What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?
- Thread starter Ulaven_Demorte
- Start date
- Status
richard_daily
Slut Whisperer
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2006
- Posts
- 36,898
No thanks busybody, I don't swing that way, and even if I did, I wouldn't be into fragile loonie toons shirt wearing ass.
However, I'm sure that you veteman, and koalabear could get a swell lemon party going.
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
Obama Admin To Immigrants: Don’t Worry, Going On Food Stamps Won’t Affect Your Citizenship Chances…
Going on welfare, the new American dream.
Via Daily Caller:
The United States Department of Agriculture has been working to dispel immigrants’ concerns that getting on Food Stamps will harm their chances of becoming U.S. citizens.
The USDA addresses those fears in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamp, brochures it distributes to Mexican consulates as part of its “partnership” with the Mexican government “to help educate eligible Mexican nationals living in the United States about available nutrition assistance.”
In one portion of the brochure, USDA’s text asks, “If I get on SNAP benefits, will I be a “public charge?’” The brochure then answers: “No. You and your family can apply for and receive SNAP benefits without hurting your chance of becoming U.S. citizens.”
The brochure further advises immigrants that members of their family could qualify for food stamps, even if they don’t.
“If you are not eligible due to your immigration status, your legal immigrant or citizen children may still qualify,” the brochure reads. ”You do not have to provide immigration information about yourself when you apply for your legal immigrant or citizen children.”
Going on welfare, the new American dream.
Via Daily Caller:
The United States Department of Agriculture has been working to dispel immigrants’ concerns that getting on Food Stamps will harm their chances of becoming U.S. citizens.
The USDA addresses those fears in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamp, brochures it distributes to Mexican consulates as part of its “partnership” with the Mexican government “to help educate eligible Mexican nationals living in the United States about available nutrition assistance.”
In one portion of the brochure, USDA’s text asks, “If I get on SNAP benefits, will I be a “public charge?’” The brochure then answers: “No. You and your family can apply for and receive SNAP benefits without hurting your chance of becoming U.S. citizens.”
The brochure further advises immigrants that members of their family could qualify for food stamps, even if they don’t.
“If you are not eligible due to your immigration status, your legal immigrant or citizen children may still qualify,” the brochure reads. ”You do not have to provide immigration information about yourself when you apply for your legal immigrant or citizen children.”
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
Kiss Of Death Continues: Yet Another Business Obama Visited Goes Belly Up…
Last week it was Ray’s Hell Burger, today it’s the Star Brewery in Dubuque, Iowa.
Via TWS:
Last week, it was announced that Ray’s Hell Burger just outside Washington, D.C. would be closing its doors. A fan of the burger joint was President Obama, who had visited the location with his Russian counterpart.
Well, it’s happened again. In August, Obama visited Star Brewery in Dubuque. And now a local publication reports that the business is closing its doors.
Last week it was Ray’s Hell Burger, today it’s the Star Brewery in Dubuque, Iowa.
Via TWS:
Last week, it was announced that Ray’s Hell Burger just outside Washington, D.C. would be closing its doors. A fan of the burger joint was President Obama, who had visited the location with his Russian counterpart.
Well, it’s happened again. In August, Obama visited Star Brewery in Dubuque. And now a local publication reports that the business is closing its doors.
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
toldya so
NIGGER CURRY belches THERE WILL BE MORE PEEPS PAYIN SO IT WILL BE CHEAPER
aint so, NIGGER CURRY
More Obamacare “Surprises”
By Yuval Levin
February 19, 2013 1:32 P.M.
Every time one of the warnings voiced by Obamacare’s critics before the law was enacted has come true, the law’s most eager champions (i.e. the political press) have seemed deeply surprised. It’s almost as if they just weren’t listening, isn’t it?
