You can run from the truth all you wish as the liberals become more and more irrelevant and the conservatives take back control of the country.
I can't wait for the price of gas to skyrocket and the stock market to avalanche.
Taking control of Congress is not taking control of the country. It might happen Muleman but it will only be because of an ignorant and gerrymandered electorate.
You can run from the truth all you wish as the liberals become more and more irrelevant and the conservatives take back control of the country.
I can't wait for the price of gas to skyrocket and the stock market to avalanche.
Taking control of Congress is not taking control of the country. It might happen Muleman but it will only be because of an ignorant and gerrymandered electorate.
_______________________________________________
gerrymandering, like voter fraud is a tool of the democrats.
You can cheat but will not win.
Signs that Democrats will steal the elections for the Senate majority
October 26, 2014 12:41 AM MST
Signs that Democrats might be preparing to engage in voter fraud in the 2014 mid-term elections
UnSkewedPolls.com
If you see certain signs pointing to impending voter fraud in the next nine days, then these signs will tell us that the Democrat know they can't win without, and will attempt to steal the Senate majority with voter fraud in several states. But before taking a look at what those signs would be, let's take a look at where the battle for the majority in the U.S. Senate actually stands today, according to the averages of polls reported at Real Clear Politics. RCP has been very accurate in predicting the results of elections via their polling averages.
Right now, on their Senate map without toss-ups, RCP is projecting the Senate next year to be made up of 51 Republicans, an additional independent elected from Kansas, and 46 Democrats plus two Independent-elected senators who caucus with the Democrats for a total of 48 senators in the Democrat caucus. Let's look at the key races that this projection is based on.
There are three states where RCP projects the incumbents senators are holding very slim leads, including Republican Mitch McConnell of Kentucky leading by 4.0 percent, North Carolina Democrat Kay Hagan leading by 1.4 percent and New Hampshire Democrat Jeanne Shaheen leading by 1.8 percent. Note that the two Democrats are enjoying much slimmer leads than the sole Republican incumbent among those three.
RCP is projecting that Republican candidates, who are defending seats currently held by Republicans, in two states are behind in the polls. Those are incumbent Pat Roberts of Kansas, who is trailing Independent Greg Orman by 0.8 percent in the RCP average and Republican nominee David Perdue, who is just 1.0 percent behind Democrats Michelle Nunn in the Georgia Senate race. The last two polls reported from the Georgia race includes one showing a tie, and another showing Perdue leading by 2 percent. Both of these races can be clearly viewed as too close to call that could go either way. But Republicans are projected by RCP to win enough seats to gain a majority in the Senate.
There are eight states where RCP projects that Republican nominees will win seats currently held by Democrats. These eight pickups will give Republicans at least the 6 net seats they need to gain to reach a 51 seat majority. Those eight states are Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, South Dakota and West Virginia. When the RCP average of polls, by which each Republican nominee in those states leads their races by, is added together and averaged, the average by which those candidates lead by in those eight states is a staggering 8.3 percent. The closest two among those eight is Joni Ernst leading by 2.5 percent in Iowa and Cory Gardner leading by 3.8 percent in Colorado.
Compare those numbers to the two races above where the Republicans are barely losing, where the margins are 0.8 percent and 1.0 percent. The statistic odds that Republicans will win one or both of those seats are significantly higher than the odds that Democrats will close the gap and win one or both of the Iowa and Colorado races. The other six seats Republicans are likely to gain show margins in the RCP averages of polls that are well outside of the margin of error of the polling data. In short, those are likely Republican wins and most other projections of these races regard those seats as “likely” or “safe” Republican wins.
I am confident in projecting at this time that Republicans are quite likely to win the Senate majority in these elections (even if Louisiana and Georgia go to runoffs, historically such runoffs feature lower turnout which favors Republicans) this year. There is only two ways the Democrats would retain the senate majority. One is extremely higher than likely turnout among the voters in the Democrats base, and none of the polls are projecting this and no serious observer of politics and elections has even suggested this is possible. The other way they could win is massive voter fraud. We are seeing some signs already that this might be in the plans for the Democrats. The very real voting scandal out of Colorado, that some elements of the liberal media lied about and said was a “fake voting scandal,” is one red flag that is raised in regard to possible massive Democrat voter fraud in an attempt to steal the Senate elections to keep Harry Reid in office as Majority Leader of the Senate.
I have tough time believing that the Democrats will engage in open and brazen and obvious massive voter fraud to retain the Senate, as is pondered in the article published in this column last night about how Democrats could possibly retain the Senate majority. I think they will want to have the polls come much closer in many states (highly unlikely given the numbers reviewed above) to make it much more plausible that Democrats could be making such a substantial comeback in the polls so it would be believable that they could actually win enough of these Senate races to hold on to the majority. Remember that perception is reality in politics, and unless it's perceived the Democrats have a shot at this, I seriously doubt they would openly and brazenly commit enough voter fraud to win several states where the polls right up until the day before election day clearly show they are going to lose.
But it should be remembered, and this is not a conspiracy theory but a reminder of the liberal agenda and the liberal bias in the media, and a reminder of who controls these institutions of the “mainstream” media that reports most of our election news and commissions a majority of these polls we're putting stock in. These signs, described below, will make it clear that voter fraud might decide this election in favor of the Democrats.
