Why can't Public Assistance increase?

[Boss]

Yeah, who cares about small businesses? lol

Walmart BEGAN as a small business!

 

[francoHFW]

If those kids (now adults) were born here then they are citizens. So they are not at issue in this discussion. We can debate whether its right that kids born here of illegals should be granted citizenship, but for now that's the law.

My second comment is merely taking your stated position to its ridiculous conclusion, which is something you libs never do because it reveals the flaws in your ideology.

The New BS GOP and the big racist orange idiot are a ridiculous disgrace.

 

[francoHFW]

Yeah, who cares about small businesses? lol

Walmart BEGAN as a small business!

Totally irrelevant. Since they were is the problem. The usual Reaganist tax rates and loopholes for giant corps and lobbyists and accountants...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So tell us what happened to the MOM and POP stores when Walmart opened?

In Vegas alone we had 13 grocery stores close when Walmart opened their neighborhood markets.

Try to convince anyone that isn't price fixing. Good luck.

I see the problem now: you don't understand what price fixing is.

What happened to the Mom and Pop stores? They closed. Why? Because CONSUMERS decided to shop at Walmart. Believe it or not, they did so willingly.

Nobody tied a rope around them and dragged them into the stores, nobody pulled out a gun and forced them to shop at Walmart, Walmart didn't have private investigators take pictures of those women cheating on their husbands and blackmail them to shop there, they did it all on their own, and gladly I might add.

The only thing you leftists haven't blamed Walmart for (yet) is the Iran nuclear deal. You blame them for Democrats putting their workers on social programs, you blame them for closing down other stores when it's the consumer you should be pointing the finger at, you blame them for the poverty we have in the US, you blame Walmart for everything.

You leftists are so easy to brainwash for the Democrat party. Don't you realize that all this Walmart garbage was started because they are one of the biggest employers and don't have a union? Or do you think K-Mart workers have it so good, or Target employees? They're all the same. They have various paying jobs depending on your skills. But you brainwashed fools think that every Walmart position is paying minimum wage.

And while on the subject, let me ask: Did you ever shop online? You know, like Amazon and places like that? Because if so, you just helped close down those mom and pop shops you speak of. That's right, brick and mortar stores are closing because more and more people are shopping online now.

 

[kaz]

Social Security is welfare. There is no "trust fund." Government is simply taxing taxpayers and giving the money to people who didn't earn it just like every other welfare program

Social Security is part of FICA, Federal INSURANCE Contribution Act. What is it that you don't understand about insurance? You pay the premiums and collect the benefits according to the terms of the law.

When you pay premiums to buy "insurance," most of your money goes into a poo and if you have a loss then your money is paid back to you from that pool.

Your social security taxes swere spent as they came in. Nothing was saved.

How does a grown man in the United States not know how insurance works and the difference between an insurance payment and a tax? Pathetic. Government schools failed you, my friend. I'd say you're barely functional, but unfortunately you're not funtional at all.

Wow, you believe politicians. Don't take telemarketing calls. Seriously ... don't ... What a sucker

When the government passes a law and calls it Insurance it doesn't have to be like life Insurance. Are you really that stupid?

Government doing something and calling it a word doesn't make that word true. It makes people like you who believe them stupid. You should read 1984, dumb ass.

Too Tall's logic. They are saying the truth, government called it the Ministry of Truth!!!!

Your money was spent, nothing was saved. What government is giving you is other people's money. The word for that is welfare, no matter what your beloved government calls it

ALL insurance payouts come from other peoples money. If you buy a term life policy for $500,000 and die 2 years later, your beneficiary gets $500,000. You didn't pay that much in did you, so it must come from other peoples money.

WTF? You don't know that when you buy real insurance from a company, the money other than their expenses and profit go into a pool to pay for losses? You actually don't know that?

And I said you're not a functional adult. Nailed it ...

 

[Ame®icano]

If those kids (now adults) were born here then they are citizens. So they are not at issue in this discussion. We can debate whether its right that kids born here of illegals should be granted citizenship, but for now that's the law.

My second comment is merely taking your stated position to its ridiculous conclusion, which is something you libs never do because it reveals the flaws in your ideology.

The New BS GOP and the big racist orange idiot are a ridiculous disgrace.

Triggered yet?

You don't get it. Every single thing that drives leftist crazy has my support.

You just made my morning. Keep whining.

