BDAtlanta wrote: Then maybe try to repeal it through a majority vote which is obtained through elections. Sorry you are such babies about this. Obamacare is the law, upheld by the Supreme court. last year's election solidified its standing with the majority (51%) of Americans backing the guy who was President when Obamacare was passed. Grow up. - Obamacare is Killing Us
Dear Comrade BD,
Yes, we are in the process of attempting to repeal it through a majority vote. That’s what elections are about. That’s what next year’s elections will be about for sure.
Thanks for pointing that progressives like you are 100% FOR implementing this very flawed law and conservatives are 100% against implementing this very flawed law.
I’m guessing that much of next year’s election cycle will consist of Democrats trying to wiggle out of the various Obamacare disasters.
And here’s another thing: Obamacare may be the law, but it is a law that is enforced very unevenly. Whole classes of people have been exempted under the law because of the dislocation "the law" could have to the economy.
If you have clout with the administration, you get a waiver. If you have clout with the administration- and enough lobbyists- you get the law postponed.
But if you are some poor sucker living in Peoria, you get stuck with the bill.
The bill doesn’t just come in the form of higher insurance premiums, but also with a fundamental change in our economy. Gone are full-time jobs and the consequent benefits, even with the rollback of the company requirements for another year.
It’s fairly well established that full-time employment has suffered as a direct result of Obamacare.
Write union leaders, including Jimmy Hoffa, head of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, to Congress:
When you and the President sought our support for the Affordable Care Act (ACA), you pledged that if we liked the health plans we have now, we could keep them. Sadly, that promise is under threat. Right now, unless you and the Obama Administration enact an equitable fix, the ACA will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class.
“There are now 28 million people working part time versus 116.2 million full-timers. Once all the incentives of the ACA kick in by 2015, those figures could switch by perhaps as much as 10 million,” warns the Wall Street Journal, “turning into 38 million part-timers versus 106.2 million full-timers—bringing a noticeable decrease in the total number of productive hours workers spend on the job.”
That process is well underway.
According to the popular economics site, ZeroHedge, of the approximately 1 million jobs created in 2013, only 23% of them were full-time.
“[W]hat really shows what is going on in America at least in 2013,” writes ZeroHedge, “is the following summary: of the 953K jobs ‘created’ so far in 2013, only 23%, or 222K, were full-time. Part-time jobs? 731K of the 953K total.”
The people who really need to grow up are the Peter Pan progressives who think that in order to fly all you have to do is wish for it.
It’s bad enough that you guys have become the biggest racists since the demise of the KKK.
But your economic illiteracy is destroying the fabric of America; those things that made America exceptional, creative and bold.
Progressive seem to think that conservatives are frightened of elections. John Boehner’s crying doesn’t represent all of us.
See you in 2014.
I’m looking forward to the fight.
Linda1423 wrote: If world comes to an end, there will be no history books, how dumb can you get. - Clinton 2030: The World Will Come to an End
Dear Comrade 1423,
Well I guess you answered that question for us, didn’t you?
If you ever get the opportunity to study rhetoric, you might check out the use of sarcasm.
For your edification, here’s the Wikipedia definition. Normally I eschew Wiki definitions, but I find this one humorous:
Sarcasm is "a sharp, bitter, or cutting expression or remark; a bitter gibe or taunt."[1][2] Sarcasm may employ ambivalence,[3] although sarcasm is not necessarily ironic.[4] "The distinctive quality of sarcasm is present in the spoken word and manifested chiefly by vocal inflections". [5] Any comment could be considered sarcastic in the correct context, such as "Piers Morgan is REALLY smart". [6]
Please note that in my example—“Quick! We better elect Hillary president before the world comes to an end and we run out of the opportunity to elect the first woman president of United States. History books later would be very unkind to us if we didn’t elect her now.”—I was being both sarcastic and ironic.
And here’s a warning from Wikipedia: “This sophisticated understanding [of sarcasm] can be lacking in some people with certain forms of brain damage, dementia and autism (although not always),[12] and this perception has been located by MRI in the right parahippocampal gyrus.”
My friend Francesca Subramanian tells me that some people just don’t get sarcasm, therefore, they just aren’t big fans of mine.
This makes me feels better because I have often wanted to ask people who don’t like me to have some sort of medical test done to figure out what's wrong with them.
You and your liberal friends might want to get that checked out, Comrade 1423.
And just so you know, I’m not being sarcastic now. Or now. Or even now.
