI) is a right-wing 501(c)(3) non-profit think tank founded in 1978 by William J. Casey, who later became President Ronald Reagan's CIA director.
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research - SourceWatch

He also writes regularly for National Affairs, The American Spectator. In 2012, he served as an adviser to the Romney campaign on health care policy.
Manhattan Institute Scholar | Avik Roy

So, Oldstyle, you found a right wing con tool who did a very biased piece for Forbes. Nice job, oldstyle. On the up side you showed you could use google and produce a link. But the idea is IMPARTIALITY. I am sure you are going to argue this point, because you can not find an impartial source you like. But you failed again in the area of INTEGRITY. Here is an example, should you not understand that simple idea. I could get an article from MoveOn authors. But i don't. You see, I value impartiality, and do not like to ruin my integrity. Look it up, Oldstyle.
So, you found a con tool who bent a CBO piece from earlier this year, which I am very familiar with. It said only that they increased the costs of the ACA in their estimates. Which is something that they tend to do. And they increased them only marginally. Not as much as, say, private insurance companies have raised insurance rates to consumers for many years. But again, you just want to show the ACA as being a bad idea.
But here is the more important thing, and one that you are ignoring. In a more recent release, the CBO has said that eliminating the ACA and going back to whence we came, as in private insurance that you so like, the costs would be INCREASED to the consumer, and that the result would be an increase in the DEFICIT by $1.8B. You are giving me whiplash. You absolutely want to decrease the deficit. Typically, cons say that the deficit is the biggest economic problem. But at the same time, cons universally are against the ACA, which is projected to decrease the deficit. Why would that be? Simple enough, oh economic expert. Because the health insurance companies PAY republican politicians. Big time pay. And I would be very, very, very surprised if they did not pay your source, Mr. Roy.
So, I suspect it is too much to ask for a non partisan source, eh, oldstyle. Say the CBO itself.

So, you have managed to again keep padding your right wing con tool credentials. You said, oh great con tool, that you only read impartial information. Lying again, eh oldstyle???

Only someone who is head over heels delusional thinks that ObamaCare is going to decrease the deficit. It's going to add to the deficit and it's going to add to it in a major way.

Thank you so much for your opinion. I so much value your opinion, oh con tool. So, apparently I should base my beliefs on your opinion, and forget those impartial experts. Maybe you should publish a book. Of course, it would just blend in with all the other books written by con tools.

 

[Rshermr]

The major flaw in the CBO reports, that allow a conclusion that ObamaCare will save money, is the double counting of trust-fund financing that is simultaneously being used to extend the trust-fund while at the same time being used to pay for coverage expansions that ObamaCare mandates.

Nobody believes the CBO reports. Even the head of the CBO, who wrote explaining his agency's absurd conclusion was mandated by rules stating he must use only what was provided.

No, he did not. Which is why you provide no link backing up your lie.

 

[Oldstyle]

So, Oldstyle, the con tool. says:

So let me see if I've got this straight...me calling Barack Obama by the name he went by for years...Barry... shows a lack of "class" but your calling me "dipshit" and "shithead" is perfectly acceptable and oh so classy? Just want to make sure I understand how things work in your strange little world!

So, oldstyle, here is a news flash. You are NOT a sitting president. If you were, I would not call you a shithead. But you are not. What you tell me, and I accept, is that you are a food services professional. And you are a con tool. And so you spend a lot of time posting bullshit, and wasting my time. So yes, in my opinion, you are a shithead. And, because you are a con tool, you are a shithead. But, if you can just get elected president, by the majority of the people in this country, I will not call you my pet name.

Just so you know, Rshermr? One of the great things about living in America is that we don't bow down to our President. He works for us...not the other way around. I don't have to kiss his ring...I don't have to genuflect in his direction and I don't have to refer to him as "Mr. President" unless I choose to do so. I refer to Barack Obama as Barry in a tongue in cheek way because of the way so many of you grovel at the feet of someone who's performance AS President has been underwhelming at best.

Jesus, that was a really stupid and ignorant paragraph. No, you do not. But your opinion is your opinion, dipshit. And nothing more. And your actions are your actions. And you own them. And no, Oldstyle, this pres does not and has not gone by Barry in his adult life. And you know why you call him by that name. And so does everyone else who reads your posts. So, you own your actions. And you have no class. In fact you could care less about class. You are just a con tool who works as a food services guy in a position so trivial that you can post during your working day. But we should care about your opinion. Got it.

So what you're saying is that Barack Obama is "better" than his fellow citizens and should be treated in a different manner? I'm sorry, Rshermr...but I humbly disagree. He's my President...he's not my King. He answers to me and if I don't care for those answers then I have the right as a citizen of the United States of America to call him names much more vile than "Barry". The same right that YOU have to call me "shithead" allows me to call Barack Obama whatever I care to. I call him Barry to poke fun at his inflated ego. People like Barry NEED to have their inflated egos poked from time to time. If he were only half as good as "he" and most of his supporters THINK he is, the country would be in much better shape.

 

[Rshermr]

And thank you for finally setting the record straight that Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi both DID lie about the jobs that ObamaCare would create!

Some, yes. But here is the thing, oldstyle. I am tired of educating you. I don't even think you are really this ignorant. You claim to have a degree in History. If that is true, you did research. If you did research, and you had even average professors, you did not use partial sources for your research. And you provided impartial sources for your writing assignments. Now, you seem to have gone brain dead about the subject.
So, at any rate, I will not bring you an article from moveon, and you can take that post and stick it where the sun doesn't shine. I won't ask you to waste your time discussing a move on article, and I will not waste my time discussing an article from your right wing source.

Is this too complex for you to understand, dipshit?? I DO NOT LIKE HAVING MY TIME WASTED on drivel.

 

[Rshermr]

The major flaw in the CBO reports, that allow a conclusion that ObamaCare will save money, is the double counting of trust-fund financing that is simultaneously being used to extend the trust-fund while at the same time being used to pay for coverage expansions that ObamaCare mandates.

And you are so smart, Oldstyle, that only you know that. And you figured this out by yourself, with no help from any source, eh. If you have a source, lets see it. But I think not. I do believe that you are delusional.