 

[dblack]

Social Security is part of FICA, Federal INSURANCE Contribution Act. What is it that you don't understand about insurance? You pay the premiums and collect the benefits according to the terms of the law.

When you pay premiums to buy "insurance," most of your money goes into a poo and if you have a loss then your money is paid back to you from that pool.

Your social security taxes swere spent as they came in. Nothing was saved.

How does a grown man in the United States not know how insurance works and the difference between an insurance payment and a tax? Pathetic. Government schools failed you, my friend. I'd say you're barely functional, but unfortunately you're not funtional at all.

Wow, you believe politicians. Don't take telemarketing calls. Seriously ... don't ... What a sucker

When the government passes a law and calls it Insurance it doesn't have to be like life Insurance. Are you really that stupid?

Government doing something and calling it a word doesn't make that word true. It makes people like you who believe them stupid. You should read 1984, dumb ass.

Too Tall's logic. They are saying the truth, government called it the Ministry of Truth!!!!

Your money was spent, nothing was saved. What government is giving you is other people's money. The word for that is welfare, no matter what your beloved government calls it

ALL insurance payouts come from other peoples money. If you buy a term life policy for $500,000 and die 2 years later, your beneficiary gets $500,000. You didn't pay that much in did you, so it must come from other peoples money.

WTF? You don't know that when you buy real insurance from a company, the money other than their expenses and profit go into a pool to pay for losses? You actually don't know that?

And I said you're not a functional adult. Nailed it ...

The key missing piece in most debates on this issue is that, especially when it comes to health insurance, insurance companies can, in fact, pay out more than they take in (per policy-holder, on average) as long as their pipeline of new customers is expanding. This is how the insurance industry was able to cope, for decades, with health care inflation. As long as they had more new customers signing up than claimants cashing out, they were in the black.

The problem comes when the influx of new customers begins to dry up, which is what finally pushed them to get in bed with government. When people, especially young healthy people, began to understand that insurance wasn't a wise investment, that they are better off when they pay for as much as they can afford themselves, the insurance industry's health care pyramid scam turned sour. And they turned to government to shore up their losses by forcing people to buy more insurance than they want.

 

[kaz]

When you pay premiums to buy "insurance," most of your money goes into a poo and if you have a loss then your money is paid back to you from that pool.

Your social security taxes swere spent as they came in. Nothing was saved.

How does a grown man in the United States not know how insurance works and the difference between an insurance payment and a tax? Pathetic. Government schools failed you, my friend. I'd say you're barely functional, but unfortunately you're not funtional at all.

Wow, you believe politicians. Don't take telemarketing calls. Seriously ... don't ... What a sucker

When the government passes a law and calls it Insurance it doesn't have to be like life Insurance. Are you really that stupid?

Government doing something and calling it a word doesn't make that word true. It makes people like you who believe them stupid. You should read 1984, dumb ass.

Too Tall's logic. They are saying the truth, government called it the Ministry of Truth!!!!

Your money was spent, nothing was saved. What government is giving you is other people's money. The word for that is welfare, no matter what your beloved government calls it

ALL insurance payouts come from other peoples money. If you buy a term life policy for $500,000 and die 2 years later, your beneficiary gets $500,000. You didn't pay that much in did you, so it must come from other peoples money.

WTF? You don't know that when you buy real insurance from a company, the money other than their expenses and profit go into a pool to pay for losses? You actually don't know that?

And I said you're not a functional adult. Nailed it ...

The key missing piece in most debates on this issue is that, especially when it comes to health insurance, insurance companies can, in fact, pay out more than they take in (per policy-holder, on average) as long as their pipeline of new customers is expanding. This is how the insurance industry was able to cope, for decades, with health care inflation. As long as they had more new customers signing up than claimants cashing out, they were in the black.

The problem comes when the influx of new customers begins to dry up, which is what finally pushed them to get in bed with government. When people, especially young healthy people, began to understand that insurance wasn't a wise investment, that they are better off when they pay for as much as they can afford themselves, the insurance industry's health care pyramid scam turned sour. And they turned to government to shore up their losses by forcing people to buy more insurance than they want.

Where do you get that they were paying out more than they were taking in? The best insurers have had razor thin margins for decades, but I don't see how financially that would work to take in less than they pay out.

And for sure, BCBS for example backed Obamacare. But you're also missing the role government played all along in driving down premiums and driving up costs. They didn't just suddenly appear as you make it sound. Government has been pulling blocks off the base of the tower for decades trying to topple it over so politicians could grab control over another 20% of our economy.