Let's suppose all or most of the below happens by the day before the election. The last few polls on the Kentucky Senate race shows McConnell's 4.0 percent lead in the RCP average evaporating to almost zero. Michele Nunn in Georgia expands to 4-5 percent and the conventional wisdom is she may get enough votes to avoid a runoff. Shaheen in New Hampshire and Hagan in North Carolina both expand their one-point-something leads in the RCP averages to something about 4.0 percent. Bill Cassidy in Louisiana goes from having a 4.8 percent lead in the RCP average to being just about tied with Mary Landrieu. In Iowa, it flips, and instead of Republican Joni Ernst leading by 2.5 percent, the last few polls before election day put Democrat Bruce Braley ahead by 2-3 percent instead. Tom Cotton has been leading for weeks in Arkansas, but suddenly the last few polls of that race show him tied or one percent behind incumbent Senator Mark Pryor.
The liberal media gleefully reports big momentum by the Democrats in the last week before the election, and gladly projects that the Democrats will come out of this election with at least 50 maybe even 51 or 52 seats to retain the majority. Even Nate Silver and the others, looking at those polls (many of which will be skewed) and they change their projections too.
What will really be going on if we see those signs, is, the polls being skewed again to cover for expected, and planned, voter fraud to steal the closest elections that are otherwise going narrowly in favor of Republicans, in favor of the Democrats. It's all about plausible deniability, and if the media-manufactured polls show the Democrats can win, then they can steal enough votes in enough states to keep the Senate and plausibly deny they engage in voter fraud.
So if we see those signs next week, we'll know what's happening. And they don't have a hurricane Sandy to blame it on this time. Who knows what else they might make up to explain the sudden public shift to the Democrats. Maybe we won't see these signs and this suspected campaign of massive Democrat voter fraud, for the most part, will not happen. We can only hope so. Or perhaps the Democrats don't dare do it because we've already called them on it in advance, and we'll be ready to bust them when it happens. Any Democrats out there possibly wanting to orchestrate this kind of voter fraud should be aware, that investigative journalists like James O'Keefe and others might very well be in place and prepared to bust them on it. If Democrats are caught red-handed engaging in massive voter fraud to try to steal this election, it will prove what we've suspected for many years. It is precisely the reason Democrats are so adamantly opposed to reasonable election reforms like voter ID laws.
More reading on the 2014 mid-terms elections, projections and voter fraud issues
As far as the Dem losing seats in Congress no excuses necessary as turnover in Congress is cyclical but of course you continue to ignore that, thinking this is some major victory for the GOP. So lets review the facts again, very few Presidents enjoyed a Presidency with control of both houses for the majority of their terms. In fact many Presidents served their terms working with a Congress controlled by the opposing party.
That's great. But given the changing demographics, the widespread rejection of GOP ideologies, lack of support from certain groups, changing times, GOP being too extreme and needing to move to the center, the party being in complete disarray, ect, ect...
In spite of all the claims made by Liberals daily for the last six years -- Wouldn't you think this cycle would be broken?
Sorry, but something isn't adding up.
What will the folks who now have health care do once you take their health care away?
Vote Republican?
_______________________________________________________
typical line of the lying liberals.
No one is saying they want to take away any one's health insurance.
The Republican's position is repeal and replace.Obamacare is a defective, politically motivated bill that has failed to get the 30 million uninsured covered.
The liberals constantly misrepresent the conservatives position.
On global warming, the liberals say the Republican's just want dirty air and dirty water. a flat out lie.
But y'all keep it up. Come the morning of Nov. 5th The People will have spoken.
Start writing up your list of excuses now.
LOL, Quoting articles from the antiabortion right-wing Christian LifeNews.com website to try to prove ACA is a failure? man you are really scraping this time Mule.
Eh, the current GOP has one of the worst voting records on Environmental issues in history so you may want to rethink your statement as it seems they really don't care about our environment.
here are some of the anti environment legislation proposed by the GOP
Prevent the EPA from calculating how much damage carbon pollution does to society
Stop the EPA from clarifying which streams and wetlands are protected by the Clean Water Act
Block EPA regulation of carbon pollution altogether
Ban the Fish & Wildlife Service from installing photovoltaic arrays
and the complete list is staggering
http://www.nrdc.org/legislation/2014-riders.asp
_________________________________________________________You are referencing an extremist eco-wack-jobs organization. Of course they will attack conservatives. That is their political agenda.
The EPA, aligned with the eco-nuts are using their own interpretation of the CWA and others to serve their radical agenda.
When political activism by gov’t agencies occurs, they must be shut down and prosecuted.What would you say if when the Republican in power they outlawed any liberal speech like the homosexual mayor of Houston is trying to do to the churches right now?
____________________________________________________________As far as the Dem losing seats in Congress no excuses necessary as turnover in Congress is cyclical but of course you continue to ignore that, thinking this is some major victory for the GOP. So lets review the facts again, very few Presidents enjoyed a Presidency with control of both houses for the majority of their terms. In fact many Presidents served their terms working with a Congress controlled by the opposing party.
Presidents Reagan spent all 8 years working with a Democrat controlled House so it no big deal. Clinton spent 6 of his 8 years with a GOP controlled Congress and his approval rating for his last term hovered around 60% so he must have been doing something right yet the GOP controlled Congress so how do you explain that Professor.
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm
And here is a chart which proves my point
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Presidents_and_control_of_Congress
__________________________________________Wikipedia again? Man you are desperate.
Excuses like yours are typical of losers. Unable to support Obama and Reid’s failures to lead, you stoop to justifying The People rejection with irrelevant crap.
_____________________________________So continue to gloat over your false victory because as long as the Democrats control the Presidency that is all that matters. Hope you enjoy the next 10 years of Obama and Hillary running the show.
