jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (72 posts)

Have pro-war 47 finally crossed Rubicon & turned America again them.

  1. My Esoteric profile image88
    My Esotericposted 21 months ago

    47 conservative Republican Senators signed a letter to Iran intended to undercut Presidential foreign policy.  This breaks over 200 years of precedent, and probably violates the separation of Powers part of the Constitution.  Should Americans, after puking over their blatantly unAmerican actions, revolt against the Conservative brand?

    1. MizBejabbers profile image90
      MizBejabbersposted 21 months ago in reply to this

      Americans should, and if they had any sense, there would be some recall elections. I am so ashamed to say that one of our state's own senators, Tom Cotton, drafted the letter. Cotton defeated a perfectly good democrat for the Senate, after he spent only one term in the House. These people have crossed the line, and I am wondering what kind of backlash we are going to have. I'm thinking probably none because the sheeple are electing warhawks, yet they claim to want lower taxes and wonder why their social security is in jeopardy.  Is this what the people really want? Where has their common sense gone? A very pro-American lawyer who worked in my office (now deceased) got so disgusted one day with the after an election that he said he thought Americans didn't know how to govern themselves anymore and probably needed a king. Then he looked sheepish and said he really didn't mean it. If he were alive today, he probably would mean it.

      1. rhamson profile image77
        rhamsonposted 21 months ago in reply to this

        I would laugh if it were not so true. We are pawns in the corporations hands. What is funny is that the corporations hide their money overseas while they buy influence with politicians in a country they won't support.

        1. My Esoteric profile image88
          My Esotericposted 21 months ago in reply to this

          While way off topic, rhamson, I am not sure "hide" is the right word.  I think "park" is better because everyone knows its there.  And, it is going to stay there until Congress changes some laws to make it more advantageous to bring it back here.  Problem is, the wrong Party is in control for that to ever happen.  The same Party that has been and is hell-bent on destroying America and what it stands for.

          1. rhamson profile image77
            rhamsonposted 21 months ago in reply to this

            Whether park or hide the money, it is there to avoid supporting a country they use and need to do business. We the taxpayers are left holding the bag to support what they refuse too. The political climate whether GOP or DEM's provide is advantageous to them as they got away with the money and greed compels them to hold on to it no matter what the case. They should be required to pay the taxes due to be given the privilege to continue using the freedom we the taxpayers provide by allowing them to do business here. I am not asking them to give up anymore than what we here pay. This is not a two party dilemma. Neither side will allow such a thing to happen to their chief donators while the system allows corporations to be people too with their money.

            1. MizBejabbers profile image90
              MizBejabbersposted 21 months ago in reply to this

              I wonder if this offshore money and Swiss bank accounts were in banks in the USA, how much would it have gone to prevent the bailout that we taxpayers footed a few years ago?

            2. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 21 months ago in reply to this

              Using that reasoning, Coke should pay taxes to every country in the world, Taxes based on the total profits of every bottle produced anywhere in the world?

              1. rhamson profile image77
                rhamsonposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                Absolutely! If they make something or a service and sell it at a profit there should be an appropriate tax. It is computed into the price of manufacturing the product or service and sales tax is picked up by the consumer. After all who provided the customers to buy their product? Did they come out of a vacuum? Do the customers not have a cost to the government? Do you think your property taxes pick up the whole tab on educating your kids? What about paving the roads? Are they free? How about the Armed services and 11 aircraft carriers to protect the land they plop their headquarters and warehouses? Really we (US taxpayer) have been picking up this tab for a very long time. Freedom is not free and when 21% of the budget is for defense spending would you wish to let the people you kick off welfare at 8% of the budget try to make up the difference?

                http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/def … 012_3.html

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                  Either you didn't read the post or think that corporations have unlimited funding.  There is no possibility at all that an international company can pay income taxes, based on the total amount earned to every country in the world and still survive.

                  1. rhamson profile image77
                    rhamsonposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                    I would rather we handle this on one topic rather then spreading between the two. But you could not be more wrong.

