Politics Thread: Road to 2014 and 2016 Elections

VanderbiltJets · Apr 23, 2013

Only in Barack's Socialist America. Thanks, Obama http://www.buzzfeed.com/dorsey/mark-sanfords-campaign-banner-looks-like-the-argentine-flag

jilozzo · Apr 23, 2013

VanderbiltJets said: ↑

Only in Barack's Socialist America. Thanks, Obama http://www.buzzfeed.com/dorsey/mark-sanfords-campaign-banner-looks-like-the-argentine-flag
Click to expand...

glad u brought this thread to life....i was beginning to wonder that the current administration was actually doing an effective job.

then i am reminded of reality with news such as this....transparency my ass mr president

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/brea...haWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3BtaA--;_ylv=3?vp=1

NotSatoshiNakamoto · Mar 27, 2015

Obamacare program costs $50,000 in taxpayer money for every American who gets health insurance, says bombshell budget report

Stunning figure comes from Congressional Budget Office report that revised cost estimates for the next 10 years

Government will spend $1.993 TRILLION over a decade and take in $643 BILLION in new taxes, penalties and fees related to Obamacare

The $1.35 trillion net cost will result in 'between 24 million and 27 million' fewer Americans being uninsured – a $50,000 price tag per person at best

The law will still leave 'between 29 million and 31 million' nonelderly Americans without medical insurance

Numbers assume Obamacare insurance exchange enrollment will double between now and 2025

By DAVID MARTOSKO, US POLITICAL EDITOR FOR DAILYMAIL.COM

It will cost the federal government – taxpayers, that is – $50,000 for every person who gets health insurance under the Obamacare law, the Congressional Budget Office revealed on Monday.

The number comes from figures buried in a 15-page section of the nonpartisan organization's new ten-year budget outlook.

The best-case scenario described by the CBO would result in 'between 24 million and 27 million' fewer Americans being uninsured in 2025, compared to the year before the Affordable Care Act took effect.

Pulling that off will cost Uncle Sam about $1.35 trillion – or $50,000 per head.

SCROLL DOWN TO READ THE REPORT

THE $2 TRILLION DOLLAR MAN: President Barack Obama was in India on Monday when the Congressional Budget Office reported the federal government's gross costs for a decade of Obamacare will be $1.993 trillion

PROMISES: Obama pledged in 2009 during a speech before a joint session of Congress that his health insurance proposal would cost $900 billion over ten years – a far cry short of current numbers

The numbers are daunting: It will take $1.993 trillion, a number that looks like $1,993,000,000,000, to provide insurance subsidies to poor and middle-class Americans, and to pay for a massive expansion of Medicaid and CHIP (Children's Health Insurance Program) costs.

Offsetting that massive outlay will be $643 billion in new taxes, penalties and fees related to the Obamacare law.

That revenue includes quickly escalating penalties – or 'taxes,' as the U.S. Supreme Court described them – on people who resist Washington's command to buy medical insurance.

It also includes income from a controversial medical device tax, which some Republicans predict will be eliminated in the next two years.

If they're right, Obamacare's per-person cost would be even higher.

President Barack Obama pledged to members of Congress in 2009, as his signature insurance overhaul law was being hotly debated, that 'the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years.'

It would be a significant discount if the White House could return to that number today.
Click to expand...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ys-bombshell-budget-report.html#ixzz3VaP0ZKK4

Cman68 · Mar 27, 2015

VanderbiltJets said: ↑

Only in Barack's Socialist America. Thanks, Obama http://www.buzzfeed.com/dorsey/mark-sanfords-campaign-banner-looks-like-the-argentine-flag
Click to expand...

Yeah.. I can't wait for the GOP's version of Amerika. That would be 21st century feudalism. Thing is, the demographics are working against the GOP unless of course they want to do away with one man, one vote.

BrowningNagle · Mar 27, 2015

NotSatoshiNakamoto said: ↑

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ys-bombshell-budget-report.html#ixzz3VaP0ZKK4
Click to expand...

that's over the course of 10 years.. adjusted for inflation.. is it not?

NotSatoshiNakamoto · Mar 28, 2015

On Thursday morning, I was very disappointed in Senator Rand Paul. A few hours later, I was impressed with what he’d done.

He made a very important point that needs to be hammered home as much and as hard as possible.

As someone who would like to see a smaller government sometime in my lifetime, I’ve long believed that the number one impediment to making this happen has been U.S. foreign policy, or more more accurately, conservative Republicans’ attitude about foreign policy.