Just for fun interesting to see the Presidents approval ratings through the years. This one is for you Alloak as I know how much you love it when we bring G Dubya into the conversation. Notice how G Dubya's rating peaked when the U.S. invaded Afghanistan and drops like a rock from there until his 2nd term is over.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-presapp0605-31.html
Just more fun facts for you Conservatives to learn from.
[Edited on 10/26/2014 by Bill_Graham]
[Edited on 10/26/2014 by Bill_Graham]
[Edited on 10/26/2014 by Bill_Graham]
________________________________________
You can run from the truth all you wish as the liberals become more and more irrelevant and the conservatives take back control of the country.
LOL, some eco-wack job organization? all they did is run the numbers on how members of Congress voted on environmental issues my friend there is no opinion in what they published. It clearly shows the GOP has no interest in the environmental issues and are happy to vote to satisfy there corporate masters.
And Wiki is just listing information you can get from any number of websites regarding who controlled Congress for each Presidents term. I picked them because they had a nice handy table, which even you could understand, that showed each President and who controlled Congress during their terms. It clearly shows most Presidents do not have a majority in Congress and midterm elections are cyclical. What I posted is history my friend not some opinion of a right wing Obama hating website. That is not an opinion it is fact.
You seem to be the one running from the truth Mule. But I don't want to piss in your cornflakes so enjoy your hollow victory next month while us Democrats will enjoy the next 10 years with a Democratic President continuing to repair the damage the Bush Administration created.
Have to say though I do really enjoy your manic rants and look forward to the insults you throw at Hillary after she wins. Might want to start working on your material now. 😉
As far as the Dem losing seats in Congress no excuses necessary as turnover in Congress is cyclical but of course you continue to ignore that, thinking this is some major victory for the GOP. So lets review the facts again, very few Presidents enjoyed a Presidency with control of both houses for the majority of their terms. In fact many Presidents served their terms working with a Congress controlled by the opposing party.
That's great. But given the changing demographics, the widespread rejection of GOP ideologies, lack of support from certain groups, changing times, GOP being too extreme and needing to move to the center, the party being in complete disarray, ect, ect...
In spite of all the claims made by Liberals daily for the last six years -- Wouldn't you think this cycle would be broken?
Sorry, but something isn't adding up.
Senators and Congressmen are local elections voted on by small numbers of people who are very opinionated on who they vote for. That is why there are blue and red states who almost always vote for one specific party and also why some members of Congress win every year and the opposite party has no chance to beat them. There tends to be minimal movement either way in the Congressional elections. Take am look at the cahrt at this website. Since Reagan was elected no party had more than 60 seats in the Senate and in the House things sesawed back and forth but nobody had an overwhelming majority. It was much more lopsided in the 60's and 70's wheere the Dems actually had a fillibuster breaker majority for many years in the Senate yet the Republican Presidents seemed to manage.
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm
If Reagan was such a great Republican President how do you explain he never had a majority in the House for both his terms especially following Jimmy Carter when the Economy was in such bad shape? Clinton has close to a 60% approval rating his last term and did not control Congress. Why not?
Big difference then a Presidential elections my friend which is why the GOP may take back Congress but Hillary will be the next President IMHO. And based on History the Dems will take back at least one of the Houses again in the not too distant future.
I will repeat it again, most Presidents never had control of both Houses during their terms and in many cases had control of neither and did just fine. IMHO History has shown the only thing that matters today is the Presidency. That is where the power is not Congress.
Come on Alloak you seem to be one of the more reasonable and knowledgeable conservatives here do you really not see this? All you have to do is look at the charts to see it is cyclical.
[Edited on 10/26/2014 by Bill_Graham]
[Edited on 10/26/2014 by Bill_Graham]
[Edited on 10/26/2014 by Bill_Graham]
What will the folks who now have health care do once you take their health care away?
Vote Republican?
_______________________________________________________
typical line of the lying liberals.
No one is saying they want to take away any one's health insurance.
The Republican's position is repeal and replace.Obamacare is a defective, politically motivated bill that has failed to get the 30 million uninsured covered.
The liberals constantly misrepresent the conservatives position.
On global warming, the liberals say the Republican's just want dirty air and dirty water. a flat out lie.
But y'all keep it up. Come the morning of Nov. 5th The People will have spoken.
Start writing up your list of excuses now.
LOL, Quoting articles from the antiabortion right-wing Christian LifeNews.com website to try to prove ACA is a failure? man you are really scraping this time Mule.
Eh, the current GOP has one of the worst voting records on Environmental issues in history so you may want to rethink your statement as it seems they really don't care about our environment.
here are some of the anti environment legislation proposed by the GOP
Prevent the EPA from calculating how much damage carbon pollution does to society
Stop the EPA from clarifying which streams and wetlands are protected by the Clean Water Act
Block EPA regulation of carbon pollution altogether
Ban the Fish & Wildlife Service from installing photovoltaic arrays
and the complete list is staggering
http://www.nrdc.org/legislation/2014-riders.asp
_________________________________________________________You are referencing an extremist eco-wack-jobs organization. Of course they will attack conservatives. That is their political agenda.
The EPA, aligned with the eco-nuts are using their own interpretation of the CWA and others to serve their radical agenda.
When political activism by gov’t agencies occurs, they must be shut down and prosecuted.What would you say if when the Republican in power they outlawed any liberal speech like the homosexual mayor of Houston is trying to do to the churches right now?
