Comments
90,681 - 90,700 of 97,823 Comments Last updated 9 hrs ago

Toj

“Equality”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#92068
Oct 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's something more impartial from CNN that says 9 out of 14 economists disagree with the premise of your article.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/30/news/economy/...
You should read the whole article. Down further that very same article says:

"But there is also reason to believe the job killing criticism could be overblown.

As of 2010, 97% of small businesses had fewer than 50 employees, according to the U.S. Census. That means Obamacare's employer mandate applies only to 3% of America's small businesses. Of companies with more than 50 workers, 96% already offer health plans, government data shows.

The ADP jobs report -- one of the largest reports on private employers -- shows that small businesses are still hiring strong. "

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#92069
Oct 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

I find all this very very very boring.

BOOBIES!
A noted observer

Palatine, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#92070
Oct 1, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody wants the return of slavery. That's why it isn't on the table.
In contrast, the republicans never liked, wanted, or voted for Obamacare. That's why they don't want to fund it.
You are making an apples to oranges comparison.
Were those oranges apples in 2009 when the ACA passed?

The point isn't whether anyone wants slavery to return. The point is whether every American law can be held hostage by minority opinion.

If you people love the Constitution so much, why don't you follow it?

Toj

“Equality”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#92071
Oct 1, 2013
 
RACE wrote:
I find all this very very very boring.
BOOBIES!
I agree with you. In the interest in making it a bit less boring, this is slightly humorous. Well, actually a bit sad really.

http://gawker.com/kimmel-asks-americans-to-ch...

“...,to wit”

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#92072
Oct 1, 2013
 
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
If it doesn't achieve anything, then why did Obama already granted a one year delay for businesses by executive order. If they had so many employees, they were required under Obamacare to provide them health insurance or pay a fine. That was to come into effect starting at the first of the year, but Obama pushed it back until 2015.
How can he do this if this is the law of the land!!! I bet Squishy is outraged!
The republicans are simply asking for the same delay for individuals. Funny, the folks who normally scream about big businesses getting special treatment are completely silent on this. As is often the case with partisan hacks (not you P), it matters more who is doing the act verses what the act is.
Had Obama not exempted businesses for one year and republicans made that demand, Squishy and Ferrerman would be screaming about how evil they are and all about big business. Obama does it and you hear <crickets> from them. Too funny.
I believe that is a systems issue in that the computer system is not functional.I didn't understand it to be either a political concession or substantial change. Kudos to the government for wanting to put a tested and functioning system on line rather than something which would draw fire for lack of functionality.There was a 2nd aspect that I don't recall which was delayed for the same reason. If you have other information, please post.

“...,to wit”

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#92073
Oct 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

edogxxx wrote:
Obama is intent on dividing this country. First, he tried to start a class war. Remember the 99%ers? He failed.
Then he tried to start a race war. He went on national TV and admitted he hates white people. He failed.
Now he's trying to use partisan. "It's them against us" is his mantra.
Why would he want to do that? What's the point?
What would he benefit?

What would the Democratic party benefit?

That's not a rhetorical question

Toj

“Equality”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#92074
Oct 1, 2013
 
Here's something really shocking! Reading the "news" it said that Kate Middleton actually put her hair in a ponytail for a shopping trip.

For some reason this is all very shocking.

?

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#92075
Oct 1, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Toj wrote:
It’s true nonpartisan economic analyses have estimated a “small” loss of mainly low-wage jobs because of the law. But as one expert told us, there hasn’t been much analysis of this impact of the law because, he believes, economists think the impact will be minimal. Still, Republicans have continued to push the idea that the law will have a significant effect on jobs.
I find it hilarious that fact check references non-partisan economic analyses, but rather than expand upon these analyses and let them act as the best indicator of what the facts are and speak for themselves, they instead immediately turn to the opinion of ONE PERSON who says “he believes, economists think the impact will be minimal.” Why don't you just ask the economist or look at the studies? This is supposed to be "fact check", not "what one guy who believes check"? WTF was that?