Moschke also wrote: You seem to have mis-spoken. Conservatives are the parasites sucking out the blood of true Americans. -The Gun Grabbers Try to Grope Our Kids Too
Dear Moschke,
I think you have something wrong with your parahippocampal gyrus. You seem not to understand the definition of either “conservative” or “parasite.”
A parasite is one who lives off of a host. If the host dies, the parasite can not live.
Not all conservatives are uber-rich, mansion-living, jet-setters like Al Gore and John Kerry.
Most of us work for a living.
And guess what? We’re more generous than liberals are.
You should go out and pick up the book Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism—America’s Charity Divide, Who Gives, Who
Doesn’t, and Why It Matters by Arthur C. Brooks.
Distinguished professor of Economics at Baylor, Earl Grinols, who wrote Healthcare For All of Us, opens his review of Who Really Cares with this important reminder: Vice President Al Gore's charitable giving in 1997 consisted of $353.
“Senator John Kerry, presidential candidate in 2004, gave nothing to charity in more than one year when he was a U.S. Senator,” writes Grinols. “Before his marriage to Teresa Heinz (whose reported fortune was half a billion dollars), Kerry’s 1991–1995 charitable contributions were ($0, $820, $175, $2039, $0), less than one-half of one percent of his income for the period.”
George W. Bush by contrast “gave ($28,236, $31,914, $31,292) in 1991–1993. His highest giving was 15.7 percent of income and his average 9.1percent. As Texas governor he gave $27,000 (6.5 percent of income) and $9,178 (2.3 percent) in the next two years, after which his giving returned to higher levels.”
But even more importantly Brooks' data shows how conservatives tend to make less and give more than their liberal brethren.
I dare the liberals who read this sentence to read that book.
“These are not the sort of conclusions I ever thought I would reach when I started looking at charitable giving in graduate school, 10 years ago,” admits Brooks on page 12. Brooks grew up in a liberal household in Seattle. “I have to admit I probably would have hated what I have to say in this book. I lived in a world largely characterized by the kind of impressionistic stereotyping offered by President Carter in the beginning of this chapter "
Read it.
Double dare you.
Althemarxist wrote: Ok. Go tell the school boards in Colorado to send all federal money back to D.C. Tell the farmers to send all farm subsidies back to DC. Tell the oil companies to send all oil subsidies back to DC. Tell the Denver airport to pay for its own air traffic controllers. -The Gun Grabbers Try to Grope Our Kids Too
Dear Comrade Al,
I have told them. I told them over and over and over again to send the money back...and get rid of subsidies. How about you?
Unlike you, I’m not in favor of handouts or subsidies for ANYONE. I’d be happy if all of the tax money generated here in Colorado would just stay in Colorado.
I doubt very much, however, if you’d be happy about it.
You probably live in one of those urban ghettos like Chicago or Baltimore or Miami that relies upon my tax dollars in order to make your unsustainable lives livable.
Disaffected wrote: It’s a real good thing that the Rs didn't try to include any provisions in the ACA by using examples from nations with socialized health care that actually works. Or the ACA might have worked. whew... As long as we can keep people fooled into thinking that a health care system has to be absolutely perfect in order to work satisfactorily and that perfection is impossible in health care, we can continue to keep health care out of reach from people who don't deserve it. Who'd want to go into a hospital anyway with all that MRSA running loose in those places? Good thing government regulations are so lax on the health care industry or people might actually want to see the doctor. - On Obamacare (and Guns), We Won't Comply
Dear Comrade Disinfected,
I think this is another case of the platypus-hippopotamus gland being out of whack in your brain.
Are you saying that Republicans should’ve offered a type of nationalized healthcare even though they didn’t believe that any version of Obamacare would work?
I think you have the rest of us confused with Mitt Romney. Or maybe it’s John McCain. Or maybe it’s the next GOP presidential candidate who has a version of nationalized healthcare.
The rest of us aren't required, however, to participate in your crazy little schemes in order to get them to WORK.
Here’s an idea: Why don’t you ask the Democrats to go back and actually draft a law that will lower costs for everybody, allow us all to keep our own insurance if we like it, cover everybody, and not raise taxes? And not raise the deficit?
Isn’t that what Obama promised us?
Yeah, why don’t you do that?
You won't do it because you can't. You can't even keep the government open.
Mices wrote:The poll is an indication that the Republicans' hard-line approach does not resonate with many Americans, and could have consequences in future elections. Nevertheless, the GOP has touted the tactic of using the continuing resolution to fund the government to demand changes to Obamacare, crafting the populist slogan "Make DC Listen." -On Obamacare (and Guns), We Won't Comply
Dear Comrade Mouses,
I don’t know which poll you’re talking about. But I do know that the latest job approval rating for Obama is one of the lowest he’s ever had… oh except for that time that he tried to drag us into war in Syria. Things were a little worse then for him.
