Right Wingers eating crow on price of gasoline. $1.39 in Indiana.

[Papageorgio]

Saudi's 2016 budget projects average Oil Price of $29 for 2016. That means $0.69 wholesale gasoline prices for 2016. Which spells about $1.20 national average pump price.

So tell me why the Saudis are selling oil so cheaply, Kiss? Tell us all what Obama policy it was that prompted the Saudis to slash the price of oil?

I think we both know that price reduction was the direct result of huge increases in fossil fuel production in the US that took place DESPITE Barack Obama and his minions at the Department of Energy, the EPA and the State Department!

All of which makes the premise of this string...RIDICULOUS!!!

Yeah......but when the price of gas went up......it was Obama's fault. We're familiar with how you conservatives roll.........

More left wing bullshit.

 

[Mertex]

Bush was an awful president.....he nearly tanked the country and thanks to Obama we recovered, but I don't expect those who are in denial about how terrible Bush was to appreciate Obama.

Mertie, the "Bush did it" line died with the 2014 elections. From 2017 on, it will be "Obama did it." I hope to still be on this forum when the tables are turned squarely in the opposite direction.

I'm sure we could get into a lengthy debate about accomplishments and all that, but what honestly can you say Obama did that had such an indelible impact on America?

But it's a waste of time to expect you to appreciate what Bush did either. Partisan to the bitter end, not to mention overly sycophantic about Obama. Why is it you act like you're worshiping him?

I guess I missed your response. Sorry, but you can't forget about the fucking mess Bush left, and then just blame Obama for it.....conservatives seem to think that because they lost the election, whatever mess they left behind is no longer a factor. It takes time to recover from such a mess, only Jesus could fix it in a minute, and thank God that Obama was able to reverse some of Bush's failed policies and bring the country out the mess.

About Obama's accomplishments.......are you sure you want me to list them? They would take up a lot of space. I'll just give you his top 50....but knowing what a lock-step right-winger you are, I know you'll dismiss them and continue to think that doofus George W. Bush was a better president.......

Obama’s Top 50 Accomplishments


And let's see....what were Bush's accomplishments, besides attacking the wrong country, not doing a damn thing about OBL and screwing up the economy? And, I'm not making this up. Whether you like it or not, GW Bush will always be considered one of the worst presidents.....



Getting back to George W. Bush, his foreign policy would almost have to be considered a failure, and it was a failure of commission. He wasn’t responsible for the 9/11 attack in any meaningful way, of course, but his response—sending the U.S. military into the lands of Islam with the mission of remaking Islamic societies in the image of Western democracy—was delusional and doomed. One need only read today’s headlines, with forces aligned with Al Qaeda taking over significant swaths of territory within Iraq, to see Bush’s failure in stark relief.

In addition, Bush’s wars sapped resources and threw the nation’s budget into deficit. The president made no effort to inject fiscal austerity into governmental operations, eschewing his primary weapon of budgetary discipline, the veto pen. The national debt shot up, and economic growth began a steady decline, culminating in negative growth in the 2008 campaign year. The devastating financial crisis erupted on his watch.

It’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that Bush belongs in the category of the country’s five worst presidents, along with such perennial bottom-dwellers, in the academic polls, as Buchanan, Franklin Pierce and Millard Fillmore.

Thus do we come to one man’s assessment (mine) of the five worst presidents of our heritage (in ascending order): Buchanan, Pierce, Wilson, G. W. Bush and Fillmore.
5 Worst U.S. Presidents of All Time



Even conservative sources recognize some of Obama's accomplishments, I don't expect someone like you to do so.

Conservative Forbes Admits Obamacare Is Adding Jobs And Helping The Economy

Bill O’Reilly Shocks Fox News Anchor By Expressing Support For Iran Deal

Jesus, Mertex...are you running that 50 Obama Accomplishments cite at us AGAIN? Seriously? That list is so full of overblown claims it's hilarious to read through them. It's like someone's "resume" that they've totally exaggerated because their REAL record of accomplishment is so unimpressive.

Bwahahaha...you sound like another of those comatose Bush lovers......that still think he was the greatest thing since sliced bread even though most historians have already labeled him as one of the worst........why don't you list his accomplishments so we can compare them to Obama's.........bwahahaha...if you can find at least one.

Let me tell you something, Mertex...as a history major...I can tell you quite honestly that competent historians don't start rating the "accomplishments" of a President until enough time has passed to have clarity of vision. In Barack Obama's case...his legacy will be based on such things as how the ACA works out...whether his deal with Iran keeps them from getting the bomb...and whether his strategy of leading from behind proves to be insightful or pure folly.

My prediction is that George W. Bush will end up somewhere in the middle of the pack as far as best and worst Presidents. Any "historian" who has already decided that place does a disservice to their own reputation because they've obviously based their rating on their own political leanings.

I think your judgment may be colored by your devotion to George W. Bush. Time is not going to erase the gigantic mistakes that Bush made....ergo, his position in the list of worst Presidents will most likely not change much.

I think it's unfair to claim that the 65 Presidential Historians are being biased by political leanings....if they were, they would also show Reagan and Eisenhower in a bad light. I believe they are quite qualified on their observations and you are claiming political bias because you don't want to accept the fact that Bush was not a good President.


The survey was conducted for C-SPAN, the cable network, among 65 presidential historians and scholars, who ranked the 42 former occupants of the White House on 10 attributes of leadership: public persuasion, crisis leadership, economic management, moral authority, international relations, administrative skills, relations with Congress, "vision/setting an agenda," "pursued equal justice for all," and "performance within the context of his times."

Supervising the survey were historians Douglas Brinkley of Rice University, Edna Medford of Howard University, and Richard Norton Smith of George Mason University.
Historians Rank George W. Bush Among Worst Presidents



As far as Obama is concerned, you are right, we still don't know if ACA is going to continue to do well and whether or not Iran will renege on the deal. So far, the ACA is getting good reports and the news has reported that Iran just got rid of sufficient uranium to preclude them from being able to make a nuclear bomb.

Iran had already trebled the amount of time it would take to produce enough fuel for a bomb from two or three months up to nine.
Iran ships 25,000lb of low-enriched uranium to Russia as part of nuclear deal


Now statistics for the second year are largely in hand and the verdict is indisputable: Its disastrous 2013 rollout notwithstanding, the Affordable Care Act has achieved nearly all of its ambitious goals.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...or-tens-of-millions-obamacare-is-working.html

 

[Oldstyle]

Mertie, the "Bush did it" line died with the 2014 elections. From 2017 on, it will be "Obama did it." I hope to still be on this forum when the tables are turned squarely in the opposite direction.

I'm sure we could get into a lengthy debate about accomplishments and all that, but what honestly can you say Obama did that had such an indelible impact on America?

But it's a waste of time to expect you to appreciate what Bush did either. Partisan to the bitter end, not to mention overly sycophantic about Obama. Why is it you act like you're worshiping him?

I guess I missed your response. Sorry, but you can't forget about the fucking mess Bush left, and then just blame Obama for it.....conservatives seem to think that because they lost the election, whatever mess they left behind is no longer a factor. It takes time to recover from such a mess, only Jesus could fix it in a minute, and thank God that Obama was able to reverse some of Bush's failed policies and bring the country out the mess.

About Obama's accomplishments.......are you sure you want me to list them? They would take up a lot of space. I'll just give you his top 50....but knowing what a lock-step right-winger you are, I know you'll dismiss them and continue to think that doofus George W. Bush was a better president.......