Specifically, what they’re willing to spend on it.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to at least one study conducted by Brown University, will cost us somewhere between $4-6 trillion. That’s either one quarter or one third of our entire national debt, depending on how you look at the numbers.

There are far too many Republicans who would gladly spend that kind of money all over again. In fact, they’d spend much more.

A. You cannot seriously attack our debt if you’re willing to spend that kind of money on wars that most Americans–and most soldiers–today believe were mistakes.

B. Republicans will never convince Democrats to go for entitlement reform–the main culprit in our massive debt–if they absolutely refuse to look at Pentagon spending.

A serious fiscal conservative has to be willing to look at defense spending. A serious fiscal conservative has to be serious about reforming entitlements in order to reduce that crippling expense.

On Thursday, I first thought Rand Paul’s amendment to increase defense spending was a capitulation to Republican hawks who believe the Pentagon needs more money, despite the fact that they already waste billions every year.

I was wrong. Paul’s amendment was proposed to illustrate exactly the problem that I have been worried about for so many years.

Senators Marco Rubio and Tom Cotton introduced an amendment that would make the defense budget $696 billion. Sen. Paul said–Fine, you can have your $696 billion. But how are you going to pay for it?

He then offered his own amendment that gave these hawks the exact dollar amount they wanted, but would be paid for by budget cuts elsewhere.

And they rejected it.

One Republican who might be running for president in 2016, Rubio, and one who has already announced, Ted Cruz, voted against Paul’s amendment.

Despite his rhetoric, Marco Rubio has never been a reliably small government Republican. Ted Cruz has. He’s the real tea party deal. Cruz and Paul were the only Republicans who voted against the overall budget on Thursday. Cruz has genuinely been for small government, except…

When it came to defense spending on Thursday. Paul gave Cruz and every other Republican a way to get the increased defense spending they believe is so essential but in a fiscally responsible way.

And again, they rejected it.

Said Paul, “I think there are a great deal of problems for people who want to argue that they are fiscal conservatives and yet would simply borrow hundreds of billions of dollars for defense… I think it is irresponsible and dangerous to the country to borrow so much money to add into defense.”

Only three Republicans voted for Paul’s budget amendment–Senators Mike Enzi, David Vitter and Mitch McConnell.

So think about it. On Thursday, Mitch McConnell actually cast a more fiscally conservative vote on defense spending than Ted Cruz.

Mitch McConnell.

Paul told The Daily Caller, “If you are willing to increase domestic spending, without offsetting it from cuts, you know that’s liberal.”

He’s right. On Thursday, on defense spending, Cruz cast a liberal vote.

Ted Cruz is no liberal. But when even a solid, no-nonsense, stand-your-ground conservative of Cruz’s caliber can be easily sucked into this notion that we can spend the next generation into oblivion by borrowing money we don’t have so long as it’s for “defense“…

Then what should fiscal conservatives expect from every other Republican? Exactly what the last Republican president gave us. And what every Republican running in 2016 who wishes to replicate a Bush-Cheney-style foreign policy will give us.

More debt. Bigger government. Less liberty. We can still have a strong military and national security without spending like liberals on it.

For conservatives who argue that when it comes to defense, we should be as loose as we want with taxpayer dollars, I can find you a liberal who will make the same excuse for spending recklessly on Obamacare. Because healthcare is just that important.

Healthcare is important. So is our national security.

So is a staggering national debt that threatens both of them and the next generation’s security and stability.

Paul said to Politico of those who opposed his amendment Thursday, “I think it shows a lack of concern about the debt. I think it was a very, very important vote to see the contrast of the two different approaches.”

It certainly does. In 2016, this matters more than most Republicans realize.

With Thursday’s vote, if more conservatives realized it, if in 2016 if more Republicans understand it and vote accordingly, Rand Paul will have performed an important service toward the goal of fiscal responsibility and sanity.
Click to expand...

http://rare.us/story/why-rand-pauls-defense-budget-lesson-is-so-important/#3K2VUpU2Utjs23iB.99

Dierking · Mar 28, 2015

Amusing when conservatives wake up to what the Republican party has wrought since Ronald Reagan. Good stuff.

deathstar · Mar 29, 2015

Dierking said: ↑

Amusing when conservatives wake up to what the Republican party has wrought since Ronald Reagan. Good stuff.
Click to expand...

The funny part about all of this is that they bitch and complain about the shrinking middle class all the time but their own votes are the reason why the middle class is shrinking for the past few decades.