The last few days have offered two great examples. In this morning’s New York Times we are treated to the spectacle of a health reporter discovering the existence of economics:
Federal and state officials and consumer advocates have grown worried that companies with relatively young, healthy employees may opt out of the regular health insurance market to avoid the minimum coverage standards in President Obama’s sweeping law, a move that could drive up costs for workers at other companies.
It seems that employers with huge amounts of money at stake have discovered that self-insured companies are not subject to many of Obamacare’s requirements, and oddly they have reacted not with indignation at such a regulatory oversight but rather by moving to self-insure. By creating this powerful incentive, Obamacare threatens to draw employers (even quite small ones) with healthy workforces out of the insurance pool fully regulated by the new law, leaving that pool less healthy and therefore leaving it with greater costs. In fact, Obamacare itself actually makes the switch to self-insurance less risky for employers by making it easier to switch back if necessary. As the Times puts it:
The new law reduces the risks of self-insurance. Previously, self-insured companies would have struggled to switch to the insured market if employees developed costly illnesses. Under the law, companies can switch with no penalty, as insurers generally “must accept every employer and individual” who applies for coverage.
Like most of the law’s most significant effects on economic incentives, this wasn’t actually done on purpose. It’s a function of the same attitude on display in the Times article: a view of economic actors as drones awaiting instructions rather than reasonable people considering their options. And so of course, the solution is to take away options. The Times’s description of the administration’s thinking is priceless:
The Obama administration is investigating the use of stop-loss insurance by employers with healthier employees, and officials said they were considering regulations to discourage small and midsize employers from using such arrangements to circumvent the new health care law. “This practice, if widespread, could worsen the risk pool and increase premiums in the fully insured small group market,” the administration said in a notice in the Federal Register.
How exactly the existence of a design flaw in the law somehow empowers the administration to fix it by “discouraging” self-insurance through regulation is so quaint and naïve a question as to not even merit mention—a vestige of our barbarous past.
Meanwhile, over the weekend we learned of another surprise. It seems that the temporary program created by Obamacare to provide coverage to people with pre-existing conditions until the new system takes effect next year has run out of money even though it attracted far fewer people than it was expected to. The Associated Press described the matter in terms we’ll be getting used to as Obamacare unfolds:
Enrollment around the country has been lower than expected, partly because some people could not afford the premiums. But individual cases have turned out to be costlier than originally projected.
The arrangement is loosely modeled on an approach that actually has helped people with pre-existing conditions in some states: the high-risk pool. But as Jim Capretta and Tom Miller (among many critics) noted back in 2010, it was cobbled together in haste and involved rules and requirements that plainly guaranteed its failure.
We’ll be getting used to hearing a lot of that too. In fact, in response to the program’s bankruptcy, Gary Cohen (the director of the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight at HHS) offered the Washington Post a statement that seems likely to stand as the unofficial motto of Obamacare as the law is rolled out in the coming years: “What we’ve learned through the course of this program is that this is really not a sensible way for the health-care system to be run.”
Better late than never. But not much better.
NIGGER CURRY belches THERE WILL BE MORE PEEPS PAYIN SO IT WILL BE CHEAPER
aint so, NIGGER CURRY
More Obamacare “Surprises”
By Yuval Levin
February 19, 2013 1:32 P.M.
Every time one of the warnings voiced by Obamacare’s critics before the law was enacted has come true, the law’s most eager champions (i.e. the political press) have seemed deeply surprised. It’s almost as if they just weren’t listening, isn’t it?
The last few days have offered two great examples. In this morning’s New York Times we are treated to the spectacle of a health reporter discovering the existence of economics:
Federal and state officials and consumer advocates have grown worried that companies with relatively young, healthy employees may opt out of the regular health insurance market to avoid the minimum coverage standards in President Obama’s sweeping law, a move that could drive up costs for workers at other companies.