Obama’s Top 50 Accomplishments


And let's see....what were Bush's accomplishments, besides attacking the wrong country, not doing a damn thing about OBL and screwing up the economy? And, I'm not making this up. Whether you like it or not, GW Bush will always be considered one of the worst presidents.....



Getting back to George W. Bush, his foreign policy would almost have to be considered a failure, and it was a failure of commission. He wasn’t responsible for the 9/11 attack in any meaningful way, of course, but his response—sending the U.S. military into the lands of Islam with the mission of remaking Islamic societies in the image of Western democracy—was delusional and doomed. One need only read today’s headlines, with forces aligned with Al Qaeda taking over significant swaths of territory within Iraq, to see Bush’s failure in stark relief.

In addition, Bush’s wars sapped resources and threw the nation’s budget into deficit. The president made no effort to inject fiscal austerity into governmental operations, eschewing his primary weapon of budgetary discipline, the veto pen. The national debt shot up, and economic growth began a steady decline, culminating in negative growth in the 2008 campaign year. The devastating financial crisis erupted on his watch.

It’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that Bush belongs in the category of the country’s five worst presidents, along with such perennial bottom-dwellers, in the academic polls, as Buchanan, Franklin Pierce and Millard Fillmore.

Thus do we come to one man’s assessment (mine) of the five worst presidents of our heritage (in ascending order): Buchanan, Pierce, Wilson, G. W. Bush and Fillmore.
5 Worst U.S. Presidents of All Time



Even conservative sources recognize some of Obama's accomplishments, I don't expect someone like you to do so.

Conservative Forbes Admits Obamacare Is Adding Jobs And Helping The Economy

Bill O’Reilly Shocks Fox News Anchor By Expressing Support For Iran Deal

Jesus, Mertex...are you running that 50 Obama Accomplishments cite at us AGAIN? Seriously? That list is so full of overblown claims it's hilarious to read through them. It's like someone's "resume" that they've totally exaggerated because their REAL record of accomplishment is so unimpressive.

Bwahahaha...you sound like another of those comatose Bush lovers......that still think he was the greatest thing since sliced bread even though most historians have already labeled him as one of the worst........why don't you list his accomplishments so we can compare them to Obama's.........bwahahaha...if you can find at least one.

Let me tell you something, Mertex...as a history major...I can tell you quite honestly that competent historians don't start rating the "accomplishments" of a President until enough time has passed to have clarity of vision. In Barack Obama's case...his legacy will be based on such things as how the ACA works out...whether his deal with Iran keeps them from getting the bomb...and whether his strategy of leading from behind proves to be insightful or pure folly.

My prediction is that George W. Bush will end up somewhere in the middle of the pack as far as best and worst Presidents. Any "historian" who has already decided that place does a disservice to their own reputation because they've obviously based their rating on their own political leanings.

I think your judgment may be colored by your devotion to George W. Bush. Time is not going to erase the gigantic mistakes that Bush made....ergo, his position in the list of worst Presidents will most likely not change much.

I think it's unfair to claim that the 65 Presidential Historians are being biased by political leanings....if they were, they would also show Reagan and Eisenhower in a bad light. I believe they are quite qualified on their observations and you are claiming political bias because you don't want to accept the fact that Bush was not a good President.


The survey was conducted for C-SPAN, the cable network, among 65 presidential historians and scholars, who ranked the 42 former occupants of the White House on 10 attributes of leadership: public persuasion, crisis leadership, economic management, moral authority, international relations, administrative skills, relations with Congress, "vision/setting an agenda," "pursued equal justice for all," and "performance within the context of his times."

Supervising the survey were historians Douglas Brinkley of Rice University, Edna Medford of Howard University, and Richard Norton Smith of George Mason University.
Historians Rank George W. Bush Among Worst Presidents



As far as Obama is concerned, you are right, we still don't know if ACA is going to continue to do well and whether or not Iran will renege on the deal. So far, the ACA is getting good reports and the news has reported that Iran just got rid of sufficient uranium to preclude them from being able to make a nuclear bomb.

Iran had already trebled the amount of time it would take to produce enough fuel for a bomb from two or three months up to nine.
Iran ships 25,000lb of low-enriched uranium to Russia as part of nuclear deal


Now statistics for the second year are largely in hand and the verdict is indisputable: Its disastrous 2013 rollout notwithstanding, the Affordable Care Act has achieved nearly all of its ambitious goals.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...or-tens-of-millions-obamacare-is-working.html

If the "goal" for the ACA was to give subsidized healthcare to millions of poor Americans and pass the cost of that along to Middle Class Americans...then you're correct. If the ACA's "goal" was to lower healthcare costs for America...then it has been a complete failure.

 

[Oldstyle]

"How we rank our presidents is, to a large extent, influenced by our own times," Medford said in a news release."

Once again...my belief is that George W. Bush will end up being considered a "middle of the pack" President in retrospect once his two terms are examined by historians with less of an axe to grind.

 

[Papageorgio]

Obama has failed in many ways, he said he wanted gas prices to rise gradually, they haven't. He was going to shut down Gitmo, he didn't. He wanted to save people an average of $2500 on health care, that didn't happen. He promised that people from his administration would not go into lobbying, that didn't work. So many failures on his part.

 

[Mertex]

I guess I missed your response. Sorry, but you can't forget about the fucking mess Bush left, and then just blame Obama for it.....conservatives seem to think that because they lost the election, whatever mess they left behind is no longer a factor. It takes time to recover from such a mess, only Jesus could fix it in a minute, and thank God that Obama was able to reverse some of Bush's failed policies and bring the country out the mess.

About Obama's accomplishments.......are you sure you want me to list them? They would take up a lot of space. I'll just give you his top 50....but knowing what a lock-step right-winger you are, I know you'll dismiss them and continue to think that doofus George W. Bush was a better president.......

Obama’s Top 50 Accomplishments


And let's see....what were Bush's accomplishments, besides attacking the wrong country, not doing a damn thing about OBL and screwing up the economy? And, I'm not making this up. Whether you like it or not, GW Bush will always be considered one of the worst presidents.....



Getting back to George W. Bush, his foreign policy would almost have to be considered a failure, and it was a failure of commission. He wasn’t responsible for the 9/11 attack in any meaningful way, of course, but his response—sending the U.S. military into the lands of Islam with the mission of remaking Islamic societies in the image of Western democracy—was delusional and doomed. One need only read today’s headlines, with forces aligned with Al Qaeda taking over significant swaths of territory within Iraq, to see Bush’s failure in stark relief.

In addition, Bush’s wars sapped resources and threw the nation’s budget into deficit. The president made no effort to inject fiscal austerity into governmental operations, eschewing his primary weapon of budgetary discipline, the veto pen. The national debt shot up, and economic growth began a steady decline, culminating in negative growth in the 2008 campaign year. The devastating financial crisis erupted on his watch.

It’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that Bush belongs in the category of the country’s five worst presidents, along with such perennial bottom-dwellers, in the academic polls, as Buchanan, Franklin Pierce and Millard Fillmore.

Thus do we come to one man’s assessment (mine) of the five worst presidents of our heritage (in ascending order): Buchanan, Pierce, Wilson, G. W. Bush and Fillmore.
5 Worst U.S. Presidents of All Time



Even conservative sources recognize some of Obama's accomplishments, I don't expect someone like you to do so.

Conservative Forbes Admits Obamacare Is Adding Jobs And Helping The Economy

Bill O’Reilly Shocks Fox News Anchor By Expressing Support For Iran Deal

Jesus, Mertex...are you running that 50 Obama Accomplishments cite at us AGAIN? Seriously? That list is so full of overblown claims it's hilarious to read through them. It's like someone's "resume" that they've totally exaggerated because their REAL record of accomplishment is so unimpressive.

