Juan, just because Forbes posted the article doesn't mean my points are invalid. Plus, they spend time blaming the entire 2009 budget year on Bush, even though Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress and Obama was a member of Congress. (Although Obama probably only voted "present" instead of taking an actual vote on the spending.)
And why doesn't your jobs chart include Obama? Every month we've documented how poorly the economy is doing under him in both its complete anemia in adding new jobs and the number of people completely leaving the work force. If we had the same number of people in the workforce as when Obama took office, the unemployment rate would be over 11%. How is that a successful job environment and economy?
This meme was debunked by the Associated Press and the Washington Post several months ago, the latter of which awarded "3 of 4 Pinnochios" to it (indicating "Significant factual errors and obvious contradictions.").
In other words, Player may have designed the pretty chart with the brightly colored shapes.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
This meme was debunked by the Associated Press and the Washington Post several months ago, the latter of which awarded "3 of 4 Pinnochios" to it (indicating "Significant factual errors and obvious contradictions.").
In other words, Player may have designed the pretty chart with the brightly colored shapes.
Yup, I debunked this on my buddy's brothers wall the other day. That article (rightly so) points out that the first 14-16 months of Obama's term was out of Obama's control (thus Bush's fault). It also rightly points out how Congress controls the power to spend money.
What the article ignores though, and this is of major fucking importance, is that the Democrat-controlled Congress of 2007 takes a lot of blame for the crash of 2008. Yup, you guessed it. The economy tanked about 20 months after the Democrats took Congress in early 2007.
This meme was debunked by the Associated Press and the Washington Post several months ago, the latter of which awarded "3 of 4 Pinnochios" to it (indicating "Significant factual errors and obvious contradictions.").
In other words, Player may have designed the pretty chart with the brightly colored shapes.
Yup, I debunked this on my buddy's brothers wall the other day.
So, in other words, all the major players have debunked it: Associated Press, Washington Post, PhatScotty.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
Night Strike wrote:Juan, just because Forbes posted the article doesn't mean my points are invalid. Plus, they spend time blaming the entire 2009 budget year on Bush, even though Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress and Obama was a member of Congress. (Although Obama probably only voted "present" instead of taking an actual vote on the spending.)
No Rick didn't.
saxitoxin wrote:
This meme was debunked by the Associated Press and the Washington Post several months ago, the latter of which awarded "3 of 4 Pinnochios" to it (indicating "Significant factual errors and obvious contradictions.").
In other words, Player may have designed the pretty chart with the brightly colored shapes.
The chart didn't come from the article.
The article was an opinion piece, and you should check out the comments. Rick Unger defends his article against everybody, including the associated press. Peter Ferrera and Doug Bandow wrote opposing opinion articles for Forbes, and they kinda got into a wordy scuffle with Rick Unger. The later probably won the argument when he linked a story about Doug Bandow taking Bribes. http://www.businessweek.com/stories/200 ... s-for-sale
saxitoxin wrote:This meme was debunked by the Associated Press and the Washington Post several months ago, the latter of which awarded "3 of 4 Pinnochios" to it (indicating "Significant factual errors and obvious contradictions.").
President 1 (4-year term): 5% increase (105)
President 2 (8-year term) : 10% increase (115.5)
President 3 (4-year term): 2% increase (117.8 )
President 3 claims the lowest increase in spending, and his crowd of supporters roar fiercely at such a feat.
However, spending is still increasing, and previous spending from earlier presidents is not reduced. By neglecting to reduce previous spending, does a president permit such increases in spending?
An analogy: a ship is sinking. Captain 1 and captain 2 slowly increase the rate at which the ship takes in water. Captain 3 allows for the previous intake of water, but adds water in a slightly less rate. Nevertheless, the crowd cheers because Captain 3 let in water at a slower rate, which is great and all, but the ship is still sinking.
Furthermore, what about Obama's role as president in 2008? The 2009 - 2013 category neglects this. So, PolitiFact added in spending under Obama's presidency in 2008, and here are the results: Spoiler
A number of critics also argued that spending for the Troubled Asset Relief Program should be taken into account. This program aided troubled financial institutions and involved a lot of money going out the door in fiscal 2009 and a lot of money coming in the door in subsequent years as the money was paid back to the treasury. The critics note that counting the TARP expenses as Bush’s artificially raises the baseline level of spending Obama inherited, thereby making Obama’s subsequent spending increases seem unrealistically small.
We think reasonable people can disagree on which president should be responsible for TARP spending, but to give the critics their say, we’ll include it in our alternative calculation. So, combining the fiscal 2009 costs for programs that are either clearly or arguably Obama’s -- the stimulus, the CHIP expansion, the incremental increase in appropriations over Bush’s level and TARP -- produces a shift from Bush to Obama of between $307 billion and $456 billion, based on the most reasonable estimates we’ve seen critics offer.
