Fenton
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2012
- Messages
- 29,771
- Reaction score
- 12,231
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
At work, we have a group policy in which each employee pays the same rate as every other employee. That group rate averages in coverage for woman and men; smokers and non-smokers, etc. Although conservatives are trying to make hay that men are paying for maternity coverage they aren't using, it's really not much of a big deal. If you are married, why should one care if the wife has to pay more because her plan covers maternity and yours is lower because it doesn't? It all comes out in the wash.
At work, we have a group policy in which
each employee pays the same rate as every other employee. That group rate averages in coverage for woman and men; smokers and non-smokers, etc. Although conservatives are trying to make hay that men are paying for maternity coverage they aren't using, it's really not much of a big deal. If you are married, why should one care if the wife has to pay more because her plan covers maternity and yours is lower because it doesn't? It all comes out in the wash.
What I noticed that you didn't address, is me completely discrediting your assertion that "Obama-Care is a tax on the middleclass through much Higher premiums for insurance they dont need." (post #47) In fact, I produced an article based upon recent research that the ACA lowers premiums. (post# 50) So, you have to pay for maternity coverage but your overall premium is lower. BFD.
Actually, many are lies. You remember “Bette in Spokane”, mentioned in the official GOP SOTU response? The GOP response said she could face a $700 a month increase in premiums, and used that as the conclusion that Obamacare caused tremendous premium increases. The only way that this could be true is if Bette had a junk plan that offered virtually no coverage and is now comparing it to a plan meeting ACA specs that actually provides coverage.Lol...yep, pre.iums have fallen by 2500.00 a year for your average American family.....
Huge lie from Obama. One of many.
And all those stories about sticker shock ? Lies, all lies.
Its impressive to see someone so devoted to a failing ideology that they've slipped into a perpetaul state of delusion.
Next thing you will say is that we're in the midst of a " economic recovery ".
Libs..
Are things terrific? No.
Are they better than on Jan. 19, 2009? Yes
Ironic, you demand integrity and honesty at the same time you assert 'us guys' don't care. Of course we care.
Neat charts and always fun. But interpretation is not always as straight forward as one should like. Economic and social cycles usually extend over years and sometimes over very many years or even decades. Correspondingly the time it takes for policy measures to actually have an impact takes time. Passing out money directly to the population like Obama did at the hight of the recession has a first wave effect relatively quickly. The second wave effects can take a few years and there can be negative impacts in later waves that are much more substantial than the employment effects of the first wave. What this means? Well only that the charts probably don't say very much about Obama's policies.
You can thank a Republican House of Representatives for that. Or you could just ask the question of your next beloved candidate: "What difference does it make?"
And by the way I am better off today thatn in January 2009. Thanks to the failure of this regime I now grow my own food, hunt for the meat I eat, and have not had to use a single dollar to eat since September of last year! Thanks to the failure of this govt I have truly become 100% self sufficient and I love it.
Amazing how slow the recovery has been from the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression. The recession ended in July, 2009 and normally there is a spurt in economic growth afterwards, not some slow mediocrity.
Not sure why the line is put in for "Obama enters office" in 2010. I thought that he took office in Jan. 2009.
The scariest chart is the debt as % of GDP which went from 41% to 77% in just 5 years.
FWIW, during the first 5 years of Bush 43 the inflation adjusted GDP grew 13.3% versus the 6.3% growth under Obama. And income inequality under the first 5 years of Bush rose from .462 to .469 while under Obama it grew from .466 to .477.
We know why debt:GDP grew, lower revenues and more spending on automatic safety net programs created deficits in a weak economy. That ratio shouldn't be alarming.
On GDP growth, that included a 6% drop in GDP during the great recession. Same thing with inequality, which represented slow wage growth in a weak economy.
But you are wrong about the graph showing Obama entering office in 2010.
If you cared then you would stop hitting businesses...
No things aren't better.
Poverty has been on the rise under your progressive Presidents economic policies and so has our debt.
Labor participation rates are near record low levels and a majority of new jobs are PART TIME.
The "recovery" ? Just another one of Obama's lies.
The effective corporate tax rate in the United States is 12.6%.