    2. Superkev profile image85
      Superkevposted 21 months ago in reply to this

      I'm wondering if you said the same things when Nancy Pelosi, in 2007, bypassed Sec. Rice and tried to do her own freelance negotiations with Bashar al-Assad of Syria, even going so far as to lie about having delivered a message from the Israeli PM stating he was ready to engage in peace talks.

      The Israeli PM said this was a complete fabrication. I guess you don't mind when YOUR party tries to undermine a republican president and attempt to create their own foreign policy while circumventing the current administration and mis-representing not one but two countries positions. That's perfectly acceptable, right?

      Or how about when Ted Kennedy, in 1984, sent a letter to Yuri Andropov, and promised TV time to the Russians if they would contribute to his campaign, so they could talk to the American people "directly".

      So much for your 200 years of precedent. All the congressmen did was explain to the Iranians how our government is supposed to work. Meaning that the Senate approves treaties, POTUS does not do so on his own. It doesn't say "Advise and Consent" when the president feels like it.

      Just more liberal selective memory I guess.

      1. My Esoteric profile image88
        My Esotericposted 21 months ago in reply to this

        Prove to me your Kennedy assertion, that sounds like Right-wing fabrication. 

        As to Pelosi, the Logan Act states that it is illegal to
        "... with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States ..,"

        So tell me, with the peace (not war mind you) message Pelosi carried to Assad, which part of the above did Pelosi violate?  What Bush measure was Pelosi trying to "defeat"?  Was Bush against peace in the Middle East? Did he not want Assad to talk to Israel?

        The fact that Israel denied that they were willing to talk may or may not be true in reality, with diplomacy you never know; they may have just been pissed off that Pelosi let the cat out of Israel's bag, which is not illegal.  So, that Pelosi actually broke the law is quite debatable.

        What the infamous Conservative 47 did being counterproductive to Obama's foreign policy goals is not debatable; they told Iran negotiating with Obama was pointless in hopes of subverting Obama's initiatives.  This is a clear a violation of the Act was there ever was, except perhaps for whom the Act was named after.

        1. Superkev profile image85
          Superkevposted 21 months ago in reply to this

          http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/ted-ke … inson.html

          http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/5-tim … le/2561314

          Just like most liberals, you will never, ever admit that you do the very same things in fact, that you constantly accuse others of doing.

          “Our Constitution is being shredded. We know about the secret wiretaps, the secret military tribunals, the secret White House email accounts, It’s a stunning record of secrecy and corruption, of cronyism run amok. It is everything our founders were afraid of, everything our Constitution was designed to prevent.”

          -Hillary Rodham Clinton
          Potential Presidential candidate and secret email server owner

          1. Don W profile image83
            Don Wposted 21 months ago in reply to this

            Do you want a government that is not enthrall to corporate interests?
            Do you want members of Congress to be more concerned about the lives of the people they represent, than their own status and pockets?

            If yes, then what the hell are you (and everyone else on this forum) doing to bring that about?

            Squabbling over whether you prefer left-wing flavored corruption to right-wing flavored corruption will not achieve it.

            Good grief! Do we have to make ourselves so easily divided? Do we have to make ourselves so easily hoodwinked? Tell me, hand on heart, do you genuinely think it matters who will be sitting in the White House in 2016? If you do, then good luck to you, and enjoy that kool-aid.

        2. 59
          retief2000posted 21 months ago in reply to this
      2. MizBejabbers profile image90
        MizBejabbersposted 21 months ago in reply to this

        Superkev, how can you bring up Pelosi on one side of your mouth without mentioning what Boehner did with Netanyahu. As you said, I guess that's different when your party does it.  I think you are off subject anyway. ME asked about the 47 who signed the letter drafted by radical right-wing nut Tom Cotton.

        1. 59
          retief2000posted 21 months ago in reply to this

          The difference is The Congress, as a co-equal branch of the Federal Government, can as anyone to address a Joint Session - that is what happened. Acting as an envoy to Assad or writing a letter of support to Daniel Ortega or Ted Kennedy's overtures to Yuri Andropov, is not acting as the Speaker of the House inviting a guest to address a joint session. Congress does not serve at the President's whim.