It seems that employers with huge amounts of money at stake have discovered that self-insured companies are not subject to many of Obamacare’s requirements, and oddly they have reacted not with indignation at such a regulatory oversight but rather by moving to self-insure. By creating this powerful incentive, Obamacare threatens to draw employers (even quite small ones) with healthy workforces out of the insurance pool fully regulated by the new law, leaving that pool less healthy and therefore leaving it with greater costs. In fact, Obamacare itself actually makes the switch to self-insurance less risky for employers by making it easier to switch back if necessary. As the Times puts it:
The new law reduces the risks of self-insurance. Previously, self-insured companies would have struggled to switch to the insured market if employees developed costly illnesses. Under the law, companies can switch with no penalty, as insurers generally “must accept every employer and individual” who applies for coverage.
Like most of the law’s most significant effects on economic incentives, this wasn’t actually done on purpose. It’s a function of the same attitude on display in the Times article: a view of economic actors as drones awaiting instructions rather than reasonable people considering their options. And so of course, the solution is to take away options. The Times’s description of the administration’s thinking is priceless:
The Obama administration is investigating the use of stop-loss insurance by employers with healthier employees, and officials said they were considering regulations to discourage small and midsize employers from using such arrangements to circumvent the new health care law. “This practice, if widespread, could worsen the risk pool and increase premiums in the fully insured small group market,” the administration said in a notice in the Federal Register.
How exactly the existence of a design flaw in the law somehow empowers the administration to fix it by “discouraging” self-insurance through regulation is so quaint and naïve a question as to not even merit mention—a vestige of our barbarous past.
Meanwhile, over the weekend we learned of another surprise. It seems that the temporary program created by Obamacare to provide coverage to people with pre-existing conditions until the new system takes effect next year has run out of money even though it attracted far fewer people than it was expected to. The Associated Press described the matter in terms we’ll be getting used to as Obamacare unfolds:
Enrollment around the country has been lower than expected, partly because some people could not afford the premiums. But individual cases have turned out to be costlier than originally projected.
The arrangement is loosely modeled on an approach that actually has helped people with pre-existing conditions in some states: the high-risk pool. But as Jim Capretta and Tom Miller (among many critics) noted back in 2010, it was cobbled together in haste and involved rules and requirements that plainly guaranteed its failure.
We’ll be getting used to hearing a lot of that too. In fact, in response to the program’s bankruptcy, Gary Cohen (the director of the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight at HHS) offered the Washington Post a statement that seems likely to stand as the unofficial motto of Obamacare as the law is rolled out in the coming years: “What we’ve learned through the course of this program is that this is really not a sensible way for the health-care system to be run.”
Better late than never. But not much better.
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
STFU, NIGGER CURRY
Meanwhile, over the weekend we learned of another surprise. It seems that the temporary program created by Obamacare to provide coverage to people with pre-existing conditions until the new system takes effect next year has run out of money even though it attracted far fewer people than it was expected to. The Associated Press described the matter in terms we’ll be getting used to as Obamacare unfolds:
Meanwhile, over the weekend we learned of another surprise. It seems that the temporary program created by Obamacare to provide coverage to people with pre-existing conditions until the new system takes effect next year has run out of money even though it attracted far fewer people than it was expected to. The Associated Press described the matter in terms we’ll be getting used to as Obamacare unfolds:
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
Print
Text
Flanked by first responders this morning, President Obama warned of the negative impact the “meat-cleaver approach” of sequestration — an idea that originated in his White House — would have on the country. Obama listed the cutbacks that would take place if sequestration is not averted at the end of the month, such as military readiness, FBI furloughs, delayed deployment of an aircraft carrier, thousands of lost jobs, and an increase in unemployment. “These cuts are not smart, they are not fair, they will hurt our economy, they will add hundreds of thousands of Americans to the unemployment rolls,” he said. “They’re not how we should run our government.”
Yet, though he emphasized that sequestration is “a bad idea,” it was the Obama administration who came up with it, according to the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward. “First, it was the White House,” Woodward said in October. “It was Obama and [Treasury secretary nominee] Jack Lew and Rob Nabors who went to the Democratic Leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, and said, ‘this is the solution.’ But everyone has their fingerprints on this.”