Bwahahaha...you sound like another of those comatose Bush lovers......that still think he was the greatest thing since sliced bread even though most historians have already labeled him as one of the worst........why don't you list his accomplishments so we can compare them to Obama's.........bwahahaha...if you can find at least one.

Let me tell you something, Mertex...as a history major...I can tell you quite honestly that competent historians don't start rating the "accomplishments" of a President until enough time has passed to have clarity of vision. In Barack Obama's case...his legacy will be based on such things as how the ACA works out...whether his deal with Iran keeps them from getting the bomb...and whether his strategy of leading from behind proves to be insightful or pure folly.

My prediction is that George W. Bush will end up somewhere in the middle of the pack as far as best and worst Presidents. Any "historian" who has already decided that place does a disservice to their own reputation because they've obviously based their rating on their own political leanings.

I think your judgment may be colored by your devotion to George W. Bush. Time is not going to erase the gigantic mistakes that Bush made....ergo, his position in the list of worst Presidents will most likely not change much.

I think it's unfair to claim that the 65 Presidential Historians are being biased by political leanings....if they were, they would also show Reagan and Eisenhower in a bad light. I believe they are quite qualified on their observations and you are claiming political bias because you don't want to accept the fact that Bush was not a good President.


The survey was conducted for C-SPAN, the cable network, among 65 presidential historians and scholars, who ranked the 42 former occupants of the White House on 10 attributes of leadership: public persuasion, crisis leadership, economic management, moral authority, international relations, administrative skills, relations with Congress, "vision/setting an agenda," "pursued equal justice for all," and "performance within the context of his times."

Supervising the survey were historians Douglas Brinkley of Rice University, Edna Medford of Howard University, and Richard Norton Smith of George Mason University.
Historians Rank George W. Bush Among Worst Presidents



As far as Obama is concerned, you are right, we still don't know if ACA is going to continue to do well and whether or not Iran will renege on the deal. So far, the ACA is getting good reports and the news has reported that Iran just got rid of sufficient uranium to preclude them from being able to make a nuclear bomb.

Iran had already trebled the amount of time it would take to produce enough fuel for a bomb from two or three months up to nine.
Iran ships 25,000lb of low-enriched uranium to Russia as part of nuclear deal


Now statistics for the second year are largely in hand and the verdict is indisputable: Its disastrous 2013 rollout notwithstanding, the Affordable Care Act has achieved nearly all of its ambitious goals.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...or-tens-of-millions-obamacare-is-working.html

If the "goal" for the ACA was to give subsidized healthcare to millions of poor Americans and pass the cost of that along to Middle Class Americans...then you're correct. If the ACA's "goal" was to lower healthcare costs for America...then it has been a complete failure.

I don't think so. Many continue to compare their old insurance to their new Obamacare one and complain they are paying more, not admitting that the Obamacare most likely covers a whole lot more than their old insurance did. Also, the price of insurance has always continue to increase, but at least now, under ACA, it is not rising as quickly as it did the 8 years before it was implemented. Fact.



For decades, health care costs have been rising much faster than the rest of the American economy, outrunning inflation and wages and driving a growing imbalance in the federal budget. With the Affordable Care Act, President Obama promised to slow it all down. The law, he saidoften, would “bend the cost curve,” flattening health spending’s precipitous rise and making health care more affordable for the country.

The last few years have seen a significant slowdown in the growth of health spending. Across nearly every measure — medical price growth,employer insurance premiums, per capita Medicare spending — the amounts the country spends on health care have increased by much smaller margins than the nation is used to.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/27/us/is-the-affordable-care-act-working.html?_r=0#/

 

[Mertex]

Obama has failed in many ways, he said he wanted gas prices to rise gradually, they haven't. He was going to shut down Gitmo, he didn't. He wanted to save people an average of $2500 on health care, that didn't happen. He promised that people from his administration would not go into lobbying, that didn't work. So many failures on his part.

Yep....by focusing on the few things he said he would do and didn't do....you totally ignore all the many other things he did do. So typical of someone who continues to deny that Obama has done a whole lot more for the country than Bush ever did. It's probably the reason the GOP is in such dire straits!

 

[Mertex]

"How we rank our presidents is, to a large extent, influenced by our own times," Medford said in a news release."

Once again...my belief is that George W. Bush will end up being considered a "middle of the pack" President in retrospect once his two terms are examined by historians with less of an axe to grind.

We'll see. It's been 7 years and it seems the opinions haven't changed much. I think he will probably go up in rank among the "Top Most Worst"....in other words, some that are considered the worst now will not look so bad compared to G W Bush.

 

[Papageorgio]

Obama has failed in many ways, he said he wanted gas prices to rise gradually, they haven't. He was going to shut down Gitmo, he didn't. He wanted to save people an average of $2500 on health care, that didn't happen. He promised that people from his administration would not go into lobbying, that didn't work. So many failures on his part.

Yep....by focusing on the few things he said he would do and didn't do....you totally ignore all the many other things he did do. So typical of someone who continues to deny that Obama has done a whole lot more for the country than Bush ever did. It's probably the reason the GOP is in such dire straits!

The thing he did was increase the cost of health care to the middle class, the group that carries the nation. He is another President in a long line of Presidents who works for the rich.

 

[Faun]

Obama has failed in many ways, he said he wanted gas prices to rise gradually, they haven't. He was going to shut down Gitmo, he didn't. He wanted to save people an average of $2500 on health care, that didn't happen. He promised that people from his administration would not go into lobbying, that didn't work. So many failures on his part.

Yep....by focusing on the few things he said he would do and didn't do....you totally ignore all the many other things he did do. So typical of someone who continues to deny that Obama has done a whole lot more for the country than Bush ever did. It's probably the reason the GOP is in such dire straits!

The thing he did was increase the cost of health care to the middle class, the group that carries the nation. He is another President in a long line of Presidents who works for the rich.

Show the numbers.....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Jesus, Mertex...are you running that 50 Obama Accomplishments cite at us AGAIN? Seriously? That list is so full of overblown claims it's hilarious to read through them. It's like someone's "resume" that they've totally exaggerated because their REAL record of accomplishment is so unimpressive.

Bwahahaha...you sound like another of those comatose Bush lovers......that still think he was the greatest thing since sliced bread even though most historians have already labeled him as one of the worst........why don't you list his accomplishments so we can compare them to Obama's.........bwahahaha...if you can find at least one.

Let me tell you something, Mertex...as a history major...I can tell you quite honestly that competent historians don't start rating the "accomplishments" of a President until enough time has passed to have clarity of vision. In Barack Obama's case...his legacy will be based on such things as how the ACA works out...whether his deal with Iran keeps them from getting the bomb...and whether his strategy of leading from behind proves to be insightful or pure folly.

My prediction is that George W. Bush will end up somewhere in the middle of the pack as far as best and worst Presidents. Any "historian" who has already decided that place does a disservice to their own reputation because they've obviously based their rating on their own political leanings.

I think your judgment may be colored by your devotion to George W. Bush. Time is not going to erase the gigantic mistakes that Bush made....ergo, his position in the list of worst Presidents will most likely not change much.

I think it's unfair to claim that the 65 Presidential Historians are being biased by political leanings....if they were, they would also show Reagan and Eisenhower in a bad light. I believe they are quite qualified on their observations and you are claiming political bias because you don't want to accept the fact that Bush was not a good President.