That’s quite a bit larger than Nutting’s $140 billion, but by our calculations, it would only raise Obama’s average annual spending increase from 1.4 percent to somewhere between 3.4 percent and 4.9 percent. That would place Obama either second from the bottom or third from the bottom out of the 10 presidents we rated, rather than last.
Okay, so at least we're a bit more accurate, but nevertheless Romney's claim is false.
Also, what accounts for the reduced spending in 2009-2013? Can all credit be attributed to Obama? No, because the Republican-dominated Congress kept Obama's spending in check. So, that's a fact which Obama fans should at least acknowledge.
GreecePwns wrote:No. The President has complete control over the federal government's spending, BBS. Just like he has complete and total control over the economy.
I admit defeat. Cue the propaganda posting battle between JB and PS.
Just another example of Intolerance from the left. One example of many. If someone from the Tea Party did this, it would be all over the news. But this violent attacker is on the left, so nobody will hear about it.
Phatscotty wrote:Just another example of Intolerance from the left. One example of many. If someone from the Tea Party did this, it would be all over the news. But this violent attacker is on the left, so nobody will hear about it.
I see, so one jerk is obviously representative of the whole.. and you have admitted this every time we pointed to, not individuals, but groups at rallies and such?
How the looming Obamacare taxes are hurting the economy now and in the future:
An Indiana-based medical equipment manufacturer says it's scrapping plans to open five new plants in the coming years because of a looming tax tied to President Obama's health care overhaul law.
Cook Medical claims the tax on medical devices, set to take effect next year, will cost the company roughly $20 million a year, cutting into money that would otherwise go toward expanding into new facilities over the next five years.
"This is the equivalent of about a plant a year that we're not going to be able to build," a company spokesman told FoxNews.com.
He said the original plan was to build factories in "hard-pressed" Midwestern communities, each employing up to 300 people. But those factories cost roughly the same amount as the projected cost of the new tax.
"In reality, we're not looking at the U.S. to build factories anymore as long as this tax is in place. We can't, to be competitive," he said.
Company executive Pete Yonkman first revealed the scuttled plans in an interview with the Indianapolis Business Journal. The company later confirmed the decision to FoxNews.com.
The Affordable Care Act imposed a 2.3 percent tax on medical devices beginning in 2013. It is projected raise nearly $30 billion over the next decade.
But the Cook Medical spokesman said the impact is greater than just a 2.3 percent uptick in taxes. He said the impact on actual earnings is another 15 percent, and he projected the company's total tax burden next year will rise to over 50 percent.
Republicans and medical device makers have been railing against the tax all along, with the GOP-controlled House approving a bill last month to repeal it. The Senate, though, hasn't taken it up.
A recent study by the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, though, said the complaints by the industry are exaggerated.
"The tax will not cause manufacturers to shift production overseas. The tax applies equally to imported and domestically produced devices, and devices produced in the United States for export are tax-exempt," the study said. It also said repealing the tax would "undercut health reform" by requiring Congress to offset the repeal by potentially killing spending provisions in the law and by potentially encouraging similar repeals.
Cook Medical is part of a family of companies that produce medical devices for surgery, obstetrics, gynecology and other fields.
Phatscotty wrote:Just another example of Intolerance from the left. One example of many. If someone from the Tea Party did this, it would be all over the news. But this violent attacker is on the left, so nobody will hear about it.
I see, so one jerk is obviously representative of the whole.. and you have admitted this every time we pointed to, not individuals, but groups at rallies and such?
When playing by the lefts rules, demonstrated clearly and repeatedly over the last few years directed at the Tea Party..... then ABSOLUTELY! Hell, there were ZERO examples of the Tea Party being violent, but that sure didn't stop the left from labeling us violent. Were you equally concerned about that?
However, if you read the post, it says this is ONE example. So you are gonna have to do a better job misrepresenting
Phatscotty wrote:Just another example of Intolerance from the left. One example of many. If someone from the Tea Party did this, it would be all over the news. But this violent attacker is on the left, so nobody will hear about it.
I see, so one jerk is obviously representative of the whole.. and you have admitted this every time we pointed to, not individuals, but groups at rallies and such?
When playing by the lefts rules, demonstrated clearly and repeatedly over the last few years directed at the Tea Party..... then ABSOLUTELY! Hell, there were ZERO examples of the Tea Party being violent, but that sure didn't stop the left from labeling us violent. Were you equally concerned about that?
However, if you read the post, it says this is ONE example. So you are gonna have to do a better job misrepresenting
Nope, my comment was referring specifically to you... and how you seem to think one idiot says anything at all important.
Oh, yeah... did you catch the fact that your idea of the "government messing everything up" is just plain wrong when it comes to healthcare?