          1. My Esoteric profile image88
            My Esotericposted 21 months ago in reply to this

            Nobody is saying they can't,  but tradition, going back to the beginning of this country, has always been to advise the President well before hand.  The far Right-wingers hate Obama for his policies, and many of them for the color of his skin, and wanted to make the US look foolish to the rest of the world with their antics.in. Since the President, by design, is the face of America, the point was to make Obama look foolish as a result.

            What Boehner did was legal, but very unAmerican and despicable to boot.  That said, Boehner's slap in the American face pales in comparison to what the infamous Conservative 47 did;  they purposefully, willingly, and gleefully undermined the foreign policy of the United States and need to held accountable.

            1. GA Anderson profile image86
              GA Andersonposted 21 months ago in reply to this

              "...The far Right-wingers hate Obama for his policies, and many of them for the color of his skin..."

              Well, that certainly does little to enhance the credibility of your comments. I am surprised you felt the need to include that to illustrate the rational truth of your opinion.

              Since the discussion was about 47 Republican legislators, your statement indicates you feel many of them are racists. Oh my...

              Geesh...

              GA

              1. MizBejabbers profile image90
                MizBejabbersposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                "...The far Right-wingers hate Obama for his policies, and many of them for the color of his skin..." It is the truth. I work in state government and I do not hate Obama, but the evidence where I work shows this statement is true, and so do the letters to the editor in the newspaper. In fact, our building is in lock down because it is no longer safe to work here.

                1. Superkev profile image85
                  Superkevposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                  Do you have proof that these senators were motivated because Obama is 1/2 black? I would love to see this documented and factual proof.

                  And further to same, how does the "Evidence where I work" support the assertion that these 47 senators are purely motivated by Obama being 1/2 black? What specific things at your work prove that all "right-wingers" or conservatives as a whole oppose Obama purely based on his 1/2 black ancestry?

                  And can you please cite specific letters to "the editor" that prove "Far right-wingers" are opposing Obama for no other reason that that he is 1/2 black?

                  Also, how have these things caused your place of employment to become unsafe and kept on perpetual lock down? Were specific instances of persons opposing Obama because of his 1/2 black ethnicity cited as the reasons for this security lock down?

                  I look forward to your response, thank you.

                  1. My Esoteric profile image88
                    My Esotericposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                    The proof is in their 6 years of watching them in action; as the saying goes, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, we're pretty sure it is a duck; unless one is deaf and blind such as your comment suggests.

                    And who said "These 47 ...", as if it were all inclusive, I sure didn't.  I said "... many of them ..."; which is, by observation, true.   Also, I don't see where Mizbejabbers every said "all 'right-wingers...."; again, you fabricate things.  Sort of shoots your credibility to hell and gone, doesn't it.

                  2. Credence2 profile image85
                    Credence2posted 21 months ago in reply to this

                    Let's get real here, superkev, when you talk about black and white we are not talking about billiard balls. Mr Obama is African American, it is more than the color but speaks on the culture that is behind the ethnicity. How does Mr. Obama define himself? He is not half white and half black.  That  has no recognition in this society. In everything that matters he is 100 percent African American, but the subtle bigotry of your typical right winger does not allow them to take in this simple concept.

                2. GA Anderson profile image86
                  GA Andersonposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                  It is good to see your participation MizBejabbers. As I am sure you will have noticed, much of the discussion in this forum is based on ideological perceptions - not always on facts.

                  Your response is an example of a passionate empathy, but your feelings and personal anecdotes don't necessarily equate to truth.

                  The context of this thread is about 47 Republican legislators. My Esoteric's quoted statement was that many, (the majority?), of the Republican legislators were racists.

                  Is the work environment you speak of within the workings of these legislators? Or are you making references to "Far Right" conservatives in general?

                  I frequently read regional and local Letters to the Editor, and although I do frequently see anti-Obama and anti-Obama policy  rants, I don't recall seeing the racial animosity you say is so prevalent.