NotSatoshiNakamoto · Mar 29, 2015

deathstar said: ↑

The funny part about all of this is that they bitch and complain about the shrinking middle class all the time but their own votes are the reason why the middle class is shrinking for the past few decades.
Click to expand...

link?

Losing jobs over seas and more single family households seem to be the biggest factors.

NotSatoshiNakamoto · Mar 29, 2015

Dierking said: ↑

Amusing when conservatives wake up to what the Republican party has wrought since Ronald Reagan. Good stuff.
Click to expand...

Rand Paul is an interesting candidate. He separates himself from the rest of the Republican party on some issues and I think that's something we need on either side for real progress. This is just one example. He doesn’t just talk about saving taxpayer dollars he does it. I'm really hoping he gets the nod.

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/ran...in-unused-senate-office-money/article/2560473

Dirty6Sanchez · Mar 29, 2015

jilozzo said: ↑

glad u brought this thread to life....i was beginning to wonder that the current administration was actually doing an effective job.

then i am reminded of reality with news such as this....transparency my ass mr president

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/brea...haWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3BtaA--;_ylv=3?vp=1
Click to expand...

I mean...I'm not the biggest B-ROCK guy, but unemployment is down, the markets have hit all-time highs, the dollar is strong, gas is cheap. But don't try and tell that to the FOX NEWS faithful. That Barrack is the devil!!!

BeastBeach · Mar 30, 2015

NotSatoshiNakamoto said: ↑

Rand Paul is an interesting candidate. He separates himself from the rest of the Republican party on some issues and I think that's something we need on either side for real progress. This is just one example. He doesn’t just talk about saving taxpayer dollars he does it. I'm really hoping he gets the nod.

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/ran...in-unused-senate-office-money/article/2560473
Click to expand...

I like him okay but his dumb stance on things like abortion, gay marriage are going to hurt him. Everybody is going to be easily distracted by that type of thing and not focus on the issues that really matter

NotSatoshiNakamoto · Mar 30, 2015

BeastBeach said: ↑

I like him okay but his dumb stance on things like abortion, gay marriage are going to hurt him. Everybody is going to be easily distracted by that type of thing and not focus on the issues that really matter
Click to expand...

I agree with you for once.

I don't get how a libretarian wants to tell people what they can do with there bodies. I think it's hypocritical. My guess is that his stance is that the unborn child has the right to live. I also think it's something that will never change, but it loses a lot of women voters, understandably so.

The gay marriage thing could be even more dumb since he just wants to change the name of it to something other than marriage and give the same legal status. So why risk losing voters over semantics?

Within the Republican party I don't think that hurts him though.

BeastBeach · Mar 30, 2015

NotSatoshiNakamoto said: ↑

I agree with you for once.

I don't get how a libretarian wants to tell people what they can do with there bodies. I think it's hypocritical. My guess is that his stance is that the unborn child has the right to live. I also think it's something that will never change, but it loses a lot of women voters, understandably so.

The gay marriage thing could be even more dumb since he just wants to change the name of it to something other than marriage and give the same legal status. So why risk losing voters over semantics?

Within the Republican party I don't think that hurts him though.
Click to expand...

Well personally I agree with him on abortion as far as it being wrong. It is just one of those things we have to accept that is practically just a necessary evil. It does him no good as it isn't changing. And he needs to get on board with stem cell research imo. The gay marriage thing is also just something people need to accept. It is happening like it or not. Me personally, I don't give a shit...they deserve it.

But he is dead on when it comes to the budget. We have to be willing to cut before we can spend. if the republicans want to spend on defense they have to be willing to cut popular programs

BrowningNagle · Mar 30, 2015

Yeah, Paul at least tries to offer solutions... which is more than all of his d-bag tea party counterparts. But its his solutions that are going to get him buried in a potential run for president. I may disagree with him but I at least respect him and will listen to what he has to offer.

NotSatoshiNakamoto · Apr 3, 2015

Dirty6Sanchez said: ↑

I mean...I'm not the biggest B-ROCK guy, but unemployment is down, the markets have hit all-time highs, the dollar is strong, gas is cheap. But don't try and tell that to the FOX NEWS faithful. That Barrack is the devil!!!
Click to expand...

Unemployment rate is and always has been a misleading number. It only accounts for people actively seeking employment and doesn't account for people who used to be full time and are now part time.

The number of Americans 16 years and older who did not participate in the labor force--meaning they neither had a job nor actively sought one in the last four weeks--rose from 92,898,000 in February to 93,175,000 in March, according to data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

That is the first time the number of Americans out of the labor force has exceeded 93 million.