The survey was conducted for C-SPAN, the cable network, among 65 presidential historians and scholars, who ranked the 42 former occupants of the White House on 10 attributes of leadership: public persuasion, crisis leadership, economic management, moral authority, international relations, administrative skills, relations with Congress, "vision/setting an agenda," "pursued equal justice for all," and "performance within the context of his times."

Supervising the survey were historians Douglas Brinkley of Rice University, Edna Medford of Howard University, and Richard Norton Smith of George Mason University.
Historians Rank George W. Bush Among Worst Presidents



As far as Obama is concerned, you are right, we still don't know if ACA is going to continue to do well and whether or not Iran will renege on the deal. So far, the ACA is getting good reports and the news has reported that Iran just got rid of sufficient uranium to preclude them from being able to make a nuclear bomb.

Iran had already trebled the amount of time it would take to produce enough fuel for a bomb from two or three months up to nine.
Iran ships 25,000lb of low-enriched uranium to Russia as part of nuclear deal


Now statistics for the second year are largely in hand and the verdict is indisputable: Its disastrous 2013 rollout notwithstanding, the Affordable Care Act has achieved nearly all of its ambitious goals.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...or-tens-of-millions-obamacare-is-working.html

If the "goal" for the ACA was to give subsidized healthcare to millions of poor Americans and pass the cost of that along to Middle Class Americans...then you're correct. If the ACA's "goal" was to lower healthcare costs for America...then it has been a complete failure.

I don't think so. Many continue to compare their old insurance to their new Obamacare one and complain they are paying more, not admitting that the Obamacare most likely covers a whole lot more than their old insurance did. Also, the price of insurance has always continue to increase, but at least now, under ACA, it is not rising as quickly as it did the 8 years before it was implemented. Fact.



For decades, health care costs have been rising much faster than the rest of the American economy, outrunning inflation and wages and driving a growing imbalance in the federal budget. With the Affordable Care Act, President Obama promised to slow it all down. The law, he saidoften, would “bend the cost curve,” flattening health spending’s precipitous rise and making health care more affordable for the country.

The last few years have seen a significant slowdown in the growth of health spending. Across nearly every measure — medical price growth,employer insurance premiums, per capita Medicare spending — the amounts the country spends on health care have increased by much smaller margins than the nation is used to.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/27/us/is-the-affordable-care-act-working.html?_r=0#/

Many continue to compare their old insurance to their new Obamacare one and complain they are paying more, not admitting that the Obamacare most likely covers a whole lot more than their old insurance did.

Many preferred a cheaper policy that covered less. Admit that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Obama has failed in many ways, he said he wanted gas prices to rise gradually, they haven't. He was going to shut down Gitmo, he didn't. He wanted to save people an average of $2500 on health care, that didn't happen. He promised that people from his administration would not go into lobbying, that didn't work. So many failures on his part.

Yep....by focusing on the few things he said he would do and didn't do....you totally ignore all the many other things he did do. So typical of someone who continues to deny that Obama has done a whole lot more for the country than Bush ever did. It's probably the reason the GOP is in such dire straits!

It's probably the reason the GOP is in such dire straits!

You're right.
After 2008 elections-257 Dem Congressmen, after 2014, 188 Dem Congressmen.
After 2008 elections-59 Dem Senators, after 2014, 46 Dem Senators.
After 2008 elections-29 Dem Governors, after 2014, 18 Dem Governors
Dire straits.

 

[Oldstyle]

Jesus, Mertex...are you running that 50 Obama Accomplishments cite at us AGAIN? Seriously? That list is so full of overblown claims it's hilarious to read through them. It's like someone's "resume" that they've totally exaggerated because their REAL record of accomplishment is so unimpressive.

Bwahahaha...you sound like another of those comatose Bush lovers......that still think he was the greatest thing since sliced bread even though most historians have already labeled him as one of the worst........why don't you list his accomplishments so we can compare them to Obama's.........bwahahaha...if you can find at least one.

Let me tell you something, Mertex...as a history major...I can tell you quite honestly that competent historians don't start rating the "accomplishments" of a President until enough time has passed to have clarity of vision. In Barack Obama's case...his legacy will be based on such things as how the ACA works out...whether his deal with Iran keeps them from getting the bomb...and whether his strategy of leading from behind proves to be insightful or pure folly.

My prediction is that George W. Bush will end up somewhere in the middle of the pack as far as best and worst Presidents. Any "historian" who has already decided that place does a disservice to their own reputation because they've obviously based their rating on their own political leanings.

I think your judgment may be colored by your devotion to George W. Bush. Time is not going to erase the gigantic mistakes that Bush made....ergo, his position in the list of worst Presidents will most likely not change much.

I think it's unfair to claim that the 65 Presidential Historians are being biased by political leanings....if they were, they would also show Reagan and Eisenhower in a bad light. I believe they are quite qualified on their observations and you are claiming political bias because you don't want to accept the fact that Bush was not a good President.


The survey was conducted for C-SPAN, the cable network, among 65 presidential historians and scholars, who ranked the 42 former occupants of the White House on 10 attributes of leadership: public persuasion, crisis leadership, economic management, moral authority, international relations, administrative skills, relations with Congress, "vision/setting an agenda," "pursued equal justice for all," and "performance within the context of his times."

Supervising the survey were historians Douglas Brinkley of Rice University, Edna Medford of Howard University, and Richard Norton Smith of George Mason University.
Historians Rank George W. Bush Among Worst Presidents



As far as Obama is concerned, you are right, we still don't know if ACA is going to continue to do well and whether or not Iran will renege on the deal. So far, the ACA is getting good reports and the news has reported that Iran just got rid of sufficient uranium to preclude them from being able to make a nuclear bomb.

Iran had already trebled the amount of time it would take to produce enough fuel for a bomb from two or three months up to nine.
Iran ships 25,000lb of low-enriched uranium to Russia as part of nuclear deal


Now statistics for the second year are largely in hand and the verdict is indisputable: Its disastrous 2013 rollout notwithstanding, the Affordable Care Act has achieved nearly all of its ambitious goals.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...or-tens-of-millions-obamacare-is-working.html

If the "goal" for the ACA was to give subsidized healthcare to millions of poor Americans and pass the cost of that along to Middle Class Americans...then you're correct. If the ACA's "goal" was to lower healthcare costs for America...then it has been a complete failure.

I don't think so. Many continue to compare their old insurance to their new Obamacare one and complain they are paying more, not admitting that the Obamacare most likely covers a whole lot more than their old insurance did. Also, the price of insurance has always continue to increase, but at least now, under ACA, it is not rising as quickly as it did the 8 years before it was implemented. Fact.



For decades, health care costs have been rising much faster than the rest of the American economy, outrunning inflation and wages and driving a growing imbalance in the federal budget. With the Affordable Care Act, President Obama promised to slow it all down. The law, he saidoften, would “bend the cost curve,” flattening health spending’s precipitous rise and making health care more affordable for the country.

The last few years have seen a significant slowdown in the growth of health spending. Across nearly every measure — medical price growth,employer insurance premiums, per capita Medicare spending — the amounts the country spends on health care have increased by much smaller margins than the nation is used to.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/27/us/is-the-affordable-care-act-working.html?_r=0#/

With all due respect, Mertex...you're using statistics to obscure the reality of what the ACA has done! Has the spending on healthcare in this country gone down because the ACA lowered costs...or has spending decreased because Middle Class Americans are being forced onto high deductible plans and not going to the doctors because they can't afford those deductibles?

It would be like bragging about how a tax on gasoline has helped cut pollution because so many people can't afford to put gas in their cars!

