Barack Obama, our next President

Barack Obama, our next President

There are 1395620 comments on the Hampton Roads Daily Press story from Nov 5, 2008, titled Barack Obama, our next President. In it, Hampton Roads Daily Press reports that:

"The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep," Obama cautioned. Young and charismatic but with little experience on the national level, Obama smashed through racial barriers and easily defeated ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Hampton Roads Daily Press.

Since: May 11

Blain, PA

#1085742 Feb 24, 2014
mdbuilder wrote:
<quoted text>
I like that,"means tested". You rely on the concept. It makes little or no difference to you that record numbers are testing this means of deferred irresponsibility. You do your best to scrawl a big obscuring happy face on this grossly inept Obama economy.
"Means tested" was the stat presented by another poster.

So, tell me why millions lost their jobs, lost income so as to become eligible for these programs that were not eligible before?

Could it be the FAST that Bush & the Republicans took us from a balanced budget to the worst recession in 80 years,a housing collapse, a near financial meltdown????

But according to dumbass you, its all Obama's fault.

What more should I expect from a whiney little sh*t who can't even admit his own party screwed the pooch & nearly killed this country.
Realtime

Cape Canaveral, FL

#1085743 Feb 24, 2014
LoisLane59 wrote:
<quoted text>
"CBO’s estimate that the ACA will reduce aggregate labor compensation in the economy by about 1 percent over the 2017–2024 period—compared with what would have occurred in the absence of the act—is substantially larger than the estimate the agency issued in August 2010."
(It goes on...)
"CBO’s 2010 estimate did not include an effect on labor supply from the employer penalty and the resulting reduction in wages (as the costs of that penalty are passed on to workers), and it did not include an effect from encouraging part-year workers to delay returning to work in order to retain their insurance subsidies."
http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/a...
That's the actual report. What am I misreading? Sounds kind of ominous to me.
Real funny chit babe__do you understand that it's 2014? And no longer 2010?

Or doesn't that matter?

ROFLMAO

Since: May 11

Blain, PA

#1085744 Feb 24, 2014
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
I just realized you still can't even define "subsidy".
See, I knew it, Fletch.

You are now trying to justify those tax considerations by not calling them subsidies.

Subsidy - a financial benefit.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#1085745 Feb 24, 2014
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
You really don't know how it works here in the United States, do you? You seem to think there is something that has higher authority than the Constitution. If I were you, I'd go get my money back from those people who told you they educated you.
Or, show us text from the Constitution that regulates the text from the Constitution that says ""A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
If it's not in the Constitution, then the Constitution has authority over it, dumbass.
it is not in the text, just as the restrictions on your right to free speech are not int the text of that amendment.

yet the second amendment was regulated from the day it was ratified, right? yes, it was! why don't you know these basic facts of your own nation?

it would seem you do not even understand how our constitution, or our nation works...
(and when i say ours, i don't me you, you clearly are not worthy of being a US citizen.)

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#1085746 Feb 24, 2014
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
You forgot to give the link describing Obama sending weapons through Benghazi to the Al Qaeda invaders in Syria.
you forgot to prove that also..not that it had anything to do with me proving you wrong

yet once again proving you wrong...

about there not being chemical weapons in Syria...

proving you wrong seems to be my new winter job!
sonicfilter

Greenwood, IN

#1085747 Feb 24, 2014
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you have a problem understanding what "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means in the written English language, right?
What other text in the Constitution is too complicated for you to understand and you need an interpreter to explain it to you?
neither one of us can interpret. we don't sit on the Court.

Antonin Scalia: There Are 'Undoubtedly' Limits To A Person's Right To Carry Guns (FOX VIDEO)

The conservative justice notably authored the Supreme Court's 2008 opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, which ruled that the Second Amendment protects a person's right to bear arms and struck down a D.C. ban on handguns. The court also ruled, though, that "the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."