BCBS was stupid, the idea government was going to make healthcare better was inane and assinine and they're paying for it now

 

[dblack]

When the government passes a law and calls it Insurance it doesn't have to be like life Insurance. Are you really that stupid?

Government doing something and calling it a word doesn't make that word true. It makes people like you who believe them stupid. You should read 1984, dumb ass.

Too Tall's logic. They are saying the truth, government called it the Ministry of Truth!!!!

Your money was spent, nothing was saved. What government is giving you is other people's money. The word for that is welfare, no matter what your beloved government calls it

ALL insurance payouts come from other peoples money. If you buy a term life policy for $500,000 and die 2 years later, your beneficiary gets $500,000. You didn't pay that much in did you, so it must come from other peoples money.

WTF? You don't know that when you buy real insurance from a company, the money other than their expenses and profit go into a pool to pay for losses? You actually don't know that?

And I said you're not a functional adult. Nailed it ...

The key missing piece in most debates on this issue is that, especially when it comes to health insurance, insurance companies can, in fact, pay out more than they take in (per policy-holder, on average) as long as their pipeline of new customers is expanding. This is how the insurance industry was able to cope, for decades, with health care inflation. As long as they had more new customers signing up than claimants cashing out, they were in the black.

The problem comes when the influx of new customers begins to dry up, which is what finally pushed them to get in bed with government. When people, especially young healthy people, began to understand that insurance wasn't a wise investment, that they are better off when they pay for as much as they can afford themselves, the insurance industry's health care pyramid scam turned sour. And they turned to government to shore up their losses by forcing people to buy more insurance than they want.

Where do you get that they were paying out more than they were taking in? The best insurers have had razor thin margins for decades, but I don't see how financially that would work to take in less than they pay out.

On a per policy-holder, it's totally viable - as long as there are more people signing up every year. It's the classic Ponzi scheme dynamic. It's essentially what we've been doing with Social Security. But just as SS becomes less viable as our nation ages, and our birth rate declines, health insurance became less viable as the influx of new customers began to dry up.

 

[kaz]

Government doing something and calling it a word doesn't make that word true. It makes people like you who believe them stupid. You should read 1984, dumb ass.

Too Tall's logic. They are saying the truth, government called it the Ministry of Truth!!!!

Your money was spent, nothing was saved. What government is giving you is other people's money. The word for that is welfare, no matter what your beloved government calls it

ALL insurance payouts come from other peoples money. If you buy a term life policy for $500,000 and die 2 years later, your beneficiary gets $500,000. You didn't pay that much in did you, so it must come from other peoples money.

WTF? You don't know that when you buy real insurance from a company, the money other than their expenses and profit go into a pool to pay for losses? You actually don't know that?

And I said you're not a functional adult. Nailed it ...

The key missing piece in most debates on this issue is that, especially when it comes to health insurance, insurance companies can, in fact, pay out more than they take in (per policy-holder, on average) as long as their pipeline of new customers is expanding. This is how the insurance industry was able to cope, for decades, with health care inflation. As long as they had more new customers signing up than claimants cashing out, they were in the black.

The problem comes when the influx of new customers begins to dry up, which is what finally pushed them to get in bed with government. When people, especially young healthy people, began to understand that insurance wasn't a wise investment, that they are better off when they pay for as much as they can afford themselves, the insurance industry's health care pyramid scam turned sour. And they turned to government to shore up their losses by forcing people to buy more insurance than they want.

Where do you get that they were paying out more than they were taking in? The best insurers have had razor thin margins for decades, but I don't see how financially that would work to take in less than they pay out.

On a per policy-holder, it's totally viable - as long as there are more people signing up every year. It's the classic Ponzi scheme dynamic. It's essentially what we've been doing with Social Security. But just as SS becomes less viable as our nation ages, and our birth rate declines, health insurance became less viable as the influx of new customers began to dry up.

Begging the question. I asked how you know that, you didn't answer the question.

And healthcare isn't like life insurance, people start using it right away. I don't see how what you are saying would work. But repeating that you know it doesn't answer how you know that.

The industry is screwed up, that's for sure.

 

[dblack]

ALL insurance payouts come from other peoples money. If you buy a term life policy for $500,000 and die 2 years later, your beneficiary gets $500,000. You didn't pay that much in did you, so it must come from other peoples money.

WTF? You don't know that when you buy real insurance from a company, the money other than their expenses and profit go into a pool to pay for losses? You actually don't know that?