I just pointed you to a 4 day old article from cnn that says 9 out of 14 expect job losses. You can use the opinion of one guy from fact check or you can look at the article I posted from CNN, which out of all the major American news networks is probably the most impartial and probably has the most integrity.

And if it doesn’t kill jobs, good for it, but I have plenty of other reasons why I don’t like it, including the fact that my company dropped BC/BS and went with some insurance company I've never heard of, my premium went up by about 15%, my copays are way higher (almost double for prescriptions), and I have worse overall coverage … all this just happens to coincide with the roll out of Obamacare. I know it's a coincidence or wait, wait, now is when you are supposed to feed me the line that but for Obamcare my premiums would have gone up even more, like 3000%

To top it all off, the jack a$s democrats and Obama limited my flex spending contributions to 2.5k. So not only did my costs go up, but my taxes went up too.

My buddy just posed on facebook the other day that insurance for he and his daughter through BC/BS is going up by over 30%.

It would be one thing if the law actually made health care more affordable, but it doesn’t. It has folks like me, pay a lot more for healthcare so freeloaders can have theirs or pay a lot less. It’s simply a mechanism for transferring costs for others onto others.

Toj

“Equality”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#92077
Oct 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I find it hilarious that fact check references non-partisan economic analyses, but rather than expand upon these analyses and let them act as the best indicator of what the facts are and speak for themselves, they instead immediately turn to the opinion of ONE PERSON who says “he believes, economists think the impact will be minimal.” Why don't you just ask the economist or look at the studies? This is supposed to be "fact check", not "what one guy who believes check"? WTF was that?
I just pointed you to a 4 day old article from cnn that says 9 out of 14 expect job losses. You can use the opinion of one guy from fact check or you can look at the article I posted from CNN, which out of all the major American news networks is probably the most impartial and probably has the most integrity...
So now I finally know what your problem is in connection with discussing things -- you don't read thoroughly!

Toj

“Equality”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#92078
Oct 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Toj wrote:
<quoted text>
You should read the whole article. Down further that very same article says:
"But there is also reason to believe the job killing criticism could be overblown.
As of 2010, 97% of small businesses had fewer than 50 employees, according to the U.S. Census. That means Obamacare's employer mandate applies only to 3% of America's small businesses. Of companies with more than 50 workers, 96% already offer health plans, government data shows.
The ADP jobs report -- one of the largest reports on private employers -- shows that small businesses are still hiring strong. "
SUBLIME -- The above is from YOUR article that YOU posted.
A noted observer

Palatine, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#92079
Oct 1, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

The people have spoken!

http://now.msn.com/jimmy-kimmel-prank-tests-k...

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Wilmington, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#92080
Oct 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Go Blue Forever wrote:
FAILED PRESIDENCY? WTF?...Home and Auto sales way up...
Way up from what? The great recession of '08, 09?
Go Blue Forever wrote:
Recovered Economy..
So the unemployment rate fell from 9.5 to 7.5. I GUESS that's an improvement, but is 7.5% unemployment the new norm? Should we be HAPPY with 7.5% unemployment?
Go Blue Forever wrote:
No New Ground Wars...
Not yet. Maybe Syria. And the old ground wars haven't really ended ether.
Go Blue Forever wrote:
Bin Laden Dead..
That I'll give ya. But what about the dead in Benghazi? Or are we supposed to forget about them?
Go Blue Forever wrote:
Manufacturing Up....
Excuse me, but I work in manufacturing, and I can tell you it is most definitely DOWN!
Go Blue Forever wrote:
It's alllll gooood.....That's whats killing you!....
It's alllll NOT gooood! Admitting that is a fact that is killing YOU!.... Keep drinking the cool-aid! "All is good! Nothing to see here, folks! Move along, please!" You're making your liberal leaders proud. I'll bet it's good not to think for yourself! I'll never care to know, though.

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Wilmington, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#92081
Oct 1, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

PEllen wrote:
Why would he want to do that? What's the point?
What would he benefit?
What would the Democratic party benefit?
That's not a rhetorical question
Honest question and I'll give you an honest answer. It's called divide and conquer. Can't defeat them all, so split them up and defeat the smaller groups.