Scalia pointed out Sunday that that the Second Amendment "obviously" doesn't apply to weapons that can't be hand-carried, and modern-day weapons like "hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes" weren't factored in at the time of the writing of the Constitution.

“My starting point and probably my ending point will be what limitations are within the understood limitations that the society had at the time,” he said.“They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne. So we’ll see what those limitations are as applied to modern weapons.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/29/anto...

Since: May 11

Blain, PA

#1085748 Feb 24, 2014
In_Cold_Blood wrote:
<quoted text>
Millions of Americans have lost coverage because of the healthcare law and must now shop on a defective, insecure government website and sign up for more expensive policies through Federal and State exchanges. Only by logging in as a prospective patient did my office manager and I discover that Aetna was selling plans for which I am a provider-effectively selling my services without even asking, much less informing me that my services would be sold on such a site, under the auspices of new terms with which I will not comply.
Then, after the fact, I received a form letter informing me of Aetna’s “new allowables”. I will not sell my services under such terms. While treated as such, patients and doctors are not commodities worthy of such impersonal, inconsiderate, and cavalier treatment. We choose dignity and personal service over disrespect and form letters.
So here we are, you are getting new business offering health insurance plans featuring my services without my consent under terms which are unacceptable to me. Accept this as my official written notice that the changes that you have unilaterally made to our contract are unacceptable to me and make our contract null and void. You must explain this to your patients. You must tell them that they have purchased a product that was misrepresented to them and that you cannot deliver. It saddens me to think of the decreased access to care from actual physicians and the shockingly increased costs Aetna patients will now experience because of your choice to collude with big government rather than collaborate with patients and physicians.
Kristin S. Held, MD
What a liar.

I got a cancellation letter (just like many I had received before). It was followed by a list of 10 - 12 policy options. This from my agent. Then I could also shop the exchanges.

Who sent that letter to that doctor??? Aetna. Which last time I looked was a private insurance company.

I would suggest that dumbass doctor blame the right people.
sonicfilter

Greenwood, IN

#1085749 Feb 24, 2014
LoisLane59 wrote:
<quoted text>
The CBO's report...
http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/a...
Word-for-word:
"For some people, the availability of exchange subsidies under the ACA will reduce incentives to work both through a substitution effect and through an income effect."
"Under the ACA, employers with 50 or more full-time equivalent employees will face a penalty if they do not offer insurance (or if the insurance they offer does not meet certain criteria)...In CBO’s judgment, the costs of the penalty eventually will be borne primarily by workers in the form of reductions in wages or other compensation—just as the costs of a payroll tax levied on employers will generally be passed along to employees."
"Because the supply of labor is responsive to changes in compensation, the employer penalty will ultimately induce some workers to supply less labor."
Happy now? Read that last sentence again first.
Q: Are You Sure That CBO’s Current Estimates of the Labor Market Effects of the ACA Are Accurate?

A: No, we are not sure that our current estimates are accurate, because our estimates are always uncertain. As we emphasized in the report:“CBO’s estimate of the ACA’s impact on labor markets is subject to substantial uncertainty, which arises in part because many of the ACA’s provisions have never been implemented on such a broad scale and in part because available estimates of many key responses vary considerably. CBO seeks to provide estimates that lie in the middle of the distribution of possible outcomes, but the actual effects could differ notably from those estimates.”

For example, if fewer people obtain subsidized insurance coverage through exchanges than we expect, then the effects of the ACA on the labor market would probably be smaller than we estimate, whereas if more people obtain subsidized coverage through exchanges, the effects on the labor market would be larger. In addition, we noted in the report that our estimates did not incorporate several potential effects of the ACA on labor markets, including possible changes in workers’ productivity and in the cost of employment-based health insurance. We did not include those effects because, given the existing evidence, we were uncertain about their direction or thought that other effects would probably operate in an offsetting way. Altogether, we view the risks that our current estimates are too large or too small as substantial—but roughly equal.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45096
dem

United States

#1085750 Feb 24, 2014
Sue wrote:
Have you noticed the word impeachment is springing up?
For Christie. I heard.