Text
Flanked by first responders this morning, President Obama warned of the negative impact the “meat-cleaver approach” of sequestration — an idea that originated in his White House — would have on the country. Obama listed the cutbacks that would take place if sequestration is not averted at the end of the month, such as military readiness, FBI furloughs, delayed deployment of an aircraft carrier, thousands of lost jobs, and an increase in unemployment. “These cuts are not smart, they are not fair, they will hurt our economy, they will add hundreds of thousands of Americans to the unemployment rolls,” he said. “They’re not how we should run our government.”
Yet, though he emphasized that sequestration is “a bad idea,” it was the Obama administration who came up with it, according to the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward. “First, it was the White House,” Woodward said in October. “It was Obama and [Treasury secretary nominee] Jack Lew and Rob Nabors who went to the Democratic Leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, and said, ‘this is the solution.’ But everyone has their fingerprints on this.”
U
unregistered
Guest
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
Yes, the bombastic clown raises hell about a sequester he invented, negotiated, and supports with a feverish nightly pud pounding anticipation.
You've complained for ages that Obama wants to cut literally nothing.
Now you're complaining that Obama wants to cut too much.
What will happen to your narrative when Obama is a bigger spending cutter than Republicans?
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
Attention you FILTHY UGLY DISGUSTING NIGGERZ that talked about Californication a few weeks ago
California's Budget Miracle A Mirage After All
Just under a month ago, the mainstream media and blogging coat-tail-riders all hailed the miracle that was a huge windfall rise in California's tax receipts as a sign; a glimpse of what was to come from our centrally planned utopian recovery. Surpluses, taxes up, life is good. Unfortunately, as is always the case in reality, if its too good to be true, then it is! The LA Times reports that the historic $5bn revenue bump appears to have been an accounting anomaly! Just as state accountants were starting to allocate the magical inflow of tax receipts, Governor Brown's administration says the extra money was "likely the result of major tax law changes at the federal and state level having a significant impact in the timing of revenue receipts." Taxpayers were paying a share of their bill early, getting income off their books in the hope of limiting exposure to the tax hikes that recently kicked in. The administration was expecting that money to arrive in April. Now, officials are saying it won't, and that just as January's receipts soared, they'll be offset by a spring plunge. We need another miracle, stat!
Via The LA Times,
The surge of revenue that showed up unexpectedly in state coffers last month may well be offset by a revenue dip in coming months, according to Gov. Jerry Brown's administration.
The surprise money has been the source of much speculation in the Capitol. Unanticipated tax receipts filled state coffers with more than $5 billion beyond initial projections for January — more tax dollars than are allocated to the entire state university system in a year.
The revenue bump was historic. But the question for budget experts was whether lawmakers could begin allocating the windfall toward government programs and tax breaks — or whether the money amounted to an accounting anomaly.
Brown's budget office now advises in an official cash report that it is probably the latter. Lawmakers need not do much reading between the lines to understand that the governor does not see the revenue boost as an occasion to pack the budget with extra spending.
The report says the extra money was "likely the result of major tax law changes at the federal and state level having a significant impact in the timing of revenue receipts."
That is: Taxpayers were paying a share of their bill early, getting income off their books in the hope of limiting exposure to the tax hikes that recently kicked in.
The administration was expecting that money to arrive in April. Now, officials are saying it won't, and that just as January's receipts soared, they'll be offset by a spring plunge.