The benefit for both Obama and the democratic party is to gain and maintain power. Blame everything on the Republicans in the hopes the American people are stupid enough to believe it.

Re-winning the election empowered them. But losing the House dis-empowered them a little. Next step, blast the "Tea-baggers." As we see with some of the smaller-minded posters here, it's working. They have a year until the next elections and then time will tell. The smear campaign against Republicans is in full swing.

I still have faith in the American people and predict that more states will turn Red (Illinois included) and Republicans will retake the Senate and keep the House. And Dems will not sit in the White House again for at least 8 years, maybe more. But I don't want to get ahead of myself. I'm not sure society and humanity is gonna last that long as it is.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#92082
Oct 1, 2013
 
It's never ALL GOOD...But you will certainly find way more positive economic signs, than not...and you know that....why can't you just admit it?

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Wilmington, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#92083
Oct 1, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

1

Go Blue Forever wrote:
It's never ALL GOOD...But you will certainly find way more positive economic signs, than not...and you know that....why can't you just admit it?
Because I've seen over two hundred people lose their jobs. I know of several who haven't been able to find work in nearly a year. I nearly lost my job. I've dealt with rolling layoffs and loss of overtime and higher taxes and I am bringing home less now that just a few years ago. I have been unsuccessful in finding a new, better job.

I will not agree to your "positive economic signs." I'm glad you have a secure job unaffected by today's turmoils, but many others aren't so fortunate. When unemployment is down to one or two percent, then you can talk to me about "recovery." As it is, I will never get on board that 7.5% unemployment is in any way an "economic recovery." And remember, that's just the people filing unemployment claims, that does not take into effect those whose claims has run out or those who gave up or those forced into early retirement. The TRUE unemployment numbers are hovering around 20 to 30%, maybe higher. And if you factor in the UNDERemployed, it's at 50 or 60%.
Recovery?

“...,to wit”

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#92084
Oct 1, 2013
 
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Honest question and I'll give you an honest answer. It's called divide and conquer. Can't defeat them all, so split them up and defeat the smaller groups.
The benefit for both Obama and the democratic party is to gain and maintain power. Blame everything on the Republicans in the hopes the American people are stupid enough to believe it.
Re-winning the election empowered them. But losing the House dis-empowered them a little. Next step, blast the "Tea-baggers." As we see with some of the smaller-minded posters here, it's working. They have a year until the next elections and then time will tell. The smear campaign against Republicans is in full swing.
I still have faith in the American people and predict that more states will turn Red (Illinois included) and Republicans will retake the Senate and keep the House. And Dems will not sit in the White House again for at least 8 years, maybe more. But I don't want to get ahead of myself. I'm not sure society and humanity is gonna last that long as it is.
What you are describing is the check and balance system in action. It's not pretty but it wasn't expected to be.

I didn't major in American history,but using Illinois as a microcosm ( which i am not sure in valid, but it is the best I have) just because one party controls both houses of the legislature and thee executive branch does not ensure that anything gets accomplished.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_...

As I read the charts, one party controlled both the Executive and Legislative branches under Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and George W. Of that group only Johnson was notable for pushing sweeping legislative changes which admittedly were strong social legislation. Still, I don't think many people are seriously debating that the Voting Rights Act or Medicare(the medical care program for people over 65) have caused negative disruption in the long term.

I disagree with your assertions, but even if your predictions about election came true, I don't see the catastrophic downside.

It is important to factor in the very different communications that we have now than we did even in 2001 when Bush took office. The immediacy of emails to your congressmen, twitter, Anonymous have a real impact. Even if the Republicans were swept out next year their positions are not negated.