The ACA has ushered in a situation where poor people get subsidized sub standard healthcare...rich people get excellent healthcare by avoiding the ACA entirely...and the Middle Class struggles to figure out how they can pay their bills.

 

[Synthaholic]

Bwahahaha...you sound like another of those comatose Bush lovers......that still think he was the greatest thing since sliced bread even though most historians have already labeled him as one of the worst........why don't you list his accomplishments so we can compare them to Obama's.........bwahahaha...if you can find at least one.

Let me tell you something, Mertex...as a history major...I can tell you quite honestly that competent historians don't start rating the "accomplishments" of a President until enough time has passed to have clarity of vision. In Barack Obama's case...his legacy will be based on such things as how the ACA works out...whether his deal with Iran keeps them from getting the bomb...and whether his strategy of leading from behind proves to be insightful or pure folly.

My prediction is that George W. Bush will end up somewhere in the middle of the pack as far as best and worst Presidents. Any "historian" who has already decided that place does a disservice to their own reputation because they've obviously based their rating on their own political leanings.

I think your judgment may be colored by your devotion to George W. Bush. Time is not going to erase the gigantic mistakes that Bush made....ergo, his position in the list of worst Presidents will most likely not change much.

I think it's unfair to claim that the 65 Presidential Historians are being biased by political leanings....if they were, they would also show Reagan and Eisenhower in a bad light. I believe they are quite qualified on their observations and you are claiming political bias because you don't want to accept the fact that Bush was not a good President.


The survey was conducted for C-SPAN, the cable network, among 65 presidential historians and scholars, who ranked the 42 former occupants of the White House on 10 attributes of leadership: public persuasion, crisis leadership, economic management, moral authority, international relations, administrative skills, relations with Congress, "vision/setting an agenda," "pursued equal justice for all," and "performance within the context of his times."

Supervising the survey were historians Douglas Brinkley of Rice University, Edna Medford of Howard University, and Richard Norton Smith of George Mason University.
Historians Rank George W. Bush Among Worst Presidents



As far as Obama is concerned, you are right, we still don't know if ACA is going to continue to do well and whether or not Iran will renege on the deal. So far, the ACA is getting good reports and the news has reported that Iran just got rid of sufficient uranium to preclude them from being able to make a nuclear bomb.

Iran had already trebled the amount of time it would take to produce enough fuel for a bomb from two or three months up to nine.
Iran ships 25,000lb of low-enriched uranium to Russia as part of nuclear deal


Now statistics for the second year are largely in hand and the verdict is indisputable: Its disastrous 2013 rollout notwithstanding, the Affordable Care Act has achieved nearly all of its ambitious goals.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...or-tens-of-millions-obamacare-is-working.html

If the "goal" for the ACA was to give subsidized healthcare to millions of poor Americans and pass the cost of that along to Middle Class Americans...then you're correct. If the ACA's "goal" was to lower healthcare costs for America...then it has been a complete failure.

I don't think so. Many continue to compare their old insurance to their new Obamacare one and complain they are paying more, not admitting that the Obamacare most likely covers a whole lot more than their old insurance did. Also, the price of insurance has always continue to increase, but at least now, under ACA, it is not rising as quickly as it did the 8 years before it was implemented. Fact.



For decades, health care costs have been rising much faster than the rest of the American economy, outrunning inflation and wages and driving a growing imbalance in the federal budget. With the Affordable Care Act, President Obama promised to slow it all down. The law, he saidoften, would “bend the cost curve,” flattening health spending’s precipitous rise and making health care more affordable for the country.

The last few years have seen a significant slowdown in the growth of health spending. Across nearly every measure — medical price growth,employer insurance premiums, per capita Medicare spending — the amounts the country spends on health care have increased by much smaller margins than the nation is used to.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/27/us/is-the-affordable-care-act-working.html?_r=0#/

Many continue to compare their old insurance to their new Obamacare one and complain they are paying more, not admitting that the Obamacare most likely covers a whole lot more than their old insurance did.

Many preferred a cheaper policy that covered less. Admit that.

Except that they covered even less than the policy owners thought. They didn't find out how worthless those policies were until they needed them, and found out it didn't cover them for plethora of issues.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Let me tell you something, Mertex...as a history major...I can tell you quite honestly that competent historians don't start rating the "accomplishments" of a President until enough time has passed to have clarity of vision. In Barack Obama's case...his legacy will be based on such things as how the ACA works out...whether his deal with Iran keeps them from getting the bomb...and whether his strategy of leading from behind proves to be insightful or pure folly.

My prediction is that George W. Bush will end up somewhere in the middle of the pack as far as best and worst Presidents. Any "historian" who has already decided that place does a disservice to their own reputation because they've obviously based their rating on their own political leanings.

I think your judgment may be colored by your devotion to George W. Bush. Time is not going to erase the gigantic mistakes that Bush made....ergo, his position in the list of worst Presidents will most likely not change much.

I think it's unfair to claim that the 65 Presidential Historians are being biased by political leanings....if they were, they would also show Reagan and Eisenhower in a bad light. I believe they are quite qualified on their observations and you are claiming political bias because you don't want to accept the fact that Bush was not a good President.


The survey was conducted for C-SPAN, the cable network, among 65 presidential historians and scholars, who ranked the 42 former occupants of the White House on 10 attributes of leadership: public persuasion, crisis leadership, economic management, moral authority, international relations, administrative skills, relations with Congress, "vision/setting an agenda," "pursued equal justice for all," and "performance within the context of his times."

Supervising the survey were historians Douglas Brinkley of Rice University, Edna Medford of Howard University, and Richard Norton Smith of George Mason University.
Historians Rank George W. Bush Among Worst Presidents



As far as Obama is concerned, you are right, we still don't know if ACA is going to continue to do well and whether or not Iran will renege on the deal. So far, the ACA is getting good reports and the news has reported that Iran just got rid of sufficient uranium to preclude them from being able to make a nuclear bomb.

Iran had already trebled the amount of time it would take to produce enough fuel for a bomb from two or three months up to nine.
Iran ships 25,000lb of low-enriched uranium to Russia as part of nuclear deal


Now statistics for the second year are largely in hand and the verdict is indisputable: Its disastrous 2013 rollout notwithstanding, the Affordable Care Act has achieved nearly all of its ambitious goals.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...or-tens-of-millions-obamacare-is-working.html

If the "goal" for the ACA was to give subsidized healthcare to millions of poor Americans and pass the cost of that along to Middle Class Americans...then you're correct. If the ACA's "goal" was to lower healthcare costs for America...then it has been a complete failure.

I don't think so. Many continue to compare their old insurance to their new Obamacare one and complain they are paying more, not admitting that the Obamacare most likely covers a whole lot more than their old insurance did. Also, the price of insurance has always continue to increase, but at least now, under ACA, it is not rising as quickly as it did the 8 years before it was implemented. Fact.



For decades, health care costs have been rising much faster than the rest of the American economy, outrunning inflation and wages and driving a growing imbalance in the federal budget. With the Affordable Care Act, President Obama promised to slow it all down. The law, he saidoften, would “bend the cost curve,” flattening health spending’s precipitous rise and making health care more affordable for the country.

The last few years have seen a significant slowdown in the growth of health spending. Across nearly every measure — medical price growth,employer insurance premiums, per capita Medicare spending — the amounts the country spends on health care have increased by much smaller margins than the nation is used to.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/27/us/is-the-affordable-care-act-working.html?_r=0#/

Many continue to compare their old insurance to their new Obamacare one and complain they are paying more, not admitting that the Obamacare most likely covers a whole lot more than their old insurance did.

Many preferred a cheaper policy that covered less. Admit that.