Also from February to March, the labor force participation rate dropped from 62.8 percent to 62.7 percent, matching a 37-year low.

Five times in the last twelve months, the participation rate has been as low as 62.8 percent; but March’s 62.7 percent, which matches the participation rate seen in September and December of 2014, is the lowest since February of 1978.

BLS employment statistics are based on the civilian noninstitutional population, which consists of all people 16 or older who were not in the military or an institution such as a prison, mental hospital or nursing home.

In March, the civilian noninstitutional population was 250,080,000 according to BLS. Of that 250,080,000, 156,906,000 -- or 62.7 percent -- participated in the labor force, meaning they either had or job or had actively sought one in the last four weeks.

Of the 156,906,000 who did participate in the labor force, 148,331,000 had a job and 8,575,000 did not have a job but actively sought one. The 8,575,000 are the unemployed. They equaled 5.5 percent of the labor force—or the unemployment rate of 5.5 percent (which matched the unemployment rate seen in February 2015).

According to the BLS, the aging of the baby boom generation is a key factor affecting the labor force participation rate:

“The baby boomers’ exit from the prime-aged workforce and their movement into older age groups will lower the overall labor force participation rate, leading to a slowdown in the growth of the labor force,” explains the BLS.

"In 2000, baby boomers were aged 36 to 54 years and were in the group with the highest participation rates: the prime-aged group 25 to 54 years old. The participation rate for women in this group was 76.7 percent and for men was 91.6 percent, so that the overall participation rate of the group was 84.0 percent. The participation rate of the next-older age group, that 55 years and older, was 32.4 percent, so the difference between the two age groups was 52 percentage points. With the passage of every year after 2000, a segment of the baby-boomer population passes into the 55-years-and-older age group and thus moves from a group with a high participation rate in the labor force to an age category with a much lower particiption rate, causing the overall participation rate to decrease,” states BLS.
Click to expand...

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ali...-exceed-93-million-first-time-627-labor-force

NotSatoshiNakamoto · Apr 7, 2015

Rand Paul officially running for president.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/07/politics/rand-paul-president-2016/

NotSatoshiNakamoto · Apr 17, 2015

I'm curious whether any of the Democrats on the board are excited about Hilary. Is anyone planning on voting for her?

I'll be sick if we end up with a Clinton vs. Bush election.

BeastBeach · Apr 17, 2015

I'm neither republican or democrat but I will not vote for Hillary. She's way too shady, even for a politician

Charlie Kelly · Apr 17, 2015

NotSatoshiNakamoto said: ↑

I'm curious whether any of the Democrats on the board are excited about Hilary. Is anyone planning on voting for her?

I'll be sick if we end up with a Clinton vs. Bush election.
Click to expand...

My gf's sister is staunch democrat and thinks having a woman president will be good for the country. I told her I don't think Hillary is even human

Politics Thread: Road to 2014 and 2016 Elections

VanderbiltJets Active Member

jilozzo Well-Known Member

NotSatoshiNakamoto Rookie

Cman68 The Dark Admin, 2018 BEST Darksider Poster

BrowningNagle Well-Known Member

NotSatoshiNakamoto Rookie

Dierking Well-Known Member

deathstar Well-Known Member

NotSatoshiNakamoto Rookie

NotSatoshiNakamoto Rookie

Dirty6Sanchez Well-Known Member

BeastBeach Banned

NotSatoshiNakamoto Rookie

BeastBeach Banned

BrowningNagle Well-Known Member

NotSatoshiNakamoto Rookie

NotSatoshiNakamoto Rookie

NotSatoshiNakamoto Rookie

BeastBeach Banned

Charlie Kelly Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches

Politics Thread: Road to 2014 and 2016 Elections

VanderbiltJets Active Member

jilozzo Well-Known Member

NotSatoshiNakamoto Rookie

Cman68 The Dark Admin, 2018 BEST Darksider Poster

BrowningNagle Well-Known Member

NotSatoshiNakamoto Rookie

Dierking Well-Known Member

deathstar Well-Known Member

NotSatoshiNakamoto Rookie

NotSatoshiNakamoto Rookie

Dirty6Sanchez Well-Known Member

BeastBeach Banned

NotSatoshiNakamoto Rookie

BeastBeach Banned

BrowningNagle Well-Known Member

NotSatoshiNakamoto Rookie

NotSatoshiNakamoto Rookie

NotSatoshiNakamoto Rookie

BeastBeach Banned

Charlie Kelly Well-Known Member

Share This Page