Since: Jun 13

Orlando, FL

#1085751 Feb 24, 2014
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text> do you understand what that actually means, dear?
lets test!
please explain what that meant in your own words...
311
You first. Maybe I just missed something in between the lines and you can explain it to me.

“Peace on Earth”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#1085752 Feb 24, 2014
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
The bottom line is, there are more people receiving benefits than paying for them.
The village idiot can tell you that will fail. Just ask everyone living in Venezuela watching Chavez's support burn the cities because Chavez bankrupted them and there's no more money to give everything to everyone.
Obama is turning things around!!!

After the Bush tax cuts, the portion of the population who did not pay federal income taxes jumped to 35.8% immediately and stood at 40% when Obama took office. After hitting a high of 49.6%, the current percentage is now 43% and declining. That's a sure sign that Obama's programs have been successful.

"Tax dodging costs the U.S. about $300 billion per year. Much of that lost revenue is from individuals, rather than corporations. The country is cracking down on individual tax dodgers and striking deals with countries like Switzerland and the Cayman Islands that will help identify tax cheats starting in 2014." FINALLY!

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/10/25/2...
Realtime

Cape Canaveral, FL

#1085753 Feb 24, 2014
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
What a liar.
I got a cancellation letter (just like many I had received before). It was followed by a list of 10 - 12 policy options. This from my agent. Then I could also shop the exchanges.
Who sent that letter to that doctor??? Aetna. Which last time I looked was a private insurance company.
I would suggest that dumbass doctor blame the right people.
That doctor co-founded americandoctors4truth.org she's a fkn loon.

I wonder if that outfit is a 501 (c4) nonprofit?
HillaryWhaDifMak e

Satellite Beach, FL

#1085754 Feb 24, 2014
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
What a liar.
I got a cancellation letter (just like many I had received before). It was followed by a list of 10 - 12 policy options. This from my agent. Then I could also shop the exchanges.
Who sent that letter to that doctor??? Aetna. Which last time I looked was a private insurance company.
I would suggest that dumbass doctor blame the right people.
"liar"? Did you say, "liar"?... LOL ... Barack Hussein Obama: "Lie of the Year" ... LOL

Since: Jun 13

Orlando, FL

#1085755 Feb 24, 2014
sonicfilter wrote:
<quoted text>
Q: Are You Sure That CBO’s Current Estimates of the Labor Market Effects of the ACA Are Accurate?
A: No, we are not sure that our current estimates are accurate, because our estimates are always uncertain. As we emphasized in the report:“CBO’s estimate of the ACA’s impact on labor markets is subject to substantial uncertainty, which arises in part because many of the ACA’s provisions have never been implemented on such a broad scale and in part because available estimates of many key responses vary considerably. CBO seeks to provide estimates that lie in the middle of the distribution of possible outcomes, but the actual effects could differ notably from those estimates.”
For example, if fewer people obtain subsidized insurance coverage through exchanges than we expect, then the effects of the ACA on the labor market would probably be smaller than we estimate, whereas if more people obtain subsidized coverage through exchanges, the effects on the labor market would be larger. In addition, we noted in the report that our estimates did not incorporate several potential effects of the ACA on labor markets, including possible changes in workers’ productivity and in the cost of employment-based health insurance. We did not include those effects because, given the existing evidence, we were uncertain about their direction or thought that other effects would probably operate in an offsetting way. Altogether, we view the risks that our current estimates are too large or too small as substantial—but roughly equal.
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45096
The CBO sounds just as stumped by the uncertainties and unknowns as everyone else. Which is kind of the problem, isn't it?