____________________________________________________________As far as the Dem losing seats in Congress no excuses necessary as turnover in Congress is cyclical but of course you continue to ignore that, thinking this is some major victory for the GOP. So lets review the facts again, very few Presidents enjoyed a Presidency with control of both houses for the majority of their terms. In fact many Presidents served their terms working with a Congress controlled by the opposing party.
Presidents Reagan spent all 8 years working with a Democrat controlled House so it no big deal. Clinton spent 6 of his 8 years with a GOP controlled Congress and his approval rating for his last term hovered around 60% so he must have been doing something right yet the GOP controlled Congress so how do you explain that Professor.
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm
And here is a chart which proves my point
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Presidents_and_control_of_Congress
__________________________________________Wikipedia again? Man you are desperate.
Excuses like yours are typical of losers. Unable to support Obama and Reid’s failures to lead, you stoop to justifying The People rejection with irrelevant crap.
_____________________________________So continue to gloat over your false victory because as long as the Democrats control the Presidency that is all that matters. Hope you enjoy the next 10 years of Obama and Hillary running the show.
Just for fun interesting to see the Presidents approval ratings through the years. This one is for you Alloak as I know how much you love it when we bring G Dubya into the conversation. Notice how G Dubya's rating peaked when the U.S. invaded Afghanistan and drops like a rock from there until his 2nd term is over.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-presapp0605-31.html
Just more fun facts for you Conservatives to learn from.
[Edited on 10/26/2014 by Bill_Graham]
[Edited on 10/26/2014 by Bill_Graham]
[Edited on 10/26/2014 by Bill_Graham]
________________________________________
You can run from the truth all you wish as the liberals become more and more irrelevant and the conservatives take back control of the country.
LOL, some eco-wack job organization? all they did is run the numbers on how members of Congress voted on environmental issues my friend there is no opinion in what they published. It clearly shows the GOP has no interest in the environmental issues and are happy to vote to satisfy there corporate masters.
And Wiki is just listing information you can get from any number of websites regarding who controlled Congress for each Presidents term. I picked them because they had a nice handy table, which even you could understand, that showed each President and who controlled Congress during their terms. It clearly shows most Presidents do not have a majority in Congress and midterm elections are cyclical. What I posted is history my friend not some opinion of a right wing Obama hating website. That is not an opinion it is fact.
You seem to be the one running from the truth Mule. But I don't want to piss in your cornflakes so enjoy your hollow victory next month while us Democrats will enjoy the next 10 years with a Democratic President continuing to repair the damage the Bush Administration created.
Have to say though I do really enjoy your manic rants and look forward to the insults you throw at Hillary after she wins. Might want to start working on your material now. 😉
_________________________________
Hillary?
I doubt The American People will elect another no resume amateur after getting burned by the current president's failure.
Are you referring to the people who have lied about their incomes on their Obamacare website applications in order to get subsidies?
Got anything to back up that preposterous claim? Or are you lying when you infer that everyone who now has healthcare lied to get it?
You are making an irresponsible and unsubstantiated claim.
Backing this pathetic President and his signature achievement must also mean shutting one's ears, eyes, and mind to the news and current events...
http://reason.com/blog/2014/05/19/obamacare-has-granted-1-million-incorrec
I inferred nothing about all Obamacare applicants. Only those misstating their incomes.
Nice try
Are you referring to the people who have lied about their incomes on their Obamacare website applications in order to get subsidies?
Got anything to back up that preposterous claim? Or are you lying when you infer that everyone who now has healthcare lied to get it?
You are making an irresponsible and unsubstantiated claim.
Backing this pathetic President and his signature achievement must also mean shutting one's ears, eyes, and mind to the news and current events...
http://reason.com/blog/2014/05/19/obamacare-has-granted-1-million-incorrec
I inferred nothing about all Obamacare applicants. Only those misstating their incomes.
Nice try
Fuji,
The cost benefit of a large scale project or initiative is determined best in more than the immediate short term. Just curious, have you ever worked on or implemented any operations or systems on a statewide basis or a national scale?
What will the folks who now have health care do once you take their health care away?
Vote Republican?
_______________________________________________________
typical line of the lying liberals.
No one is saying they want to take away any one's health insurance.
The Republican's position is repeal and replace.Obamacare is a defective, politically motivated bill that has failed to get the 30 million uninsured covered.
The liberals constantly misrepresent the conservatives position.
On global warming, the liberals say the Republican's just want dirty air and dirty water. a flat out lie.
But y'all keep it up. Come the morning of Nov. 5th The People will have spoken.
Start writing up your list of excuses now.
LOL, Quoting articles from the antiabortion right-wing Christian LifeNews.com website to try to prove ACA is a failure? man you are really scraping this time Mule.
Eh, the current GOP has one of the worst voting records on Environmental issues in history so you may want to rethink your statement as it seems they really don't care about our environment.
here are some of the anti environment legislation proposed by the GOP
Prevent the EPA from calculating how much damage carbon pollution does to society
Stop the EPA from clarifying which streams and wetlands are protected by the Clean Water Act
Block EPA regulation of carbon pollution altogether
Ban the Fish & Wildlife Service from installing photovoltaic arrays
and the complete list is staggering
http://www.nrdc.org/legislation/2014-riders.asp
_________________________________________________________You are referencing an extremist eco-wack-jobs organization. Of course they will attack conservatives. That is their political agenda.
The EPA, aligned with the eco-nuts are using their own interpretation of the CWA and others to serve their radical agenda.