Except that they covered even less than the policy owners thought. They didn't find out how worthless those policies were until they needed them, and found out it didn't cover them for plethora of issues.

Except that they covered even less than the policy owners thought.

Link?

and found out it didn't cover them for plethora of issues.

Versus current, more expensive policies, that cover them for things they don't want or need.

 

[KissMy]

Bwahahaha...you sound like another of those comatose Bush lovers......that still think he was the greatest thing since sliced bread even though most historians have already labeled him as one of the worst........why don't you list his accomplishments so we can compare them to Obama's.........bwahahaha...if you can find at least one.

Let me tell you something, Mertex...as a history major...I can tell you quite honestly that competent historians don't start rating the "accomplishments" of a President until enough time has passed to have clarity of vision. In Barack Obama's case...his legacy will be based on such things as how the ACA works out...whether his deal with Iran keeps them from getting the bomb...and whether his strategy of leading from behind proves to be insightful or pure folly.

My prediction is that George W. Bush will end up somewhere in the middle of the pack as far as best and worst Presidents. Any "historian" who has already decided that place does a disservice to their own reputation because they've obviously based their rating on their own political leanings.

I think your judgment may be colored by your devotion to George W. Bush. Time is not going to erase the gigantic mistakes that Bush made....ergo, his position in the list of worst Presidents will most likely not change much.

I think it's unfair to claim that the 65 Presidential Historians are being biased by political leanings....if they were, they would also show Reagan and Eisenhower in a bad light. I believe they are quite qualified on their observations and you are claiming political bias because you don't want to accept the fact that Bush was not a good President.


The survey was conducted for C-SPAN, the cable network, among 65 presidential historians and scholars, who ranked the 42 former occupants of the White House on 10 attributes of leadership: public persuasion, crisis leadership, economic management, moral authority, international relations, administrative skills, relations with Congress, "vision/setting an agenda," "pursued equal justice for all," and "performance within the context of his times."

Supervising the survey were historians Douglas Brinkley of Rice University, Edna Medford of Howard University, and Richard Norton Smith of George Mason University.
Historians Rank George W. Bush Among Worst Presidents



As far as Obama is concerned, you are right, we still don't know if ACA is going to continue to do well and whether or not Iran will renege on the deal. So far, the ACA is getting good reports and the news has reported that Iran just got rid of sufficient uranium to preclude them from being able to make a nuclear bomb.

Iran had already trebled the amount of time it would take to produce enough fuel for a bomb from two or three months up to nine.
Iran ships 25,000lb of low-enriched uranium to Russia as part of nuclear deal


Now statistics for the second year are largely in hand and the verdict is indisputable: Its disastrous 2013 rollout notwithstanding, the Affordable Care Act has achieved nearly all of its ambitious goals.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...or-tens-of-millions-obamacare-is-working.html

If the "goal" for the ACA was to give subsidized healthcare to millions of poor Americans and pass the cost of that along to Middle Class Americans...then you're correct. If the ACA's "goal" was to lower healthcare costs for America...then it has been a complete failure.

I don't think so. Many continue to compare their old insurance to their new Obamacare one and complain they are paying more, not admitting that the Obamacare most likely covers a whole lot more than their old insurance did. Also, the price of insurance has always continue to increase, but at least now, under ACA, it is not rising as quickly as it did the 8 years before it was implemented. Fact.



For decades, health care costs have been rising much faster than the rest of the American economy, outrunning inflation and wages and driving a growing imbalance in the federal budget. With the Affordable Care Act, President Obama promised to slow it all down. The law, he saidoften, would “bend the cost curve,” flattening health spending’s precipitous rise and making health care more affordable for the country.

The last few years have seen a significant slowdown in the growth of health spending. Across nearly every measure — medical price growth,employer insurance premiums, per capita Medicare spending — the amounts the country spends on health care have increased by much smaller margins than the nation is used to.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/27/us/is-the-affordable-care-act-working.html?_r=0#/

With all due respect, Mertex...you're using statistics to obscure the reality of what the ACA has done! Has the spending on healthcare in this country gone down because the ACA lowered costs...or has spending decreased because Middle Class Americans are being forced onto high deductible plans and not going to the doctors because they can't afford those deductibles?

It would be like bragging about how a tax on gasoline has helped cut pollution because so many people can't afford to put gas in their cars!

The ACA has ushered in a situation where poor people get subsidized sub standard healthcare...rich people get excellent healthcare by avoiding the ACA entirely...and the Middle Class struggles to figure out how they can pay their bills.

All you losers ever do is move the "goal post", create "straw-men", "SPIN" & fictional stories to try & explain away your failures.

Healthcare savings might well be due to early & preventive treatment. Yet you try to say the free market inspired deductibles that have always been around suddenly kept people away from doctors.

Fact is the ACA increased the percent of people who are covered & lowered the cost curve!

US Healthcare Spending

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Let me tell you something, Mertex...as a history major...I can tell you quite honestly that competent historians don't start rating the "accomplishments" of a President until enough time has passed to have clarity of vision. In Barack Obama's case...his legacy will be based on such things as how the ACA works out...whether his deal with Iran keeps them from getting the bomb...and whether his strategy of leading from behind proves to be insightful or pure folly.

My prediction is that George W. Bush will end up somewhere in the middle of the pack as far as best and worst Presidents. Any "historian" who has already decided that place does a disservice to their own reputation because they've obviously based their rating on their own political leanings.

I think your judgment may be colored by your devotion to George W. Bush. Time is not going to erase the gigantic mistakes that Bush made....ergo, his position in the list of worst Presidents will most likely not change much.

I think it's unfair to claim that the 65 Presidential Historians are being biased by political leanings....if they were, they would also show Reagan and Eisenhower in a bad light. I believe they are quite qualified on their observations and you are claiming political bias because you don't want to accept the fact that Bush was not a good President.


The survey was conducted for C-SPAN, the cable network, among 65 presidential historians and scholars, who ranked the 42 former occupants of the White House on 10 attributes of leadership: public persuasion, crisis leadership, economic management, moral authority, international relations, administrative skills, relations with Congress, "vision/setting an agenda," "pursued equal justice for all," and "performance within the context of his times."

Supervising the survey were historians Douglas Brinkley of Rice University, Edna Medford of Howard University, and Richard Norton Smith of George Mason University.
Historians Rank George W. Bush Among Worst Presidents



As far as Obama is concerned, you are right, we still don't know if ACA is going to continue to do well and whether or not Iran will renege on the deal. So far, the ACA is getting good reports and the news has reported that Iran just got rid of sufficient uranium to preclude them from being able to make a nuclear bomb.

Iran had already trebled the amount of time it would take to produce enough fuel for a bomb from two or three months up to nine.
Iran ships 25,000lb of low-enriched uranium to Russia as part of nuclear deal


Now statistics for the second year are largely in hand and the verdict is indisputable: Its disastrous 2013 rollout notwithstanding, the Affordable Care Act has achieved nearly all of its ambitious goals.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...or-tens-of-millions-obamacare-is-working.html

If the "goal" for the ACA was to give subsidized healthcare to millions of poor Americans and pass the cost of that along to Middle Class Americans...then you're correct. If the ACA's "goal" was to lower healthcare costs for America...then it has been a complete failure.

I don't think so. Many continue to compare their old insurance to their new Obamacare one and complain they are paying more, not admitting that the Obamacare most likely covers a whole lot more than their old insurance did. Also, the price of insurance has always continue to increase, but at least now, under ACA, it is not rising as quickly as it did the 8 years before it was implemented. Fact.