The most consistent thing about President Obama is the consistency with which American voters suspect that he is not up to the job. That by a bare majority they preferred Obama over Romney doesn’t actually speak that well of Obama.
More and more Americans believe that the country is on the wrong track. If you think that bodes well for the Democrats, you have something wrong with another, unnamed gland in your body.
Bill904 wrote: Good job, Ransom. Delete the entire thread where you're criticized and where it's explained why you're criticized. Completely unprofessional, and pretty sad that you're an editor doing this. Now go ahead and delete this message. -Tell Jamie Dimon to Tell Eric Holder to Tell Obama I Found Those Jobs That Are Missing
Dear Comrade Bill,
You’re welcome.
I don't know why readers assume that I care if they criticize me. I don't. And I rarely delete comments. If I do it's usually something unusual. That's why chicks dig me.
And that's a fact Jack.
BFDOFR wrote: John, informative as always. But, please get a more careful editor. Small errors are very jarring. “since I can remember the IPO market being significant to the point were two new issues were able…" -Tell Jamie Dimon to Tell Eric Holder to Tell Obama I Found Those Jobs That Are Missing
Dear BFD,
Yes, you are correct. I’ve been using a voice recognition technology provided by Apple because my hands are getting kind of old and sore from computer use. It’s not as good as say, Dragon, which rarely makes a mistake. Or the Microsoft preinstalled voice recognition software, which also rarely makes mistake.
Point taken however.
Pollen wrote: Non-essential doesn't mean "surplus," it means not necessary to maintain minimal Government operation. A lot of non-essential Government employees perform duties that are important, even if they aren't urgent. Examples are the people who run the DHS E-Verify system, the CDC scientists who track disease outbreaks, the NIH employees who man the Medical Hotline, and the Scientists who do drug review for the FDA. None of these tasks must be performed to support minimal Government operations, but they all are critically important in the long run. One more point about the shutdown that's not directly related to employees: While the Congressmembers of both parties grin and congratulate themselves for nothing, the VA has said that, if the shutdown continues, in somewhere between two to three weeks they'll have to stop pensions and disability payments. I've seen veterans who won't be able eat if they're benefits stop. But maybe they're-nonessential veterans. - Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert: The Liberal Brain Trust That Is No Joke
Dear Comrade Pollen,
I got an angry email from a UH-60 technician in the National Guard who similarly took me to task for saying we should get rid of all non-essential government employees.
He wrote: Dear Mr. Ransom, I am offended by the fact that you think that all federal employees who are furloughed are not actually necessary. I am a National Guard Technician who maintains UH-60's for you the tax payer. Good luck on the next war without us!
I replied:
And I'm offended that you have a reading comprehension problem. You work on UH-60s? Eeeeck!
If you go back and read my column you will see that what I said was that I was in favor of not bringing back all of the nonessential workers. I'm sorry if the government has deemed you nonessential. That's their mistake, not mine.
Thank you for your service to our country. I really do truly appreciate it.
But reserve your ire for the people who actually deserve it.
JR
Depending on whom you believe, the amount of money that the government is saving ranges between 3% and 18% from to the shutdown.
The CDC’s budget is about $6.6 billion for 2014.
I’m pretty sure that the CDC can keep us all safe from disease for more like $4 billion next year.
BDAtlanta wrote: "Actually, a permanent shutdown-- with layoffs of all those non-essential unionized, government workers who now are without work-- seems like a great idea to me. " OK, John. But you get to be the first person to try the meat and imported fruit so we can see if you get sick, ok? - Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert: The Liberal Brain Trust That Is No Joke
Dear Comrade BD,
I don’t know if it’s imported or not but I’ll continue to eat food during the government shutdown, just like I always do.
Do you know why?
Because the grocery stores, and the suppliers of grocery stores, have an economic interest in keeping me well. If I get sick they have quite a bit of financial liability. If I die they have quite a bit of financial liability.
Why is it that liberals can’t understand that the law generally provides adequate remedies for wrongdoing without having to create a government agency to spy on the population?
That said. I agree with you: I suggest you stop eating immediately throughout the government shutdown.
Eating, as you point out, might be bad for your health. All liberals should do the same.
I’m not being sarcastic now.
Or now.
That's it for this week,
V/r,
JR