Turns out that previous data compared very sick individuals to well individuals, so of course those getting medicaid fared poorer.
Gotta go.. will bring the link up later, if no one else does first.
Phatscotty wrote:Just another example of Intolerance from the left. One example of many. If someone from the Tea Party did this, it would be all over the news. But this violent attacker is on the left, so nobody will hear about it.
I see, so one jerk is obviously representative of the whole.. and you have admitted this every time we pointed to, not individuals, but groups at rallies and such?
When playing by the lefts rules, demonstrated clearly and repeatedly over the last few years directed at the Tea Party..... then ABSOLUTELY! Hell, there were ZERO examples of the Tea Party being violent, but that sure didn't stop the left from labeling us violent. Were you equally concerned about that?
However, if you read the post, it says this is ONE example. So you are gonna have to do a better job misrepresenting
Nope, my comment was referring specifically to you... and how you seem to think one idiot says anything at all important.
Are you sure the focus was on what the violent anti-American "said".....or what the violent anti-American "did"?
Phatscotty wrote: Are you sure the focus was on what the violent anti-American "said".....or what the violent anti-American "did"?
The problem is you seem to think one idiot is significant, just becuase the person is on the left, not what the person did or said.
Phatscotty wrote: are you trolling me?
If you consider bombarding you with truth to be trolling, then yeah
"Medicaid is a failed program," Perry told Fox News. "To expand this program is not unlike adding a thousand people to the Titanic."
But a study just published online by the New England Journal of Medicine adds to a growing body of evidence that Medicaid, in fact, does improve the health of those it covers.
The study, whose Harvard-affiliated authors include one currently advising the Obama administration and one who worked for President George W. Bush, compared three states (New York, Maine, and Arizona) that expanded Medicaid coverage to childless, non-disabled adults in recent years to three neighboring states that did not. Those adults will be the primary beneficiaries of the expansion envisioned under the Affordable Care Act.
It found that Medicaid expansions were associated with "a significant reduction in adjusted all-cause mortality," as well as decreased rates of care being delayed due to cost, and more people reporting themselves to be in "excellent" or "very good" health.
Yet another of your lauded "facts" about horrible government disproven.....
1) The rest of the world loves Obama.
2) The Conservative party is chock full of idiots or Mitt Romney was only nominated to make Obama look even better.
Reformed in 1995 on the basis of a European model, Israelis are forced to buy insurance from one of several competing not-for-profit plans, which are heavily regulated by the government, according to the journal Health Affairs. The state requires them to cover everyone regardless of health status, and establishes a broad benefits package insurance policies must provide, updated annually by a committee of appointed experts. The government pays the full cost of these policies, mostly through higher taxes. The state also caps the level of annual revenue hospitals can earn from an insurance plan. Care is largely delivered through government-owned facilities; there are private providers, but they tend to charge more.
So how’s the socialized approach working out?
Quite well. Israel covers all residents and spends 8 percent of its national product on health care; the U.S. currently spends 17.5 percent and has many uninsured. Nor are Israelis resigned to low quality care or long waits that some associate with government-run systems: according to the Jewish Daily Forward, “going by many indexes of health outcomes, the result in terms of quality of care [in Israel] is often better — and definitely cheaper than in the U.S.”
A 2010 study in Health Affairs describes “strong government influence” over its system has been the catalyst for Israel’s low health spending growth since the 1995 reforms.
Let's see where Phatscotty and Night Strike respond to Mitt Romney's resounding endorsement of Israel's universal healthcare system, which enumerates many rights to its citizens and dictates exactly which services HMOs must provide at a minimum. Dictating what product a company must sell? That's something I know Night Strike has decried over and over again.
Will we finally hear the absolute truth from them: that Mitt Romney is a Marxist?
We will wait and see.
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.
Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
GreecePwns wrote:Let's see where Phatscotty and Night Strike respond to Mitt Romney's resounding endorsement of Israel's universal healthcare system, which enumerates many rights to its citizens and dictates exactly which services HMOs must provide at a minimum. Dictating what product a company must sell? That's something I know Night Strike has decried over and over again.
Will we finally hear the absolute truth from them: that Mitt Romney is a Marxist?
We will wait and see.
As for me, what I have decried over and over again, is I don't care how other countries do it. Many times I have told a foreigner who's country has universal or single payer or whatever "good for you. I am glad you are happy" I have even went further, many times, and staying true to my overall position on state rights, that if a state wants Obamacare, and it is democratically obtained, great, grand, wonderful. I support that. Have you been listening?
So what is you're reaction to Romney's clear endorsement of Israels healthcare system? Do you view him in a different light? Is he not a marxist for endorsing a plan that goes even further than obamacare?
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.
Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