For decades, health care costs have been rising much faster than the rest of the American economy, outrunning inflation and wages and driving a growing imbalance in the federal budget. With the Affordable Care Act, President Obama promised to slow it all down. The law, he saidoften, would “bend the cost curve,” flattening health spending’s precipitous rise and making health care more affordable for the country.

The last few years have seen a significant slowdown in the growth of health spending. Across nearly every measure — medical price growth,employer insurance premiums, per capita Medicare spending — the amounts the country spends on health care have increased by much smaller margins than the nation is used to.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/27/us/is-the-affordable-care-act-working.html?_r=0#/

With all due respect, Mertex...you're using statistics to obscure the reality of what the ACA has done! Has the spending on healthcare in this country gone down because the ACA lowered costs...or has spending decreased because Middle Class Americans are being forced onto high deductible plans and not going to the doctors because they can't afford those deductibles?

It would be like bragging about how a tax on gasoline has helped cut pollution because so many people can't afford to put gas in their cars!

The ACA has ushered in a situation where poor people get subsidized sub standard healthcare...rich people get excellent healthcare by avoiding the ACA entirely...and the Middle Class struggles to figure out how they can pay their bills.

All you losers ever do is move the "goal post", create "straw-men", "SPIN" & fictional stories to try & explain away your failures.

Healthcare savings might well be due to early & preventive treatment. Yet you try to say the free market inspired deductibles that have always been around suddenly kept people away from doctors.

Fact is the ACA increased the percent of people who are covered & lowered the cost curve!

US Healthcare Spending

Yep. Nothing makes a liberal more festive than the creation of 10 million more government dependents.

 

[Oldstyle]

Let me tell you something, Mertex...as a history major...I can tell you quite honestly that competent historians don't start rating the "accomplishments" of a President until enough time has passed to have clarity of vision. In Barack Obama's case...his legacy will be based on such things as how the ACA works out...whether his deal with Iran keeps them from getting the bomb...and whether his strategy of leading from behind proves to be insightful or pure folly.

My prediction is that George W. Bush will end up somewhere in the middle of the pack as far as best and worst Presidents. Any "historian" who has already decided that place does a disservice to their own reputation because they've obviously based their rating on their own political leanings.

I think your judgment may be colored by your devotion to George W. Bush. Time is not going to erase the gigantic mistakes that Bush made....ergo, his position in the list of worst Presidents will most likely not change much.

I think it's unfair to claim that the 65 Presidential Historians are being biased by political leanings....if they were, they would also show Reagan and Eisenhower in a bad light. I believe they are quite qualified on their observations and you are claiming political bias because you don't want to accept the fact that Bush was not a good President.


The survey was conducted for C-SPAN, the cable network, among 65 presidential historians and scholars, who ranked the 42 former occupants of the White House on 10 attributes of leadership: public persuasion, crisis leadership, economic management, moral authority, international relations, administrative skills, relations with Congress, "vision/setting an agenda," "pursued equal justice for all," and "performance within the context of his times."

Supervising the survey were historians Douglas Brinkley of Rice University, Edna Medford of Howard University, and Richard Norton Smith of George Mason University.
Historians Rank George W. Bush Among Worst Presidents



As far as Obama is concerned, you are right, we still don't know if ACA is going to continue to do well and whether or not Iran will renege on the deal. So far, the ACA is getting good reports and the news has reported that Iran just got rid of sufficient uranium to preclude them from being able to make a nuclear bomb.

Iran had already trebled the amount of time it would take to produce enough fuel for a bomb from two or three months up to nine.
Iran ships 25,000lb of low-enriched uranium to Russia as part of nuclear deal


Now statistics for the second year are largely in hand and the verdict is indisputable: Its disastrous 2013 rollout notwithstanding, the Affordable Care Act has achieved nearly all of its ambitious goals.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...or-tens-of-millions-obamacare-is-working.html

If the "goal" for the ACA was to give subsidized healthcare to millions of poor Americans and pass the cost of that along to Middle Class Americans...then you're correct. If the ACA's "goal" was to lower healthcare costs for America...then it has been a complete failure.

I don't think so. Many continue to compare their old insurance to their new Obamacare one and complain they are paying more, not admitting that the Obamacare most likely covers a whole lot more than their old insurance did. Also, the price of insurance has always continue to increase, but at least now, under ACA, it is not rising as quickly as it did the 8 years before it was implemented. Fact.



For decades, health care costs have been rising much faster than the rest of the American economy, outrunning inflation and wages and driving a growing imbalance in the federal budget. With the Affordable Care Act, President Obama promised to slow it all down. The law, he saidoften, would “bend the cost curve,” flattening health spending’s precipitous rise and making health care more affordable for the country.

The last few years have seen a significant slowdown in the growth of health spending. Across nearly every measure — medical price growth,employer insurance premiums, per capita Medicare spending — the amounts the country spends on health care have increased by much smaller margins than the nation is used to.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/27/us/is-the-affordable-care-act-working.html?_r=0#/

With all due respect, Mertex...you're using statistics to obscure the reality of what the ACA has done! Has the spending on healthcare in this country gone down because the ACA lowered costs...or has spending decreased because Middle Class Americans are being forced onto high deductible plans and not going to the doctors because they can't afford those deductibles?

It would be like bragging about how a tax on gasoline has helped cut pollution because so many people can't afford to put gas in their cars!

The ACA has ushered in a situation where poor people get subsidized sub standard healthcare...rich people get excellent healthcare by avoiding the ACA entirely...and the Middle Class struggles to figure out how they can pay their bills.

All you losers ever do is move the "goal post", create "straw-men", "SPIN" & fictional stories to try & explain away your failures.

Healthcare savings might well be due to early & preventive treatment. Yet you try to say the free market inspired deductibles that have always been around suddenly kept people away from doctors.

Fact is the ACA increased the percent of people who are covered & lowered the cost curve!

US Healthcare Spending

I keep hearing this claim from you Progressives that the ACA has lowered the cost curve and quite frankly, Kiss...that's a bunch of hooey! Be honest for once...the Affordable Care Act was never about cutting healthcare costs...it's designed to provide subsidized healthcare to the poor and to pass the cost of that along to everyone else.

 

[Oldstyle]

Let me tell you something, Mertex...as a history major...I can tell you quite honestly that competent historians don't start rating the "accomplishments" of a President until enough time has passed to have clarity of vision. In Barack Obama's case...his legacy will be based on such things as how the ACA works out...whether his deal with Iran keeps them from getting the bomb...and whether his strategy of leading from behind proves to be insightful or pure folly.

My prediction is that George W. Bush will end up somewhere in the middle of the pack as far as best and worst Presidents. Any "historian" who has already decided that place does a disservice to their own reputation because they've obviously based their rating on their own political leanings.

I think your judgment may be colored by your devotion to George W. Bush. Time is not going to erase the gigantic mistakes that Bush made....ergo, his position in the list of worst Presidents will most likely not change much.

I think it's unfair to claim that the 65 Presidential Historians are being biased by political leanings....if they were, they would also show Reagan and Eisenhower in a bad light. I believe they are quite qualified on their observations and you are claiming political bias because you don't want to accept the fact that Bush was not a good President.


The survey was conducted for C-SPAN, the cable network, among 65 presidential historians and scholars, who ranked the 42 former occupants of the White House on 10 attributes of leadership: public persuasion, crisis leadership, economic management, moral authority, international relations, administrative skills, relations with Congress, "vision/setting an agenda," "pursued equal justice for all," and "performance within the context of his times."