                  As to your workplace experiences, I am puzzled as to what you mean by; "... our building is in lock down because it is no longer safe to work here." Is that permanent lockdown, or temporary due to some local events? Do you have building security?

                  I hope your workplace experiences get better, but I don't think your examples are as valid as you think they are.

                  GA

                  1. MizBejabbers profile image90
                    MizBejabbersposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                    GA, excuse me, perhaps I should have said the building has enhanced security measures and my floor is in lockdown. The General Assembly meets on the floor where I work and the security is rigid. The offices of the employees for practical purposes are in lockdown. By lockdown I mean that the elevator and the doors to our floor are locked to the employees and must be accessed with a key card. In short, I have to use a key card or the elevator won't go to my floor and I have to use a second card to unlock the office door. One day I forgot my card, and a security guard who knew me unlocked the elevator to my floor and accompanied me to the office door and unlocked it for me. Other employees in the building are not allowed on this floor, and there was much grumbling when they discovered they were locked out of our breakroom and couldn’t get free ice from our ice machine and use our microwaves and restrooms. They call our office "the Penthouse" and think we are privileged. In short, if you were ever to visit me, you would go through metal detectors, your briefcase would be subject to search, and they would call to get my permission to get in to see me. If I said no, you wouldn’t get in.
                    This was done at the call of the legislators.  You will have to ask them why they feel unsafe. Sorry, but it happened after the Republican takeover of the legislature.  We had some enhanced security during Desert Storm and during 9-11, but never anything like this. Now, call it whatever you want if it is a question of semantics.
                    I stand by my statement that our Senator Tom Cotton drafted the letter signed by the 47, and it relates to the political climate in my state.

              2. My Esoteric profile image88
                My Esotericposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                Yes, I do think many of them are racist.  As I said to another, "if it quacks like a duck and walks like it duck, it probably is a duck.  And after observing rampant racism infecting all political levels in America for the last 58 years of my memory, (I don't remember much along these lines before I was 10), I see a lot of ducks among the red state conservatives.

                1. GA Anderson profile image86
                  GA Andersonposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                  Well, since my glass is half full and yours is half empty, we shouldn't waste anymore time on this particular point.

                  GA

              3. rhamson profile image77
                rhamsonposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                You have to admit some are easier than others to out as racists but it does come up an awful lot. The GOP has a bad rap with the black constituency. The recent celebration in the Selma, Alabama bridge walk produced only one top GOP member of congress. That speaks volumes of where their heads are. McConell went home and Boehner had other plans although for security reasons they could not be disclosed.

                http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/06/politics/ … index.html

                I have had a few conversations about Obama with a few people who are right wingers and when arguing their point a few have just come out and said they don't trust him because he is a f...ing n..er.
                I often have said in response that I appreciated their candor and honesty. I have to say that while I detest such language I appreciate the people on this Hub for their sophistication when expressing their feelings.

                1. Credence2 profile image85
                  Credence2posted 21 months ago in reply to this

                  Rh the GOP and right wingers are so irritating as they use the language of PC to cover over the fact that they are deplorable bigots.  I say bring it on, as their constituency narrows and the content of their bag of tricks to delay the inevitable become well known, it will be the beginning of the end.

                2. My Esoteric profile image88
                  My Esotericposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                  I will add to the choir about the sophistication, RH, as well as speaking with those on the Right who don't mind saying what they think; unfortunately, many of them are in my extended in-law family.  Some of my own, (my dad and grandfather tor two) felt the same way, everyone but me is dead now

            2. Superkev profile image85
              Superkevposted 21 months ago in reply to this

              Citation needed.



              Since Teddy is passed, let's begin with Nancy Pelosi and work our way up okay? I don't believe there is any statute of limitations on treason.

              Again, I know you just want to put your fingers in your ears and chant "I can't hear you!!" over and over, but what they did was inform Iran that this agreement is not legally binding and is not an enforceable treaty as, once again, Obama has decided that he can simply by-pass congress when he feels they will not bow to his will.

              Even John Kerry agrees.

              http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/03/ … iran-deal/

              So please, spare us all your blind partisanship and faux outrage. 

              PS- I called the 800 number and they said your race card has expired, you will need to provide some other form of excuse for Obama's myriad failures.

              1. My Esoteric profile image88
                My Esotericposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                As is the case with most extremists, Left or Right, you only highlighted part of the quote, therefore obliterating its true meaning.  The whole quote from Kerry was:
                “With respect to the talks, we’ve been clear from the beginning. We’re not negotiating a ‘legally binding’ plan. We’re negotiating a plan that will have in it a capacity for enforcement. We don’t even have diplomatic relations with Iran right now. And the Senators’ letter erroneously asserts that this is a legally binding plan, it’s not” he stated.

                So the Right, besides lying to the Iranians, are barking up the wrong tree.

            3. 59
              retief2000posted 21 months ago in reply to this

              Disgusting, no further communication between you and I is necessary, foul assertions render it unwelcome and useless.

    3. 59
      retief2000posted 21 months ago in reply to this

      These wicked Senators advised the government of Iran that a diplomatic deal does not have the force of law, under the Constitution, unless it passes the Senate. This is hardly a scandal. If anything it helps Iran understand the mountebank with whom they are dealing.

      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mountebank - definition 2

      1. Credence2 profile image85
        Credence2posted 21 months ago in reply to this

        No, that is incorrect, the president can issue an executive order consummating an  arrangement between the US, Iran and the G-5. For a matter of fact, 95% of such treaty arrangements within the past 70 years were done in this way. The right wingers in congress complain because they see this issue as one that rises above the routine agreements that constituted the 95%. I say that the right wingers should keep their powder dry and allow the agreement to be formed out before they undermine the President and his efforts prior to seeing the terms of the agreement. Since, after all, this aspect of governance is in the purview of the Executive Branch. It is true that with a new administration this EO could go away. But, this is under the Presidents purview and the risk that he takes. He can suspend current sanctions against Iran  but not eliminate them without the Congress. Negotiations are time sensitive and I trust the President's instincts, when it is obvious that you do not.   I don't care what Netanyahu says, he is not concerned about our interests in this matter outside of destroying Iran, period.

        1. 59
          retief2000posted 21 months ago in reply to this

          You see, I think they should let Obama have this one, just as they did Obamacare. As the world watches the nuclear cinders that were Tel Aviv settle over the Middle East, it will be Obama's greatest legacy - ISIS will pale in comparison and that is also his.

          1. Credence2 profile image85
            Credence2posted 21 months ago in reply to this

            Yeah, that is the rightwinger's crying 'wolf' at every opportunity, fear is always the substitute for reason.

            That's right all right, America's Monday morning quarterbacks with perfect 20/20 hindsight, with its discernment and judgment running the gamut from A to B. Having the ham handed finesse of an elephant (your mascot?) bringing a chainsaw to where a scalpel is needed.

            Iran has almost 9 times Israel's population, perhaps we need a agreement between the parties that is much more encompassing than just controlling Iran's obtaining a nuclear weapon. They could trample over Israel with its sheer numbers.

            There is the big picture that always escapes the myopic rightwinger. We need an attitude change in Tehran, because short of war  that is the only way Israel can have its security. Germany has been selling centrifuges to Iran for years and Russia has been selling weapons. Wouldn't it make sense to get these nations on board to control Iran economic access to world markets? Each of  the G-5/6 can agree to apply economic pressure to Iran at different points as part of sanctions. If and when we have to take off the gloves, everybody will be on the same page.   Iran has to have an incentive to participate beyond just threats, because nuclear is not the only weapon with which they can hold the region hostage.

               So if Israel chooses to use its nuclear arsenal in the regional proximity (distance from Tel Aviv to Tehran 988 miles), it may well signal its own destruction. Obama's negotiation may well be the best hope that Israel does not go Strangelove and Tehran will see that it is in its best interests to behave on all fronts, not just one or two. And if you care anything about Tel Aviv, you had better pray that the  Obama Administration and the negotiators can come to an agreement.

            1. My Esoteric profile image88
              My Esotericposted 21 months ago in reply to this

              Right on, but I wonder how many of the readers remember who Dr. Strangelove is ... Yeehaaaaaaaaa

          2. My Esoteric profile image88
            My Esotericposted 21 months ago in reply to this

            DAMN that Obamacare, it is costing even less than predicted last year, which was less than the year before, which was less than ...   You get the picture.  Don't you just hate saving money?

            1. 59
              retief2000posted 21 months ago in reply to this
              1. My Esoteric profile image88
                My Esotericposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                I have never heard of the Washington Examiner in my 20 years of having lived in and around D.C. - the Washington Post,  yes and the Washington Times, yes, but not the examiner.  I had to  look them up and found this, which explains its erroneous content:The Washington Examiner is a political journalism publication based in Washington, D.C., that distributes its content via daily online reports and a weekly magazine It is owned by MediaDC, a subsidiary of Clarity Media Group, which is owned by Denver billionaire Philip Anschutz and which also owns the influential conservative opinion magazine The Weekly Standard.

                The real truth is here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won … -cbo-says/

                Highlights are:
                1. "...will cost $142 billion, or 11 percent, less over the next 10 years, compared to what the agency had projected in January...."
                2. "...and fewer companies than anticipated are canceling coverage...."
                3. "...the number of people who will still lack insurance despite the law's passage is also lower than previously anticipated...."
                4. Jobs in the healthcare industry are significantly up.

                1. 59
                  retief2000posted 21 months ago in reply to this

                  We were told that Obamacare would cost $1trillion. Now it will cost $2trillion. That is not a decrease in cost.

                  1. Quilligrapher profile image89
                    Quilligrapherposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                    Hi, Retief.

                    The three sentences in your post are utterly meaningless unless you add a number of missing qualifiers like "which costs" and "for what years." I would advise you to stop listening to other people, including me. Instead, go directly to the CBO. Learn first hand what is going on with costs and revenues related to the Affordable Care Act. I know of no better way to reach reliable conclusions on this complex issue.

                    Concerning the statement posted by My Esoteric, both the projected Gross Costs and the Net Costs for the Insurance Coverage portion of the ACA have been steadily declining! This is a fact that is both clear and easy to verify.

                    The CBO's March, 2010, report to Congress included an estimate of the future Gross Costs for Insurance Coverage during the second half of their budget window, i.e. 2015 through 2019. Their forecast at that time for this specific 5-year period was $810B. {1}

                    Now in 2015, five years later, their estimate for the same group of Gross Costs for Insurance Coverage for the same five year period (2015 through 2019) is $735B. {2}

                    This reduction of $75B in the expected Gross Costs for Insurance Coverage is a documented trend that began small in the early years and has grown larger with each new forecast released by the CBO. {3}

                    At this point, allow me to point out the significant differences between Gross Costs and Net Costs. The $735B Gross Costs for Insurance Coverage over the next five years that I mentioned two paragraphs back will be offset by $163 B in revenues related to the insurance coverage provisions. The result will actually reduce the Gross Costs to a Net Cost over 5 years in the neighborhood of $572B.

                    Furthermore, when revenues from other provisions of the law are also considered, Obamacare will ultimately reduce the federal budget deficit by $109B during the 10 years ending in 2022. {4}

                    Regarding the $1 million cost figure and the $2 million cost figure quoted in your post, both are unrelated Gross Costs for two distinctly different sets of years. Critics of the ACA frequently misuse these numbers to create the false impression that costs have doubled and are raging out of control. This ruse was discussed in detail in this forum in April 2014. {5}

                    The January 2015 CBO report addresses this distortion as well when it explains, "As time has passed, projected costs over the subsequent 10 years have risen because the period spanned by the estimates has changed: Each time the projection period changes, a less expensive early year is replaced by a more expensive later year." {6}

                    This statement in the report is followed by another factual reality that most opponents of Obamacare are struggling to accept: "But when compared year by year, CBO and JCT's estimates of the net budgetary impact of the ACA's insurance coverage provisions have decreased, on balance, over the past five years." {7}

                    Stay well, bro. I hope we talk again soon.
                    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
                    {1} http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/ … hr3590.pdf Table 3
                    {2} http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/ … ok2015.pdf Table B-1
                    {3} http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/ … k2015.pdf. Figure B-2 p.129
                    {4}
                    http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43471
                    {5} http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2572093
                    {6} http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/ … ok2015.pdf p. 128
                    {7} Ibid.

              2. Quilligrapher profile image89
                Quilligrapherposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                When our colleague, My Esoteric, stated, “Obamacare, it is costing even less than predicted last year, which was less than the year before, which was less than...” etc., another colleague responded by saying he was “wrong.” In support, Retief2000 provided a link to an article about the latest non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report, a report that actually proves My Esoteric is correct.

                Every analysis since the enactment of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has lowered the predicted future net costs of this law. The most recent report, released in January 2015, projects net costs to the Federal government of $76 billion in 2015 and $1,350 billion over the decade ending in 2024. {1}

                However, highlighting the declining forecasts, the CBO clearly states, “Compared with the projection from last April, which spanned the 2015–2024 period, the current projection represents a downward revision in the net costs of those provisions of $101 billion over those 10 years, or a reduction of about 7 percent.” {2}

                This latest CBO report also addresses two frequently distorted notions, i.e. a) that President Obama initially misrepresented the costs to implement the law, and b) that the actual net costs are raging out of control. The CBO makes it clear that this downward trend started when the law was enacted and, after five years, it continues with the expectations for the next five years:

                “And compared with the projection made by CBO and JCT in March 2010, just before the ACA was enacted, the current estimate represents a downward revision in the net costs of those provisions of $139 billion—or 20 percent—for the five-year period ending in 2019, the last
                year of the 10-year budget window used in that original estimate.”
                {2}

                Most opponents of the ACA find it convenient to quote just the Gross Cost of Coverage Provisions while they ignore the Net Cost of Coverage Provisions that completes the whole picture. The cited article on the Washington Examiner web site used the same evasive tactic.

                While the headline reads “CBO: Obamacare to cost $2 trillion over the next decade,” it ignores the income provided under the law. The headline omits the more important fact that Obamacare is also to produce revenue of $643B under the insurance coverage provisions alone. When considering revenue from the other ACA provisions, the CBO has estimated federal income would be $1 trillion between 2013 and 2022, more than offsetting all outlays and thus reducing the total Federal budget deficit by $109 billion during those years. {3}
                http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
                {1} http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/ … ok2015.pdf Table B-1
                {2} http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/ … ok2015.pdf  Appendix B. p.115
                {3}
                http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43471

    4. Don W profile image83
      Don Wposted 21 months ago in reply to this

      I think it simply comes down to this: some people hate Obama more than they love America.

  2. MizBejabbers profile image90
    MizBejabbersposted 21 months ago

    I challenge you to prove it isn't. You are not the one who works under lock and key.

    1. Superkev profile image85
      Superkevposted 21 months ago in reply to this

      You are the one making the specific assertions, it's on you to prove what you say, not me. Or didn't they teach you that in journalism school?

      So far all you have done is make a whole bunch of claims with no factual evidence to back them up and then childishly try to deflect when you are asked to prove your claims.

      You see, I can prove Obama is 1/2 black. Can you prove what you say or, like Hillary, are we just supposed to believe you because you say so? LOL

      Two questions a liberal can never seem to answer are how and why.

      So, to sum up, the answer is no, you can't prove it.

      Thank you so much.

      1. MizBejabbers profile image90
        MizBejabbersposted 21 months ago in reply to this

        Do you mean you can go into genetics and prove that Obama is 1/2 black and 1/2 white. You know for a fact that no white blood got into his African daddy's line.  Wow! and you say I'm making assertions that I can't prove. You've made the assertion, now you prove it.  But getting back on track, it was still a violation of the Logan act for our dear Senator Tom Cotton to draft the letter and for 46 others to sign it and send it.