When political activism by gov’t agencies occurs, they must be shut down and prosecuted.What would you say if when the Republican in power they outlawed any liberal speech like the homosexual mayor of Houston is trying to do to the churches right now?
____________________________________________________________As far as the Dem losing seats in Congress no excuses necessary as turnover in Congress is cyclical but of course you continue to ignore that, thinking this is some major victory for the GOP. So lets review the facts again, very few Presidents enjoyed a Presidency with control of both houses for the majority of their terms. In fact many Presidents served their terms working with a Congress controlled by the opposing party.
Presidents Reagan spent all 8 years working with a Democrat controlled House so it no big deal. Clinton spent 6 of his 8 years with a GOP controlled Congress and his approval rating for his last term hovered around 60% so he must have been doing something right yet the GOP controlled Congress so how do you explain that Professor.
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm
And here is a chart which proves my point
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Presidents_and_control_of_Congress
__________________________________________Wikipedia again? Man you are desperate.
Excuses like yours are typical of losers. Unable to support Obama and Reid’s failures to lead, you stoop to justifying The People rejection with irrelevant crap.
_____________________________________So continue to gloat over your false victory because as long as the Democrats control the Presidency that is all that matters. Hope you enjoy the next 10 years of Obama and Hillary running the show.
Just for fun interesting to see the Presidents approval ratings through the years. This one is for you Alloak as I know how much you love it when we bring G Dubya into the conversation. Notice how G Dubya's rating peaked when the U.S. invaded Afghanistan and drops like a rock from there until his 2nd term is over.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-presapp0605-31.html
Just more fun facts for you Conservatives to learn from.
[Edited on 10/26/2014 by Bill_Graham]
[Edited on 10/26/2014 by Bill_Graham]
[Edited on 10/26/2014 by Bill_Graham]
________________________________________
You can run from the truth all you wish as the liberals become more and more irrelevant and the conservatives take back control of the country.
LOL, some eco-wack job organization? all they did is run the numbers on how members of Congress voted on environmental issues my friend there is no opinion in what they published. It clearly shows the GOP has no interest in the environmental issues and are happy to vote to satisfy there corporate masters.
And Wiki is just listing information you can get from any number of websites regarding who controlled Congress for each Presidents term. I picked them because they had a nice handy table, which even you could understand, that showed each President and who controlled Congress during their terms. It clearly shows most Presidents do not have a majority in Congress and midterm elections are cyclical. What I posted is history my friend not some opinion of a right wing Obama hating website. That is not an opinion it is fact.
You seem to be the one running from the truth Mule. But I don't want to piss in your cornflakes so enjoy your hollow victory next month while us Democrats will enjoy the next 10 years with a Democratic President continuing to repair the damage the Bush Administration created.
Have to say though I do really enjoy your manic rants and look forward to the insults you throw at Hillary after she wins. Might want to start working on your material now. 😉
_________________________________
Hillary?
I doubt The American People will elect another no resume amateur after getting burned by the current president's failure.
So in other words you have no rebuttal for what I posted and are trying to deflect by hoping Hillary does not win? Come on man at least give it try.
JMO opinion but if Hillary decides to run and there is no health issues in the next couple of years, yes that can be a concern for someone her age, then unless there is some major scandal or Reagan comes back from the grave the GOP has nobody on the horizon that can beat her.
I know you would like to believe otherwise but I am pretty confidant the infrastructure is being setup as I type this for her campaign and you can bet damn sure Bubba is going to use all his influence, which is substantial, to make this happen.
As much as I was excited for Obama's election I can't wait for the Clinton's to be back in the Whitehouse. Happy days will be here again.
Are you referring to the people who have lied about their incomes on their Obamacare website applications in order to get subsidies?
Got anything to back up that preposterous claim? Or are you lying when you infer that everyone who now has healthcare lied to get it?
You are making an irresponsible and unsubstantiated claim.
Backing this pathetic President and his signature achievement must also mean shutting one's ears, eyes, and mind to the news and current events...
http://reason.com/blog/2014/05/19/obamacare-has-granted-1-million-incorrec
I inferred nothing about all Obamacare applicants. Only those misstating their incomes.
Nice try
Fuji,
The cost benefit of a large scale project or initiative is determined best in more than the immediate short term. Just curious, have you ever worked on or implemented any operations or systems on a statewide basis or a national scale?
To your question - yes - projects within a division of a global corporation.
To your comment about not viewing things in the short term, I completely agree. Which is why I find it laughable that some talk so boldly today about Obamacare being a success. It's a fiscal infant, whose ramifications are far from fully implemented and whose costs are a long way from being calculated.
Let's not forget the original assumptions forced upon the CBO to justify the President's claims that it would "be deficit neutral". The Democrat congress told CBO to use 10 years of revenue to justify six years of operation. It was the only way to fudge the numbers and not expose the fiscal reality. We'll see how that works out.
quote:
quote:
Are you referring to the people who have lied about their incomes on their Obamacare website applications in order to get subsidies?
Got anything to back up that preposterous claim? Or are you lying when you infer that everyone who now has healthcare lied to get it?You are making an irresponsible and unsubstantiated claim.
Backing this pathetic President and his signature achievement must also mean shutting one's ears, eyes, and mind to the news and current events...http://reason.com/blog/2014/05/19/obamacare-has-granted-1-million-incorrec
I inferred nothing about all Obamacare applicants. Only those misstating their incomes.
Nice try
Since I said:
quote:
What will the folks who now have health care do once you take their health care away?Vote Republican?