California's Budget Miracle A Mirage After All
Just under a month ago, the mainstream media and blogging coat-tail-riders all hailed the miracle that was a huge windfall rise in California's tax receipts as a sign; a glimpse of what was to come from our centrally planned utopian recovery. Surpluses, taxes up, life is good. Unfortunately, as is always the case in reality, if its too good to be true, then it is! The LA Times reports that the historic $5bn revenue bump appears to have been an accounting anomaly! Just as state accountants were starting to allocate the magical inflow of tax receipts, Governor Brown's administration says the extra money was "likely the result of major tax law changes at the federal and state level having a significant impact in the timing of revenue receipts." Taxpayers were paying a share of their bill early, getting income off their books in the hope of limiting exposure to the tax hikes that recently kicked in. The administration was expecting that money to arrive in April. Now, officials are saying it won't, and that just as January's receipts soared, they'll be offset by a spring plunge. We need another miracle, stat!
Via The LA Times,
The surge of revenue that showed up unexpectedly in state coffers last month may well be offset by a revenue dip in coming months, according to Gov. Jerry Brown's administration.
The surprise money has been the source of much speculation in the Capitol. Unanticipated tax receipts filled state coffers with more than $5 billion beyond initial projections for January — more tax dollars than are allocated to the entire state university system in a year.
The revenue bump was historic. But the question for budget experts was whether lawmakers could begin allocating the windfall toward government programs and tax breaks — or whether the money amounted to an accounting anomaly.
Brown's budget office now advises in an official cash report that it is probably the latter. Lawmakers need not do much reading between the lines to understand that the governor does not see the revenue boost as an occasion to pack the budget with extra spending.
The report says the extra money was "likely the result of major tax law changes at the federal and state level having a significant impact in the timing of revenue receipts."
That is: Taxpayers were paying a share of their bill early, getting income off their books in the hope of limiting exposure to the tax hikes that recently kicked in.
The administration was expecting that money to arrive in April. Now, officials are saying it won't, and that just as January's receipts soared, they'll be offset by a spring plunge.
U
unregistered
Guest
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
Democrats Want Background Checks… Except When They Don’t
One of the main discussions in this ginned up, fact-free anti-gun debate coming from the Democrats and their fellow extreme leftists is that they want “universal background checks” for gun purchases. So, “background checks” are a good idea to left-wingers… but in all cases? As it happens, NO is the answer to that. Democrats don’t want universal background checks in all cases.
Jams Bovard shows us this fact quite clearly in his recent Wall Street Journal piece headlined, “Perform Criminal Background Checks at Your Peril.”
Now, Bovard isn’t talking about the gun debate with his piece. In fact, he never mentions guns even one time. Bovard, you see, is talking about background checks as a condition for employment.
As it happens, Democrats and the Obama administration are attempting to eliminate background checks for prospective employees claiming it is a “civil rights” issue.
The specific case concerns a man of Mexican origin who was denied employment as a truck driver because he had a criminal record. The record was discovered via a routine background check. Obama and his department of injustice claimed that the trucking company had no right to deny employment to the criminal saying it violated his “civil rights.”
Worse, the Obama administration essentially announced through the release of a set of new “guidelines” that the federal government will try to prosecute employers even if they are following state laws.
As far as Obama is concerned, no matter what the people want through laws written by their duly elected state officials, no background checks will be allowed.
So, what does this have to do with background checks for gun purchases?
Simply this: it is hypocritical for Obama and his extremist, left-wing comrades to claim that background checks on potential employees assumes a criminal past of these potential employees and should not, therefore, be allowed yet support background checks for potential gun buyers based on the same, exact principle.
If background checks violate a person’s civil liberties in order to gain employment, then background checks also violate a person’s civil liberties in order to enjoy their Constitutional rights.
After all, the right to a job is not in the Constitution, but the right to a firearm is.
One of the main discussions in this ginned up, fact-free anti-gun debate coming from the Democrats and their fellow extreme leftists is that they want “universal background checks” for gun purchases. So, “background checks” are a good idea to left-wingers… but in all cases? As it happens, NO is the answer to that. Democrats don’t want universal background checks in all cases.
Jams Bovard shows us this fact quite clearly in his recent Wall Street Journal piece headlined, “Perform Criminal Background Checks at Your Peril.”
