Obama's top 50 accomplishments

exactly. he would be the first conservahating socialism-calling dispshit using the pell grant (socialistic in nation according to the conservahaters)

 

lol...conservahaters! You liberals always have funny slogans. Do you write for Obama?

I listed out several paragraphs of why I believe they are flawed policies and that's your response...:smt038

 

There is no doubt that providing coverage to the uninsured via Emergency Room is costly. But that is an LA Times article and the number of uninsured people going to the emergency room here is more than North Dakota. But my argument is that there will be more visits now that those people will have coverage. So that will only drive healthcare costs upward. Insurance companies will have to charge premiums that coincide with the costs. It's quite simple...cheap insurance means fewer things that are covered, more expensive insurance means you get more things covered. And I believe nobody should be denied access, but unfortunately those who are older or have serious medical conditions will have to pay more. If you are a 25 year old man who visits the doctor once per year is less expensive than a 75 year old man who requires multiple checkups per month and other surgeries. It's just the way insurance works. Somebody who is a good driver with no accidents pays less and somebody who gets into a car accident every month has to pay more.

As far as business goes, small businesses with fewer than 50 people will be exempt. That is great if companies want to stay small and never grow. But the issue is that this presents another barrier into companies hiring and growing. Now businesses must factor in how much it will cost them to provide this healthcare or pay the penalty. A business can go from 50 employees to 100 employees quickly. So now they have to pay more salaries, have extra office space, more equipment, etc. But on top of that, if they don't provide coverage they would a $100,000 penalty at the end of the year. (50 employees x $2000 penalty per person).

 

all i have to say is George bush.....he is your man. enuff said.

hell just the fact you are a conservative says it all. you guys put us in this mess and expect him to get it all done in 4 years. but romney said he will get it done in 8-10 years...ssooooooo romney gets a pass but obama has to work faster

[YOUTUBE]DzEaThpfh5Y[/YOUTUBE]

 

OK.

 

Well you probably didn't see this post on another thread so I'll give it to you here.

In the wake of a recession that began roughly seven weeks after President Bush took office, America experienced six years of uninterrupted economic growth and a record 52 straight months of job creation that produced more than 8 million new jobs. During the Bush presidency, the unemployment rate averaged 5.3 percent. We saw labor-productivity gains that averaged 2.5 percent annually — a rate that exceeds the averages of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Real after-tax income per capita increased by more than 11 percent. And from 2000 to 2007, real GDP grew by more than 17 percent, a gain of nearly $2.1 trillion.

According to J.D. Foster, Obama’s “job deficit” — the difference between current employment and the jobs Obama promised to create by the end of 2010 – stands at a staggering 7.6 million workers. The 2010 deficit is $1.471 trillion, or 10 percent of GDP, while the debt is $9.2 trillion, or 62.7 percent of GDP. (From January 20, 2001, to January 20, 2009, the debt held by the public grew $3 trillion under Bush, from $3.3 trillion to $6.3 trillion; in 20 months. Deficits have doubled from $500 million under Bush, to over $1 trillion under Obama.

 

under bush versus obama....obama created more net jobs than bush

 

What are you talking about? We are at a zero sum gain under Obama. We are just now getting back to even four years later. Numbers don't lie. Obama may have all of you guys fooled with his catchy slogans, but not me.

 

fool you are crazy. he has created more private sector jobs than bush.

 

Did you even look at the numbers I just posted above? You can't rebut the argument because the numbers don't lie. So all you can say is "fool you are crazy".

 

dont have to....obama laid off more govt employees than bush and has a smaller personnel than reagan. reagan hired more govt employees to pull the economy out of the pit.

also this recession is a global and tech sit. you dont need the mass amount of people like they did before...you need an education in which you repubs fight against. you guys layoff teachers and build football stadiums for high school AND pro

 

Hiring government employees doesn't get us out of this mess. Until he realizes that our country is only successful when businesses are successful, we will have this same situation another four years. Reagan had 10.6% unemployment when he came into office. He had it down to 7.3% after his first term and 5.4% after his second term. He aggressively cut taxes and created a business friendly environment.

Not sure how Republicans laid off teachers and build football stadiums for high schools? I'm pretty sure that would fall on the school district for those decisions. But I wouldn't be surprised if Democrats blamed Republicans for that as well...lol!

 

While it is true the law does not require employers to provide health insurance. Starting in 2014, large businesses (those with 50 or more full-time workers) that do not provide adequate health insurance will be required to pay an assessment if their employees receive premium tax credits to buy their own insurance. These assessments will offset part of the cost of these tax credits. The assessment for a large employer that does not offer coverage will be $2,000 per full-time employee beyond the company's first 30 workers.
The Department of Health and Human Services estimates that fewer than 2% of large American employers will have to pay these assessments.
It is possible for an employer to offer group health insurance that gives better rates to their employees than they could get on their own, and not have to pay out of pocket themselves, or pay a small amount out of pocket. Thus it will not be a big deterrent to growth or hiring practices.


The Kaiser survey of employers was conducted from January through May 2011. An earlier survey of 26 health plans covering 32 million Americans found that the projected increase due to the health care law was 1.5 percent

 

We definitely agree on these numbers. But this is showing the projected increase will be on average 1.5% to 4.7% depending on line of business. The Affordable Care Act will not help to lower healthcare costs, it will just provide expanded coverage.

 

Thank you for sharing

 

Well to be fair, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Nancy-Ann DeParle told ABC News that the law needs to play out before savings materialize. She said “by 2019 we estimate that the average family will save around $2,000.” The fact is, we just don't know yet, one way or the other.

 

Well to be fair...of course the White House Deputy Chief of Staff will say that

 

Hey James..

You know new yawk? It's this place somewhere in the east coast on the other side of the states.

Yeah. They are under water by upto 12 feet by some accounts..the bridge that connects manhattan and Brooklyn (well A bridge that connects those to) is completely inundated by water.

New Jersey..

It's ALL fucked at the moment.

So please tell me how THIS mess is going to help the over all government debt.

Please? Because I'm really interested to know how when a country can't afford TEACHERS and FIREFIGHTERS is going TO CLEAN UP AFTER A NATURAL DISASTER OF EPIC PROPORTIONS.

I'll be waiting. As I'm not in the middle of the massive clusterfuck where people are going to die.

 

Are you asking how Hurricane Sandy will help the government debt? It will add to it because of the resources needed during the relief effort.

I don't even know how your second point is referring to.

 

LOL. u stupid