GAO: U.S. corporations pay average effective tax rate of 12.6% - Jul. 1, 2013
Much lower than Germany. The problem with our corporate tax code is that its overly complicated and encourages avoidance strategies. However, if 25% doesn't impede economic growth in Germany, then half that certainly isn't in the United States. Once again, Germany has far more government intervention in its economy than the US does. So I am not sure what your point is unless you are arguing for a more liberal economic policy. Germany's criticism of the U.S. fiscal policy is that they think our tax rates should reflect our spending levels thus we should raise taxes. Is that what you want?
What Germany did in response to the financial crisis was encourage companies to keep employees on at less hours rather than lay them off. That was a great economic policy as it lead to a lot of people spending a couple of years working less than full time rather than a lot of people being laid off. Its always much better for a company to be able to keep people on during a downturn rather than laying large numbers of employees off and then when the economy finally rebounds having to hire large numbers of employees and train them.
Southern, you really need to stop posting facts. You keep on doing this over and over again, it makes you look like you have actually researched some stuff and are knowledgable about what you are talking about.
Conservatives on this forum DO NOT LIKE FACTS, they like rhetoric which focuses on only the cherry picked details which would lead one to a conclusion which is counter to real facts.
Please just start spouting some nonsense that supports your opinions with the absence of facts, we like to debate on this site, and we can't really debate about facts.
Uhg......I can't read your charts on my smart phone...
Actually, many are lies. You remember “Bette in Spokane”, mentioned in the official GOP SOTU response? The GOP response said she could face a $700 a month increase in premiums, and used that as the conclusion that Obamacare caused tremendous premium increases. The only way that this could be true is if Bette had a junk plan that offered virtually no coverage and is now comparing it to a plan meeting ACA specs that actually provides coverage.
Yup, the truth comes out. According to, The Spokes-Man Review, her previous plan was catastrophic coverage only, with a $10,000 deductible, and the “$700 a month more” was one of the most expensive option offered by her insurer. She didn’t go to the healthcare.gov website, where she could have found cheaper plans.
Who needs facts when one convinces oneself they're right?Usually I like to actively participate in these threads, and try to add something meaningful to them.
this time, those on the left are doing such a brilliant job of absolutely destroying the far right opposition that all I can do is make "comments from the peanut gallery'.
I was a little of a right winger when I first started participating on thus site, it's threads like this that push me further and further away from right wing extremism. Seems like NONE of the facts support the right wing rhetoric.
Now I know what people mean when they say "low information voter", they are obviously referring to the right, only I would probably better describe the extreme right as "no information voters" or "misinformed voters".
Labor participation rates are no where near record low levels. You need to spend some time studying this issue, you have been deceived.
People Not In Labor Force Soar To Record 91.8 Million; Participation Rate Plunges To 1978 Levels | Zero Hedge
"Curious why despite the huge miss in payrolls the unemployment rate tumbled from 7.0% to 6.7%? The reason is because in December the civilian labor force did what it usually does in the New Normal: it dropped from 155.3 million to 154.9 million, which means the labor participation rate just dropped to a fresh 35 year low, hitting levels not seen since 1978, at 62.8% down from 63.0%"
I have, you should send some time looking for objective sources when it comes to employment data.
I was a little of a right winger when I first started participating on thus site, it's threads like this that push me further and further away from right wing extremism. Seems like NONE of the facts support the right wing rhetoric.
Now I know what people mean when they say "low information voter", they are obviously refering to the right, only I would probably better describe the extreme right as "no information voters" or "disinformed voters".
I don't think cons are "low information voters", but rather "high misinformation voters".
I would imagine it's very easy to live in the 24/7 bubble of am radio, Fox, dozens of right-wing websites and think tanks, and the religious right movement.
What irritates me about Fox news is that they will allow people to mistate facts, and never bother to point out that they are incorrect. Just a couple of weeks ago a fox contributor was explaining how the CWFPR was "the lowest it's been since the great depression", four other people on that panel, I'm sure that they were all knowledgeable about economic history, yet not a single one bothered to correct that lie.
In my town, we do have a new conservative talk radio station, and I love it. While they present a conservative position, they don't allow misinformation, and their afternoon host is absolutely great about slapping down some of the tea party callers that they have when they attempt to spread misinformation.
I'm really not a liberal at all, but it pisses me off when conservatives present misinformation, especially when they know that it is incorrect. I mean I understand my neighbors spreading lies, they just don't know any better, all they know is what they heard on the radio or on fox news or at the barber shop, but most of these lies are intentially started by people who know better.