Now, Bovard isn’t talking about the gun debate with his piece. In fact, he never mentions guns even one time. Bovard, you see, is talking about background checks as a condition for employment.
As it happens, Democrats and the Obama administration are attempting to eliminate background checks for prospective employees claiming it is a “civil rights” issue.
The specific case concerns a man of Mexican origin who was denied employment as a truck driver because he had a criminal record. The record was discovered via a routine background check. Obama and his department of injustice claimed that the trucking company had no right to deny employment to the criminal saying it violated his “civil rights.”
Worse, the Obama administration essentially announced through the release of a set of new “guidelines” that the federal government will try to prosecute employers even if they are following state laws.
As far as Obama is concerned, no matter what the people want through laws written by their duly elected state officials, no background checks will be allowed.
So, what does this have to do with background checks for gun purchases?
Simply this: it is hypocritical for Obama and his extremist, left-wing comrades to claim that background checks on potential employees assumes a criminal past of these potential employees and should not, therefore, be allowed yet support background checks for potential gun buyers based on the same, exact principle.
If background checks violate a person’s civil liberties in order to gain employment, then background checks also violate a person’s civil liberties in order to enjoy their Constitutional rights.
After all, the right to a job is not in the Constitution, but the right to a firearm is.
IrezumiKiss
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2007
- Posts
- 74,229
We know this didn't happen, right libs?
Cue Seanh, it's the Dailymail...
$943,687.50: estimated cost of a trip for Air Force One from Chicago to West Palm Beach and then back to Washington, D.C.
$13,500: Cost to rent out three four-bedroom guest cottages at The Floridian for three nights
$24,000: Cost of an eight-hour private golf lesson with famed instructor Butch Harmon
$1,800: Greens fees for three guests for two rounds of golf
$1,600: Cost of four caddies for two rounds of golf
$4,620: Cost of 20 rooms at the Port St. Lucie Holiday Inn for traveling press and security detail based on the government per-diem rate
TOTAL: $989,207
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...troversial-photo-black-out.html#ixzz2LNnkSP1O
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
We sure do know this happened, though...from that link:
"W. wasn't thrifty. He was the most expensive vacation president in US history. Not only did Bush spend more days on vacation than any other president, but he used Air Force One more often while on vacation than any other president. During Bush's two terms, the cost of operating Air Force One ranged from $56,800 to $68,000 an hour. Bush used Air Force One 77 times to go to his ranch in Crawford, TX. Using the low end cost of $56,800, each trip to Crawford cost taxpayers $259,687 each time, and $20 million total for Bush's ranch flights.
- misslane, frankfurt, 19/2/2013 10:28
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mc7e0l1v811qfji2jo1_500.gif
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9wofiCO961qa6g1m.gif
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17yq65jvvyyywgif/original.gif
http://awesomelyluvvie.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/ItsTrueTho.gif
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
U
unregistered
Guest
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
why do you hate SICK PEOPLE?
U
unregistered
Guest
RobDownSouth
BoycotDivestSanctio
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 78,436
It is WONDERFUL, you stupid son of a bitch.
Less than one percent of Medicaid budget covers labor and delivery costs of indigent undocumented aliens.
Not surprisingly, you and your fellow shitstain conservatives have a problem with this.
koalabear
~Armed and Fuzzy~
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2001
- Posts
- 101,964
You and the LawnJockey stop trading underwear and you won't see so many shitstains, pig boy.
U
unregistered
Guest
jeninflorida
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2003
- Posts
- 22,463
don't worry, the lazy piece of shit obama is on another vacation...or coming back from one. who knows, obama is a user and is a consumer of the welfare.
IrezumiKiss
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2007
- Posts
- 74,229
You and the other racist stain stop sheltering under Vette's nutsack umbrella for winter warmth and nature can just freeze you keloid assholes out of sight, shitstain.
- Status
Similar threads