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#1085756 Feb 24, 2014
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
I love it when an article comes out & how the way right whiners misinterpret it reverberates through their masses.
The models would have included typical volcanic activity including release of greenhouse gases & particulates.
If we have amore than normal/larger than normal activity, then the increased particulates can offset some of the greenhouse effects. But it is temporary.
My God you people are dumber than sh*t.
Here numbnuts try and understand what you read for a change!

According to a study in the US, models for predicting the rate at which temperatures around the world would rise from 1998 onwards did not take into consideration the measurable impact volcanoes can have.

Rather than contributing to global warming, eruptions release particles into the air that reflect sunlight – causing temperatures to drop.

Experts from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California said this phenomenon was not taken into account when predictions were made – offering an explanation for why the world seemed to stop heating up.

“We show that climate model simulations without the effects of early 21st century volcanic eruptions overestimate the tropospheric warming observed since 1998,” wrote Dr Benjamin Santer in the journal Nature Geoscience.

“To reduce these uncertainties, better observations of eruption-specific properties of volcanic aerosols are needed, as well as improved representation of these eruption-specific properties in climate model simulations.”

By the way they will stop having an effect when they stop erupting. Since there are, on average, 20 eruptions going on in any given year that would be never.

Since: Jun 13

Orlando, FL

#1085757 Feb 24, 2014
Realtime wrote:
<quoted text>Real funny chit babe__do you understand that it's 2014? And no longer 2010?
Or doesn't that matter?
ROFLMAO
Pretty sure you need to read it again. The latest report puts a shadow over the 2010 report. That's what this report was all about.

“Amor patriae.”

Since: Feb 08

Eastern Oregon

#1085758 Feb 24, 2014
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
"Means tested" was the stat presented by another poster.
So, tell me why millions lost their jobs, lost income so as to become eligible for these programs that were not eligible before?
Could it be the FAST that Bush & the Republicans took us from a balanced budget to the worst recession in 80 years,a housing collapse, a near financial meltdown????
But according to dumbass you, its all Obama's fault.
What more should I expect from a whiney little sh*t who can't even admit his own party screwed the pooch & nearly killed this country.
LOL.........OK, for the sake of argument, let's say your cop-out excuse is accurate. The last 6 years of ineptitude has illustrated one glaring inescapable truth: It'll take the Republicans or any party that's non-democrat, to lead us out of this WORSENING disaster. You idiots couldn't fix a burned out environmentally harmful mercury bulb.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#1085759 Feb 24, 2014
RealDave wrote:
<quoted text>
What a liar.
I got a cancellation letter (just like many I had received before). It was followed by a list of 10 - 12 policy options. This from my agent. Then I could also shop the exchanges.
Who sent that letter to that doctor??? Aetna. Which last time I looked was a private insurance company.
I would suggest that dumbass doctor blame the right people.
I keep telling you to pay the premiums and they won't cut you off!!!! FYI, I have never had any policy cancelled that I didn't stop myself.

“Peace on Earth”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#1085760 Feb 24, 2014
John McCain's recent comment that Vladimir Putin "wants to restore the Russian empire” is typical war mongering that I have come to expect from members of the Republican party. What is it with Republicans that makes them want to stick a needle in the eye of our adversaries to see if they flinch? I thank my luck stars everyday that John McCain lost his presidential run for the White House. Diplomacy escapes him.
sonicfilter

Greenwood, IN

#1085761 Feb 24, 2014
LoisLane59 wrote:
<quoted text>
The CBO sounds just as stumped by the uncertainties and unknowns as everyone else. Which is kind of the problem, isn't it?
a problem for anyone trying to state certainties that pertain.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 12 min Sublime1 102,494
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 23 min Woj 216,835
last post wins! (Apr '13) 31 min They cannot kill ... 1,117
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 43 min SweLL GirL 8,898
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr Into The Night 60,106
Chicago has the Worst Women 3 hr Amazing but True 13
Who's this Fauxcahontas? 5 hr ReadAllAbout IT 25
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages