Game Over For Obamacare Saboteurs?

Quote




Anonymous said:
There were no laws regarding immigration then fucking moron.
Click to expand...

Another moron liberal who thinks history began the day he was born.
Do they even teach history any more???
Just to list a few:

1700s
The Naturalization Act of 1790 established the rules for naturalized citizenship, as per Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, but places no restrictions on immigration. Citizenship is limited to white persons, with no other restriction on non-whites.
The Naturalization Act of 1795 lengthened required residency to become citizen.
The Naturalization Act of 1798 further lengthened required residency to become citizen, registers white immigrants to establish date of initial residency.

1800s
The Naturalization Act of 1870
The Page Act of 1875 is the first act restricting immigration.
The Immigration Act of 1882 imposed a 50 cent head tax to fund immigration officials.
The Chinese Exclusion Act (1882) allowed the U.S. to suspend Chinese immigration, a ban that was intended to last 10 years
The Act of 1891 established a Commissioner of Immigration in the Treasury Department.
The Geary Act of 1892 extended and strengthened the Chinese Exclusion Act
 



























Anonymous said:
Claiming the Keynesian economics doesn't work is like being a Biological Evolution denying Creationist.
Click to expand...

After observing the economic failures occurring in Spain, Ireland, England, Italy, Greece, and even here in the U.S. with the failure to increase growth, despite an extra $800B being pumped into the economy, one pertinent question is apparent – where in the world has Keynesian economics ever worked to grow and sustain an economy for the long term, with so much evidence that proves exactly the opposite?
 



Anonymous said:
After observing the economic failures occurring in Spain, Ireland, England, Italy, Greece, and even here in the U.S. with the failure to increase growth, despite an extra $800B being pumped into the economy, one pertinent question is apparent – where in the world has Keynesian economics ever worked to grow and sustain an economy for the long term, with so much evidence that proves exactly the opposite?
Click to expand...

"Spain, Ireland, England, Italy, Greece" have all adopted austerity budgets. England has famously formed a grand-coalition govt in order to do so. And you are right, they have failed to economically grow since. And the Economic Paper having claimed to prove that economies with more that 90% Public Debt to GDP have slower growth has been famously debunked. So it is now widely accepted that austerity has failed.

The US has cut its deficit in half and is growing a 2.5% a year - about what all credible economists agree it would with the stimulus that you cited. The stimulus that we have gotten is about half of the deficit spending under the Reagan era.

The next is your question, "where in the world has Keynesian economics ever worked to grow and sustain an economy for the long term"? No one, even Keynes himself claimed that Keynesian stimulus was for "the long term" and to claim otherwise is simply a feeble attempt to create a straw man. And as I stated above, St Reagan proved that Keynesian economics works in the short term when he cut tax, ran up the deficit and debt, and stimulated the economy in the 1980's. Running a deficit, increasing the debt and stimulating the economy is the same whether one cuts taxes and doesn't cut spending (like Reagan except he not only didn't cut spending he greatly increased military spending thus increasing the stimulus) or keeps taxes that same and increases spending. Obamas stimulus was 2/3s tax cuts 1/3 spending increases. Take out the deficits caused by the Bush Tax Cuts in the early 2000's and 2 unfunded wars and the deficit under Obama increased less, in a % of GDP, that both GW Bush and Reagan.

To show you that Reagan and his advisors new that they they were using Keynesian stimulus to goose the economy and that it was only temporary, after he cuts taxes and drove up the deficit and debt, he then subsequently raised taxes 11 times, back to about where it was, as a % of GDP, before he cut taxes.

I don't know where, other than from Fox News or Glenn Bech, that you can get facts or reach conclusions like you have above but the failure of the Republican Economic theory of austerity has failed.
 



Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Supply Side Economics. Your comparison of Reagan's military spending to Obama's blank check/wealth redistribution scheme is laughable.

Now go obsess more about Glen Beck.
 



When Obama was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009, the federal government’s debt was $10,626,877,048,913.08. As of the close of business on Feb. 14, 2013, the federal government’s debt was $16,540,800,290,147.46. Thus, since Obama has been president, the federal debt has increased $5,913,923,241,234.38. That is more than all the debt accumulated by all the presidents from George Washington through Bill Clinton.

The federal debt was last below $5.913 trillion on Feb. 1, 2002, when George W. Bush was president.

Federal spending and federal deficits have both increased sharply under President Obama. In fiscal 2008, the last full fiscal year before Obama took office, the federal government spent $2.9716 trillion. In fiscal 2012, the federal government spent $3.538 trillion.

Where do you get your facts, Jay Carney?
 






Anonymous said:
"The spoiler version is that out in California, where the state government and advocacy groups are actually interested in doing Obamacare right, things are looking pretty good. They’re standing up their exchanges and it turns out premiums for basic bronze and more comprehensive silver health plans will actually come in lower than anticipated.

This is almost unambiguously good news for Obamacare.

You can tell it’s good news because it’s obviously good news, but also because the brigade of conservative writers who comb the news for every last Obamacare glitch in less cooperative states have been pretty quiet about it.

But in addition to auguring well for the law and suggesting its detractors have been blowing implementation problems out of proportion, I think this news underscores the strategic importance, from the administration’s point of view, of getting the ACA right in California in particular."

http://editors.talkingpointsmemo.co...ifornia_getting_obamacare_right.php?ref=fpblg

And before you mock California you should up-to-date with your facts first. They now have no statewide elected Republican Office holders and the Dems have a majority in both houses of the legislature. Last year they raised taxes on wealthy people and corporations and this year they have a significant budget surplus.

Now they now have their sites on you.
Click to expand...

Your Fuax MSNBC News Ed Schultz intelligence level rantings were quickly shuffled-off to another page so that it will quickly fall to the botom of the rankings so that no one will see what an embarrassing fuck-wad you are.
 






Top Bottom
Back
Quote