The folks meaning all the people who did not have healthcare but do now you absolutely inferred that all those people lied.
Your comment was at best, disingenuous.
That's me being kind.
Love your source Fuji. The "Reason Foundation" funded primarily by the Koch brothers.
Hah!
You shill.
Love your source Fuji. The "Reason Foundation" funded primarily by the Koch brothers.
Hah!
You shill.
In your haste to score points instead of learning something, it seems you missed the fact that the Reason article was based on a Washington Post report.
Gonna claim they too are funded by the Koch Brothers?
Pathetic when simple facts are only so if they're from a politically correct source.
The Reason article's premise was pulled from Washington Post headline. The Washington Post article does not conclude what the Reason writer concludes. The Reason article begins:
For example, the vast majority of people who gained private coverage through Obamacare are being subsidized through the law's system of health insurance tax credits. But about a million of those subsidies are wrong, either too high or too low—it's unclear how many fall on which side—according to The Washington Post.
The Washington Post article says this:
Federal health-care subsidies may be too high or too low for more than 1 million Americans
By Amy Goldstein and Sandhya Somashekhar May 16
The government may be paying incorrect subsidies to more than 1 million Americans for their health plans in the new federal insurance marketplace and has been unable so far to fix the errors, according to internal documents and three people familiar with the situation.
The problem means that potentially hundreds of thousands of people are receiving bigger subsidies than they deserve. They are part of a large group of Americans who listed incomes on their insurance applications that differ significantly — either too low or too high — from those on file with the Internal Revenue Service, documents show.
The government has identified these discrepancies but is stuck at the moment. Under federal rules, consumers are notified if there is a problem with their application and asked to upload or mail in pay stubs or other proof of their income. Only a fraction have done so, according to the documents. And, even when they have, the federal computer system at the heart of the insurance marketplace cannot match this proof with the application because that capability has yet to be built, according to the three individuals.
So piles of unprocessed “proof” documents are sitting in a federal contractor’s Kentucky office, and the government continues to pay insurance subsidies that may be too generous or too meager. Administration officials do not yet know what proportion are overpayments or underpayments. Under current rules, people receiving unwarranted subsidies will be required to return the excess next year.
The inability to make certain the government is paying correct subsidies is a legacy of computer troubles that crippled last fall’s launch of HealthCare.gov and the initial months of the first sign-up period for insurance under the Affordable Care Act. Federal officials and contractors raced to correct most of the technical problems hindering consumers’ ability to choose a health plan. But behind the scenes, important aspects of the Web site remain defective — or simply unfinished.
White House officials recently have begun to focus on the magnitude of income discrepancies. Beyond their concerns regarding overpayments, members of the Obama administration are sensitive because they promised congressional Republicans during budget negotiations last year that a thorough income-verification system would be in place.
Under White House pressure, federal health officials and the contractor, Serco, are this weekend beginning to step up efforts at resolving a variety of inconsistencies that have appeared in applications, including income discrepancies. One White House official, speaking on the condition of anonymity about internal discussions, said that White House and federal health officials are “all on the same page that the issue needs to be resolved as soon as possible.”
Because the computer capability does not yet exist, the work will start by hand, according to two people familiar with the plans. It will focus at first not on income questions, but on another roughly 1 million cases in which people enrolled — or tried to enroll — in health plans and ran into questions about their citizenship status. Throughout the sign-up period that ended earlier this spring, flaws in HealthCare.gov blocked many naturalized citizens or permanent legal residents, requiring them to submit immigration documents that are, like the income information, caught in a backlog.
The work of sorting out inaccurate incomes — and inaccurate subsidies, as a result — will likely begin sometime this summer, two individuals familiar with the plans said.
Julie Bataille, communications director for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the agency overseeing the federal insurance exchange, said: “The marketplace has successfully processed tens of millions of pieces of data — everything from Social Security numbers to tribal status to annual income. While most data matched up right away during the application process, we take seriously the cases that require more work and have a system in place to expeditiously resolve these data inconsistencies.”
Bataille also added that “an inconsistency does not mean there is a problem with a consumer’s enrollment” but that the consumer must send in additional documentation to verify whether their application information is accurate. “We’re working every day,” she said, “to make sure individuals and families get the tax credits they deserve and that no one is receiving a tax credit they shouldn’t.”
Of the various technical problems that remain with HealthCare.gov, the difficulty in straightening out discrepancies affects an especially large number of consumers. Of the roughly 8 million Americans who signed up for coverage this year under the health-care law, about 5.5 million are in the federal insurance exchange. And according to the internal documents, more than half of them — about 3 million people — have an application containing at least one kind of inconsistency. These inconsistencies have arisen as the information listed on their applications has been cross-checked, via a newly built federal data hub, with the Social Security Administration and other federal agencies, as well as incarceration, IRS and immigration records.
The income information is significant because the government for the first time is providing subsidies to help working-class and middle-class Americans buy private health plans. Under the federal rules, an application is “flagged” for special checking if the income someone says that they expect this year is at least 10 percent above or below the most recent income in their IRS tax returns.
According to various recent internal documents, income discrepancies are the most frequent kind of inconsistencies among insurance applicants, and they exist on 1.1 million to 1.5 million out of nearly 4 million inconsistencies overall. Of the total inconsistencies, the documents show, consumers have uploaded or mailed in about 650,000 pieces of “proof” — or for about one inconsistency in six.