Supervising the survey were historians Douglas Brinkley of Rice University, Edna Medford of Howard University, and Richard Norton Smith of George Mason University.
Historians Rank George W. Bush Among Worst Presidents



As far as Obama is concerned, you are right, we still don't know if ACA is going to continue to do well and whether or not Iran will renege on the deal. So far, the ACA is getting good reports and the news has reported that Iran just got rid of sufficient uranium to preclude them from being able to make a nuclear bomb.

Iran had already trebled the amount of time it would take to produce enough fuel for a bomb from two or three months up to nine.
Iran ships 25,000lb of low-enriched uranium to Russia as part of nuclear deal


Now statistics for the second year are largely in hand and the verdict is indisputable: Its disastrous 2013 rollout notwithstanding, the Affordable Care Act has achieved nearly all of its ambitious goals.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...or-tens-of-millions-obamacare-is-working.html

If the "goal" for the ACA was to give subsidized healthcare to millions of poor Americans and pass the cost of that along to Middle Class Americans...then you're correct. If the ACA's "goal" was to lower healthcare costs for America...then it has been a complete failure.

I don't think so. Many continue to compare their old insurance to their new Obamacare one and complain they are paying more, not admitting that the Obamacare most likely covers a whole lot more than their old insurance did. Also, the price of insurance has always continue to increase, but at least now, under ACA, it is not rising as quickly as it did the 8 years before it was implemented. Fact.



For decades, health care costs have been rising much faster than the rest of the American economy, outrunning inflation and wages and driving a growing imbalance in the federal budget. With the Affordable Care Act, President Obama promised to slow it all down. The law, he saidoften, would “bend the cost curve,” flattening health spending’s precipitous rise and making health care more affordable for the country.

The last few years have seen a significant slowdown in the growth of health spending. Across nearly every measure — medical price growth,employer insurance premiums, per capita Medicare spending — the amounts the country spends on health care have increased by much smaller margins than the nation is used to.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/27/us/is-the-affordable-care-act-working.html?_r=0#/

With all due respect, Mertex...you're using statistics to obscure the reality of what the ACA has done! Has the spending on healthcare in this country gone down because the ACA lowered costs...or has spending decreased because Middle Class Americans are being forced onto high deductible plans and not going to the doctors because they can't afford those deductibles?

It would be like bragging about how a tax on gasoline has helped cut pollution because so many people can't afford to put gas in their cars!

The ACA has ushered in a situation where poor people get subsidized sub standard healthcare...rich people get excellent healthcare by avoiding the ACA entirely...and the Middle Class struggles to figure out how they can pay their bills.

All you losers ever do is move the "goal post", create "straw-men", "SPIN" & fictional stories to try & explain away your failures.

Healthcare savings might well be due to early & preventive treatment. Yet you try to say the free market inspired deductibles that have always been around suddenly kept people away from doctors.

Fact is the ACA increased the percent of people who are covered & lowered the cost curve!

US Healthcare Spending

You keep showing graphs about healthcare spending, Kiss...but you don't break down who's spending what. Show me a graph that charts savings by Middle Class families because of the ACA. President Obama promised that if the ACA were passed that Middle Class families would end up spending $2,500 LESS than they were paying in 2009. Once again...be honest and admit that was nothing more than a lie told by you Progressives in order to trick Americans into not voting you out of office.

 

[Rustic]

Let me tell you something, Mertex...as a history major...I can tell you quite honestly that competent historians don't start rating the "accomplishments" of a President until enough time has passed to have clarity of vision. In Barack Obama's case...his legacy will be based on such things as how the ACA works out...whether his deal with Iran keeps them from getting the bomb...and whether his strategy of leading from behind proves to be insightful or pure folly.

My prediction is that George W. Bush will end up somewhere in the middle of the pack as far as best and worst Presidents. Any "historian" who has already decided that place does a disservice to their own reputation because they've obviously based their rating on their own political leanings.

I think your judgment may be colored by your devotion to George W. Bush. Time is not going to erase the gigantic mistakes that Bush made....ergo, his position in the list of worst Presidents will most likely not change much.

I think it's unfair to claim that the 65 Presidential Historians are being biased by political leanings....if they were, they would also show Reagan and Eisenhower in a bad light. I believe they are quite qualified on their observations and you are claiming political bias because you don't want to accept the fact that Bush was not a good President.


The survey was conducted for C-SPAN, the cable network, among 65 presidential historians and scholars, who ranked the 42 former occupants of the White House on 10 attributes of leadership: public persuasion, crisis leadership, economic management, moral authority, international relations, administrative skills, relations with Congress, "vision/setting an agenda," "pursued equal justice for all," and "performance within the context of his times."

Supervising the survey were historians Douglas Brinkley of Rice University, Edna Medford of Howard University, and Richard Norton Smith of George Mason University.
Historians Rank George W. Bush Among Worst Presidents



As far as Obama is concerned, you are right, we still don't know if ACA is going to continue to do well and whether or not Iran will renege on the deal. So far, the ACA is getting good reports and the news has reported that Iran just got rid of sufficient uranium to preclude them from being able to make a nuclear bomb.

Iran had already trebled the amount of time it would take to produce enough fuel for a bomb from two or three months up to nine.
Iran ships 25,000lb of low-enriched uranium to Russia as part of nuclear deal


Now statistics for the second year are largely in hand and the verdict is indisputable: Its disastrous 2013 rollout notwithstanding, the Affordable Care Act has achieved nearly all of its ambitious goals.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...or-tens-of-millions-obamacare-is-working.html

If the "goal" for the ACA was to give subsidized healthcare to millions of poor Americans and pass the cost of that along to Middle Class Americans...then you're correct. If the ACA's "goal" was to lower healthcare costs for America...then it has been a complete failure.

I don't think so. Many continue to compare their old insurance to their new Obamacare one and complain they are paying more, not admitting that the Obamacare most likely covers a whole lot more than their old insurance did. Also, the price of insurance has always continue to increase, but at least now, under ACA, it is not rising as quickly as it did the 8 years before it was implemented. Fact.



For decades, health care costs have been rising much faster than the rest of the American economy, outrunning inflation and wages and driving a growing imbalance in the federal budget. With the Affordable Care Act, President Obama promised to slow it all down. The law, he saidoften, would “bend the cost curve,” flattening health spending’s precipitous rise and making health care more affordable for the country.

The last few years have seen a significant slowdown in the growth of health spending. Across nearly every measure — medical price growth,employer insurance premiums, per capita Medicare spending — the amounts the country spends on health care have increased by much smaller margins than the nation is used to.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/27/us/is-the-affordable-care-act-working.html?_r=0#/

With all due respect, Mertex...you're using statistics to obscure the reality of what the ACA has done! Has the spending on healthcare in this country gone down because the ACA lowered costs...or has spending decreased because Middle Class Americans are being forced onto high deductible plans and not going to the doctors because they can't afford those deductibles?

It would be like bragging about how a tax on gasoline has helped cut pollution because so many people can't afford to put gas in their cars!

The ACA has ushered in a situation where poor people get subsidized sub standard healthcare...rich people get excellent healthcare by avoiding the ACA entirely...and the Middle Class struggles to figure out how they can pay their bills.

All you losers ever do is move the "goal post", create "straw-men", "SPIN" & fictional stories to try & explain away your failures.

Healthcare savings might well be due to early & preventive treatment. Yet you try to say the free market inspired deductibles that have always been around suddenly kept people away from doctors.

Fact is the ACA increased the percent of people who are covered & lowered the cost curve!

US Healthcare Spending

What about the people that want nothing to do with the horseshit that is Obamacare??
So much for freedom of choice