        1. Superkev profile image85
          Superkevposted 21 months ago in reply to this

          Wow, really?? LOL Barack Obama's mother's name is Stanley Ann Dunham, a Caucasian female, so yes, even without a DNA test I can prove it. Or is it now your contention that Stanley Ann Dunham was not a Caucasian female?

          Deflect much? Typical tactic when you've been called out on your assertions and cannot factually prove them. And yes, you are STILL making assertions you cannot, and apparently will not, prove. If you could you would have done so already instead of yelling "LOOK! Squirrel!!"

          Here is a picture of Obama's mother, do you wish to further beclown yourself by asserting she is anything but white? I am still waiting for even a shred of evidence that would support your previous assertions however. I am certain I will be waiting a very long time.

          http://s2.hubimg.com/u/12271375.jpg

          1. MizBejabbers profile image90
            MizBejabbersposted 21 months ago in reply to this

            You sidestepped that issue like a typical Republican or did you not read my post. I know his mother is WHITE. I said  "You know for a fact that no white blood got into his AFRICAN DADDY'S line." I wasn't talking about his MOTHER, I was talking about his FATHER. You implied that you knew for sure that his African Father was 100% black. Don't try to bet on anybody's genetics. Can you not read or is this another of your smokescreens?

            1. My Esoteric profile image88
              My Esotericposted 21 months ago in reply to this

              I've been using the word "obtuse" for people like him in a gun battle on Twitter.  I think "annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand." fits the bill perfectly, don't you?

              1. MizBejabbers profile image90
                MizBejabbersposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                Yes, but truthfully, I can't believe he's that dumb.  I think he is just baiting me and I'm through talking to him.

            2. Superkev profile image85
              Superkevposted 21 months ago in reply to this

              So really, in order to try to avoid actually showing even a shred of evidence that would support your earlier claims you are going to attempt to hang your hat on whether Obama is exactly 50/50 white/black huh? That's your entire effort to try to avoid answering the questions I asked? Jesus Christ, okay, maybe he's 53%-47% white to black. I guess that 3% is what proves your assertions then?

              If called him our first 5/16ths black president would you then show some evidence that would support your claim that your office is on lock down because of a threat by republicans?

              I never asserted that my percentages were exact to his ethnic make up (although I would bet they are) and it's something that is pretty widely accepted about him. You however, DID claim things that, if true, should be easily provable. You refuse to do so when asked and then try to distract by saying I didn't know the exact percentage of Obama's African blood?? Really? That is pretty pathetic I must say.

              It's like talking to a 6 year old.

              1. My Esoteric profile image88
                My Esotericposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                In the mind of racists, old and new, 1% black makes you 100% black; (check the past laws of many Southern States for examples) consequently, as far as racists are concerned, the percentages are moot.

                1. Superkev profile image85
                  Superkevposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                  Good thing I'm not a racist then. 50-50 to me has always mean mixed or Mulatto, whichever, both are correct. And regardless my opposition to him is not based on his racial make up.

                  1. My Esoteric profile image88
                    My Esotericposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                    That is  good, but I wish more on the Right were like you.

  3. AllAmerican Angel profile image61
    AllAmerican Angelposted 20 months ago

    HMMMM!!!  Interesting… apparently you never heard of what Nancy Pelosi and other of the Liberal minions did to undermine not only W, but our military WHILE they were deployed over seas.  Liberals….  they instituted the traitorous acts of the GI JANES, but yeah keep regurgitating the lies you hear on Crap Not News.  Remember Dick Durbin accusing our military of abuse??  Of course not!  Silly Rabbit tricks are for kids!

    1. My Esoteric profile image88
      My Esotericposted 20 months ago in reply to this

      Actually someone else mentioned her, so I looked it up.  Pelosi asked Assad to talk to Israel when no negotiations with the US were going on.  That's not even close to being as despicable as 47 Conservative American Senators telling an enemy not to negotiate with the President of the United States because he doesn't represent America is it?

 
working