The federal rules say that consumers have 90 days after applying to try to prove that their information is correct and, if an inconsistency is not resolved by then, whatever the federal records show is assumed to be correct. By now, about one-third of people with inconsistencies have passed their 90-day window. But because of the trouble verifying incomes, the government has not lowered or raised anyone’s subsidies.
Making sure that incomes — and subsidies — were accurate became a prominent issue during budget negotiations last year, as House and Senate Republican opponents of the health-care law warned of potential fraud. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius promised to thoroughly vet the salary information that people submitted as part of their health insurance applications.
From their vantage point, consumer advocates have also been concerned about the possibility of inaccurate income information. They worry that some consumers who have innocently overstated their incomes should be getting higher subsidies — and perhaps better insurance — than they are receiving, while those who accidentally understated their income may get a nasty surprise during tax season next year when the IRS demands that they return any subsidy money they have improperly collected.
“The longer it takes and the more months .?.?. go by, the more serious the consequences of any error that may have occurred,” said Judy Solomon, vice president for health policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which has been pressing its concern with administration officials.
“I have this sick feeling that there are these people out there who have made unintentional errors, and in a few years will be subject to massive tax bills,” said Jessica Waltman, senior vice president for government affairs at the National Association of Health Underwriters, a lobbying group for health insurance brokers.
Juliet Eilperin contributed to this report.
Amy Goldstein is a national reporter for The Washington Post focused on health-care policy.
Sandhya Somashekhar is a health reporter for the Washington Post.
The Washington Post article does not say what the Reason article infers.
"Based on a Washington Post report."
Pathetic.
It's a fiscal infant, whose ramifications are far from fully implemented and whose costs are a long way from being calculated.
So then why oppose it and be so pessimistic? If you believe this comment, couldn't a positive outcome be just as likely as a negative outcome?
quote:
quote:
Are you referring to the people who have lied about their incomes on their Obamacare website applications in order to get subsidies?
Got anything to back up that preposterous claim? Or are you lying when you infer that everyone who now has healthcare lied to get it?You are making an irresponsible and unsubstantiated claim.
Backing this pathetic President and his signature achievement must also mean shutting one's ears, eyes, and mind to the news and current events...http://reason.com/blog/2014/05/19/obamacare-has-granted-1-million-incorrec
I inferred nothing about all Obamacare applicants. Only those misstating their incomes.
Nice try
Since I said:
quote:
What will the folks who now have health care do once you take their health care away?Vote Republican?
The folks meaning all the people who did not have healthcare but do now you absolutely inferred that all those people lied.
Your comment was at best, disingenuous.
That's me being kind.
Now I see the problem: simple English comprehension.
What else could explain how "the people who have lied about their incomes" equals "all the people who did not have healthcare but do now"?
Only a mind that can see those things as the same could also accept things like "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor", or "Thirty million Americans, including a lot of people in Florida, are going to be able to get healthcare next year because of that law.", or Health reform will "give every American the same opportunity" to buy health insurance the way members of Congress do.
All those Obama lies and more - 4 pages of them - can be found on Politifact...
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/false/
Have they started receiving funding from those evil Koch Brothers too? Gosh darn it!!
So perhaps before any reasonable debate about what is true and what's not takes place, a decent English comprehension course would be advisable. Who knows, it might lead to new political insights.
That's me being hopeful.
Hah! I usually respect aspects of your debate but none of what you just posted changes the fact that your "article" was not based on a Washington Post article.
I don't have time for this.
I'm catching a train to NYC in a few hours. I'm glad my healthcare has allowed me to improve my health to the point I can enjoy two shows at the Beacon.
You want to take away healthcare from millions so those people can't enjoy life's great pleasures.
I find that reprehensible.
Good night Mr. Fuji.
It's a fiscal infant, whose ramifications are far from fully implemented and whose costs are a long way from being calculated.
So then why oppose it and be so pessimistic? If you believe this comment, couldn't a positive outcome be just as likely as a negative outcome?
One would be foolish, knowing how it started, and the history of entitlement estimates, to conclude that it will remain within projections.
Medicare exceeded it's 20 year estimates by only 11x.
Obamacare's estimates were based on 10 years of revenue to operate the program for 6 years. Not a very honest start.
Since it is not lowering costs in terms of procedures in any significant way, or in terms of health care costs as a percentage of GPD, how do you cover millions more and remain "deficit neutral"?
And finally, how does anyone believe in gov't math? They've been soooo honest, after all.
Given all this, I'm quite sure my skepticism will be rewarded in years hence when the truth of exploding Obamacare costs, rising premiums, and less coverage for all beginning to surface. I'm also sure that the Obama faithful will find some way to blame it all on Bush.
Hah! I usually respect aspects of your debate but none of what you just posted changes the fact that your "article" was not based on a Washington Post article.
I don't have time for this.
I'm catching a train to NYC in a few hours. I'm glad my healthcare has allowed me to improve my health to the point I can enjoy two shows at the Beacon.
You want to take away healthcare from millions so those people can't enjoy life's great pleasures.
I find that reprehensible.
Good night Mr. Fuji.
None of the bluster changes the fact that the administrators of Obamacare don't know how to adjust for the reality that at least a million people claimed incomes during their registration into the plan that now can't be supported. That was the basis of both articles and doesn't change the fact that subsidies are being paid based on unsupportable data. What a great system!
If you don't want to call them liars, that's up to you. But it's already been proven otherwise, at least to some degree...
I expect the source to once again be attacked, but it's on tape. Just because it's a source you won't like doesn't mean it didn't happen. How much of this is going on that we haven't seen?