I don't see the apocalyptic end you are suggesting
A noted observer

Palatine, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#92085
Oct 1, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

PEllen wrote:
<quoted text>
What you are describing is the check and balance system in action. It's not pretty but it wasn't expected to be.
I didn't major in American history,but using Illinois as a microcosm ( which i am not sure in valid, but it is the best I have) just because one party controls both houses of the legislature and thee executive branch does not ensure that anything gets accomplished.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_...
As I read the charts, one party controlled both the Executive and Legislative branches under Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and George W. Of that group only Johnson was notable for pushing sweeping legislative changes which admittedly were strong social legislation. Still, I don't think many people are seriously debating that the Voting Rights Act or Medicare(the medical care program for people over 65) have caused negative disruption in the long term.
I disagree with your assertions, but even if your predictions about election came true, I don't see the catastrophic downside.
It is important to factor in the very different communications that we have now than we did even in 2001 when Bush took office. The immediacy of emails to your congressmen, twitter, Anonymous have a real impact. Even if the Republicans were swept out next year their positions are not negated.
I don't see the apocalyptic end you are suggesting
Maybe they're asking for Affirmative Action for minority parties?

Republicans hate social change. They always have. Women voting, blacks having civil rights and voting, social security, medicaid/medicare, etc. all have been purported to be the end of the world by the republicans. We're a wealthy country. We CAN- and should- take care of our own. Republicans look at that spending and think of how it *could* pay off big at Wall Street casinos.

They'll get used to this or learn to accept it as the money-maker that abortion is for the party. Roe v. Wade is the law of the land but there is BIG BUCKS in telling folks that- with their dollars- you can defeat it....

That's probably what they are already doing with ACA.

“I Am Mine”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#92086
Oct 1, 2013
 
The controversial U.S. dating site that lets you PAY to filter out fat and ugly people

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-243...
==========

Who finds this controversial? I've never used a dating site, but it seems pretty logical to me. When you meet people without the aid of a dating site, their physical appearance generally plays a large role in whether or not you want to ask them out. Whether you prefer the athletic build or have a thing for BBW's, you generally won't ask someone out if they don't pass muster on your visual filter.

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#92087
Oct 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

A noted observer wrote:
<quoted text>Maybe they're asking for Affirmative Action for minority parties?
Republicans hate social change. They always have. Women voting, blacks having civil rights and voting, social security, medicaid/medicare, etc. all have been purported to be the end of the world by the republicans. We're a wealthy country. We CAN- and should- take care of our own. Republicans look at that spending and think of how it *could* pay off big at Wall Street casinos.
They'll get used to this or learn to accept it as the money-maker that abortion is for the party. Roe v. Wade is the law of the land but there is BIG BUCKS in telling folks that- with their dollars- you can defeat it....
That's probably what they are already doing with ACA.
Republicans are the ones who gave women and blacks the right to vote. But hey, I know you're not one to let facts get in the way of your argument!
Timmy

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#92088
Oct 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Below is a link with actual Department of Labor data for you. So a steadily decreasing trend from 9% to 7.3% is not a recovery? Note the average unemployment rate since the late 40's is 5.8% and the US had never had a rate below 2% except for a brief period during WW II.

How about you stop pulling numbers out of your azz.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states...
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Because I've seen over two hundred people lose their jobs. I know of several who haven't been able to find work in nearly a year. I nearly lost my job. I've dealt with rolling layoffs and loss of overtime and higher taxes and I am bringing home less now that just a few years ago. I have been unsuccessful in finding a new, better job.
I will not agree to your "positive economic signs." I'm glad you have a secure job unaffected by today's turmoils, but many others aren't so fortunate. When unemployment is down to one or two percent, then you can talk to me about "recovery." As it is, I will never get on board that 7.5% unemployment is in any way an "economic recovery." And remember, that's just the people filing unemployment claims, that does not take into effect those whose claims has run out or those who gave up or those forced into early retirement. The TRUE unemployment numbers are hovering around 20 to 30%, maybe higher. And if you factor in the UNDERemployed, it's at 50 or 60%.
Recovery?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Other Recent Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Father Of Hans Peterson Speaks Out (Oct '07) 9 min CDC 42
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 1 hr Mississippi Man 49,266
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr shinningelectr0n 1,096,122
Ferguson police shoot another black unarmed man! 2 hr joey 25
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 4 hr Whiny1 4,640
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 4 hr LRS 176,797
Word (Dec '08) 4 hr andet1987 4,633

Search the Chicago Forum:
•••

Flash Flood Warning for Cook County was issued at August 22 at 2:56AM CDT

•••
•••
•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••