And I said you're not a functional adult. Nailed it ...

The key missing piece in most debates on this issue is that, especially when it comes to health insurance, insurance companies can, in fact, pay out more than they take in (per policy-holder, on average) as long as their pipeline of new customers is expanding. This is how the insurance industry was able to cope, for decades, with health care inflation. As long as they had more new customers signing up than claimants cashing out, they were in the black.

The problem comes when the influx of new customers begins to dry up, which is what finally pushed them to get in bed with government. When people, especially young healthy people, began to understand that insurance wasn't a wise investment, that they are better off when they pay for as much as they can afford themselves, the insurance industry's health care pyramid scam turned sour. And they turned to government to shore up their losses by forcing people to buy more insurance than they want.

Where do you get that they were paying out more than they were taking in? The best insurers have had razor thin margins for decades, but I don't see how financially that would work to take in less than they pay out.

On a per policy-holder, it's totally viable - as long as there are more people signing up every year. It's the classic Ponzi scheme dynamic. It's essentially what we've been doing with Social Security. But just as SS becomes less viable as our nation ages, and our birth rate declines, health insurance became less viable as the influx of new customers began to dry up.

Begging the question. I asked how you know that, you didn't answer the question.

And healthcare isn't like life insurance, people start using it right away. I don't see how what you are saying would work. But repeating that you know it doesn't answer how you know that.

The industry is screwed up, that's for sure.

I don't have any insider info, if that's what you're asking for. I'm just making an observation on something obvious. It's just math.

 

[Czernobog]

So tell us what happened to the MOM and POP stores when Walmart opened?

In Vegas alone we had 13 grocery stores close when Walmart opened their neighborhood markets.

Try to convince anyone that isn't price fixing. Good luck.

I see the problem now: you don't understand what price fixing is.

What happened to the Mom and Pop stores? They closed. Why? Because CONSUMERS decided to shop at Walmart. Believe it or not, they did so willingly.

Nobody tied a rope around them and dragged them into the stores, nobody pulled out a gun and forced them to shop at Walmart, Walmart didn't have private investigators take pictures of those women cheating on their husbands and blackmail them to shop there, they did it all on their own, and gladly I might add.

Except that's not exactly how that happened. You left out a few things. Sam Walton may have started out as a "small business man", but Walmart was never a "small business". Wal-mart went from being a publicly own corporation in 1970 to over 200,000 stores nation wide in five years. And they did this through a simple formula. Stores were built in every community, and the goods of whatever local merchandise retailers were bought and sold in bulk, shipped to all of their stores nationwide, something the local retailers simply could not do, allowing Wal-mart to undercut the prices of those local retailers rather dramatically. Now, it didn't really matter that the quality was also somewhat inferior. To working class families, being able to save money was important, especially with the economic squeeze that was ensuing. To assist with the illusion that Wal-Mart was just a "bigger, cheaper" version of your local retailers (your "Mom & Pop" stores), Wal-Mart hired copious numbers of staff to give the illusion that they could, and would give the same personal attention to customers that the local retailers did.

This had several effects. First, it created good public relations. After all, Wal-Mart was the saving institution that was bringing jobs to an economy badly in need of jobs. Second, Wal-Mart "proved" they could do everything the "om & Pop's could cheaper. The problem is, it was a lie. it was an illusion. Once Wal-Mart had effectively pushed the individual retailers out of business - around the mid-1980's, a strange thing happened. Two actually. First, prices began to rise at Wal-Marts all across the nation. Second, Wal-Mart began laying employees off, citing economic hard times. The problem with that claim is that Wal-Mart stock continued to soar. Wal-Mart continued to record huge profits quarter after quarter. The "economic hard times" really didn't seem to be hurting Wal-Mart's corporate profits, yet there were the lay-offs. And by then, consumers really didn't have a whole lot of choice. Wal-Mart had effectively priced the local competitors out of business, so people would shop where they could. And this has continued to today. Once Wal-Mart knew that it was "the only game in town", they knew that they could treat their customers, and their employees any way they like, and everyone would just "take it", because, after all, where else are you gonna go?

Now, things have improved a little in recent years, due mostly to competition created by other super-chains, like Target, and the advent, and explosive growth of online shopping that affords a convenience that even Wal-Mart is incapable of matching. They are trying to correct this by creating an online presence of their own. Time will tell if they will be able to do in the virtual world what they did in the physical one.

Now, was what Walmart did illegal? No. But it was mercenary, disingenuous, ethically ambiguous, and, at the very least, distasteful. So, one can understand why folks might have a less than favourable view of the corporate conglomerate.

 

[Ame®icano]

Begging the question. I asked how you know that, you didn't answer the question.

And healthcare isn't like life insurance, people start using it right away. I don't see how what you are saying would work. But repeating that you know it doesn't answer how you know that.

The industry is screwed up, that's for sure.

I don't have any insider info, if that's what you're asking for. I'm just making an observation on something obvious. It's just math.

How about you show the data you base your math on.

 

[Boss]

Except that's not exactly how that happened. You left out a few things. Sam Walton may have started out as a "small business man", but Walmart was never a "small business".

Yes, Walmart began as Walton's Five and Dime at 105 N. Main Street in Bentonville, Arkansas. Within five years he had 24 stored across Arkansas. Most all retail companies in the US began as small businesses.

Your problem is, class war envy causes you to believe nonsense and propaganda. You have to make "the rich" evil and taking advantage of "the poor" in order for your Marxist ideology to make sense.

Again, I am going to continue to pound this home... Marxism began as a counter-ideology to the feudal system. In feudalism, there is no chance of opportunity for the "people" or "workers" they are merely pawns exploited by the "ruling class" elite. And that is why we hear these memes today being promoted as if they are factual regarding our free market capitalist system. You must convince the proletariat they are being taken advantage of. The deck is stacked against them. They can never get ahead, never be successful, because all those damn rich people own everything. Except, that's a lie... it's not the system we have here.

In the US, you have a nation where anyone can be anything they desire through free market capitalism. A dirt poor black girl living in a tar-paper shack in Mississippi can use her talents to rise up and become the wealthiest woman in America, Oprah Winfrey.

 

[JoeNormal]

They had two years to get things done, and what did they do? Ruin healthcare for many of us. Put us further and further into debt with these Socialist programs while at the same time, creating record government dependents. Attack our banks so that credit worthy customers have to pay more for services so that the lowlifes who generally vote Democrat don't get charged late fees on their loans and credit cards. Even cigarette smokers seen huge increases in the cost of their tobacco.

Where are these credit cards that have no late fees? I've never seen them and I hate republicans as much as the next guy.

 

[JoeNormal]

Who cares? The question wasn't about who is more obstructionist? It was a dispelling of the lie that Obama had free reign to do whatever he wanted during his first two years in office, as Ray, incorrectly, suggested.

He did actually. Filibuster proof? No, but he couldn't get much closer. The last time the Senate had 60 seats or more was back in the early 80's which was well over 30 years ago. Yet Presidents (from both sides) were able to negotiate and pass legislation left and right. But DumBama didn't have that ability, did he?

Fucking morons like Mitch McConnell didn't have that ability. And then there was that absurd pledge to Grover Norquist...

 

[kaz]

WTF? You don't know that when you buy real insurance from a company, the money other than their expenses and profit go into a pool to pay for losses? You actually don't know that?

And I said you're not a functional adult. Nailed it ...

The key missing piece in most debates on this issue is that, especially when it comes to health insurance, insurance companies can, in fact, pay out more than they take in (per policy-holder, on average) as long as their pipeline of new customers is expanding. This is how the insurance industry was able to cope, for decades, with health care inflation. As long as they had more new customers signing up than claimants cashing out, they were in the black.

The problem comes when the influx of new customers begins to dry up, which is what finally pushed them to get in bed with government. When people, especially young healthy people, began to understand that insurance wasn't a wise investment, that they are better off when they pay for as much as they can afford themselves, the insurance industry's health care pyramid scam turned sour. And they turned to government to shore up their losses by forcing people to buy more insurance than they want.

Where do you get that they were paying out more than they were taking in? The best insurers have had razor thin margins for decades, but I don't see how financially that would work to take in less than they pay out.

On a per policy-holder, it's totally viable - as long as there are more people signing up every year. It's the classic Ponzi scheme dynamic. It's essentially what we've been doing with Social Security. But just as SS becomes less viable as our nation ages, and our birth rate declines, health insurance became less viable as the influx of new customers began to dry up.

Begging the question. I asked how you know that, you didn't answer the question.

And healthcare isn't like life insurance, people start using it right away. I don't see how what you are saying would work. But repeating that you know it doesn't answer how you know that.

The industry is screwed up, that's for sure.

I don't have any insider info, if that's what you're asking for. I'm just making an observation on something obvious. It's just math.

Math based on what? You have the right dynamic, but the wrong wealth transfer. It's not existing policyholders versus new policy holders. It's a transfer from young and healthy to elderly and pre-existing conditions. Government has been saddling health care companies with the cost of the elderly and pre-existing conditions, so insurance companies have to get the young and healthy to overpay. More and more they are refusing to do that.

Healthcare like most industry is a government created crisis. Insurance companies should be able to charge all customers profitably on an ex-ante basis and they can't

 

[Redfish]

Who cares? The question wasn't about who is more obstructionist? It was a dispelling of the lie that Obama had free reign to do whatever he wanted during his first two years in office, as Ray, incorrectly, suggested.

He did actually. Filibuster proof? No, but he couldn't get much closer. The last time the Senate had 60 seats or more was back in the early 80's which was well over 30 years ago. Yet Presidents (from both sides) were able to negotiate and pass legislation left and right. But DumBama didn't have that ability, did he?

Fucking morons like Mitch McConnell didn't have that ability. And then there was that absurd pledge to Grover Norquist...

Obozo had both houses of congress his first two years-------------and what did he pass?

The worst piece of legislation in the history of our nation, obozocare.

Passed on dem only votes using reconciliation tactics which had never before been used for anything as significant. Now, thanks to that attempt to take over 1/6 of the economy, premiums have doubled, deductibles have doubled, and coverages have been reduced.

but, yeah, now some poor people are getting free medical care-------------but they always were. ACA was a fix for a non problem.

Now, what else has your Kenyan messiah done?

 

[Redfish]

The key missing piece in most debates on this issue is that, especially when it comes to health insurance, insurance companies can, in fact, pay out more than they take in (per policy-holder, on average) as long as their pipeline of new customers is expanding. This is how the insurance industry was able to cope, for decades, with health care inflation. As long as they had more new customers signing up than claimants cashing out, they were in the black.

The problem comes when the influx of new customers begins to dry up, which is what finally pushed them to get in bed with government. When people, especially young healthy people, began to understand that insurance wasn't a wise investment, that they are better off when they pay for as much as they can afford themselves, the insurance industry's health care pyramid scam turned sour. And they turned to government to shore up their losses by forcing people to buy more insurance than they want.

Where do you get that they were paying out more than they were taking in? The best insurers have had razor thin margins for decades, but I don't see how financially that would work to take in less than they pay out.

On a per policy-holder, it's totally viable - as long as there are more people signing up every year. It's the classic Ponzi scheme dynamic. It's essentially what we've been doing with Social Security. But just as SS becomes less viable as our nation ages, and our birth rate declines, health insurance became less viable as the influx of new customers began to dry up.

Begging the question. I asked how you know that, you didn't answer the question.

And healthcare isn't like life insurance, people start using it right away. I don't see how what you are saying would work. But repeating that you know it doesn't answer how you know that.

The industry is screwed up, that's for sure.

I don't have any insider info, if that's what you're asking for. I'm just making an observation on something obvious. It's just math.

Math based on what? You have the right dynamic, but the wrong wealth transfer. It's not existing policyholders versus new policy holders. It's a transfer from young and healthy to elderly and pre-existing conditions. Government has been saddling health care companies with the cost of the elderly and pre-existing conditions, so insurance companies have to get the young and healthy to overpay. More and more they are refusing to do that.

Healthcare like most industry is a government created crisis. Insurance companies should be able to charge all customers profitably on an ex-ante basis and they can't

It was all part of the plan to destroy health insurance companies and implement socialized medicine. If we allow the hildebitch to become president, she will finish the job and destroy the best medical system in the history of the world.

 

[Czernobog]

Who cares? The question wasn't about who is more obstructionist? It was a dispelling of the lie that Obama had free reign to do whatever he wanted during his first two years in office, as Ray, incorrectly, suggested.

He did actually. Filibuster proof? No, but he couldn't get much closer. The last time the Senate had 60 seats or more was back in the early 80's which was well over 30 years ago. Yet Presidents (from both sides) were able to negotiate and pass legislation left and right. But DumBama didn't have that ability, did he?

Fucking morons like Mitch McConnell didn't have that ability. And then there was that absurd pledge to Grover Norquist...

Obozo had both houses of congress his first two years-------------and what did he pass?

Really? You're going to tell the exact same lie that I just exposed for the lie that it is less than 10 posts after the lie was exposed?

Do feel free to piss up a rope.