How many American's premiums will be raised, and which economic class will take up the majority of these raised premiums? What types of employment will see the raised premiums? W2 employees or self-employment?
Are you referring to the people who have lied about their incomes on their Obamacare website applications in order to get subsidies?
Got anything to back up that preposterous claim? Or are you lying when you infer that everyone who now has healthcare lied to get it?
You are making an irresponsible and unsubstantiated claim.
Backing this pathetic President and his signature achievement must also mean shutting one's ears, eyes, and mind to the news and current events...
http://reason.com/blog/2014/05/19/obamacare-has-granted-1-million-incorrec
I inferred nothing about all Obamacare applicants. Only those misstating their incomes.
Nice try
Fuji,
The cost benefit of a large scale project or initiative is determined best in more than the immediate short term. Just curious, have you ever worked on or implemented any operations or systems on a statewide basis or a national scale?
To your question - yes - projects within a division of a global corporation.
To your comment about not viewing things in the short term, I completely agree. Which is why I find it laughable that some talk so boldly today about Obamacare being a success. It's a fiscal infant, whose ramifications are far from fully implemented and whose costs are a long way from being calculated.
Let's not forget the original assumptions forced upon the CBO to justify the President's claims that it would "be deficit neutral". The Democrat congress told CBO to use 10 years of revenue to justify six years of operation. It was the only way to fudge the numbers and not expose the fiscal reality. We'll see how that works out.
So since you agree with my short term vs long term evaluation before indicating failure, I'll ask another question. Do you judge all success in terms of dollars, or do you factor in other variables such as expansion in numbers of insured & quality of life for the population as a whole - just to give 2 examples?
Does health insurance equal medical care?
How many American's premiums will be raised, and which economic class will take up the majority of these raised premiums? What types of employment will see the raised premiums? W2 employees or self-employment?
How many American's premiums will be raised, and which economic class will take up the majority of these raised premiums? What types of employment will see the raised premiums? W2 employees or self-employment?
_______________________________________________________
It is not possible to know.
The actuaries delayed their rates tables this year as they were waiting for the Obama administration to publish the rate structure for the gov’t healthcare system.
The major health insurance companies did not issue their rate until mid-September, two full months later than normal.
Adding to the problems was again the Obama administration’s refusal to disclose the demographic data for the people that did sign up for Obamacare.
Healthcare.gov, the failed Obamacare website (costing taxpayers now over 900 million dollars) was incapable of disseminating the data to the healthcare providers. No one knows if that failure was on purpose or by the sheer incompetence of HHS.
The Obamacare rates for 2015 were, by law, to be published not later than Oct. 15th.
Obama, fearing the mid-term elections, unilaterally delayed the rates announcement until after the mid-terms.
While Obama claims that healthcare.gov did sign up 8.1 million people (well short of the 30 million promised) the obama administration refuses to say how many of them were people that would have signed up for medicare anyway because of their age nor how many of them were the real uninsured.
Add to the Obamacare problems the fact that millions of Americans will lose their health insurance on Dec. 31st because the policies do not conform to the gov’t mandates under Obamacare. Recently announced: 375.000 Colorado citizens and 250,000 Virginia citizens will lose their policies on Dec. 31st.
Many of the people losing their healthcare policies will be forced onto the gov’t insurance system further deepening our national debt.
The confusion continues with the Obamacare system incapable of verifying applicants income.
You can make this stuff up folks. Only an incompetent administration can fail so greatly.
Does health insurance equal medical care?
For most it does - especially the cheaper preventative care instead of waiting until there is a problem...
The confusion continues with the Obamacare system incapable of verifying applicants income.
The main problem was asking people to predict their next year's income ..... so how does a system verify income that hasn't happened yet? What do you expect the system to do - and how much more would that have cost? Would they use tax returns (for previous years)? What if they are joint returns? Should the "system" have access to your workplace records to see what your salary is? Your spouse? Not sure what you want the "system" to do..............
[Edited on 10/27/2014 by Sang]
The confusion continues with the Obamacare system incapable of verifying applicants income.
The main problem was asking people to predict their next year's income ..... so how does a system verify income that hasn't happened yet? What do you expect the system to do - and how much more would that have cost? Would they use tax returns (for previous years)? What if they are joint returns? Should the "system" have access to your workplace records to see what your salary is? Your spouse? Not sure what you want the "system" to do..............
[Edited on 10/27/2014 by Sang]
____________________________________________________
The democrats who wrote the law requires their system to verify income before allocating supplements, tax-payer provided supplements.
The law also gives HHS access to IRS records.
The system I am referring to is the one the democrats wrote into the law.
If the American people are so stupid as to vote her in then we all deserve what we get and that will be a sad sad day for this country, I am not saying that any brand X other party person is any better but with her baggage and dragging Bill back to the white house come on are you serious? Bengahzi alone should be enough for most people to turn their backs on her!
She thinks women who accuse men of sexual harassment are “whiny.”
Were Hillary Clinton a Republican, the report this week that she termed sexual harassment victims of former Senator Bob Packwood (R-OR) “whiney women.” According to the notes of her good friend, the late Professor Diane Blair, Hillary Clinton was “tired of all those whiney women, and she needs him on health care.”
Because political priorities take precedence over sexual mistreatment. This from the lady who proposes that she has faced glass ceilings and invokes the “war on women” regularly to push her agenda. That’s cynical stuff.
Dodging all that sniper fire in Bosnia must have toughened her up.
