“Obama should have fired his Chief Technology Officer at the very least. Even small software projects require a competent executive manager. The first failure with the website was in the initial planning. That is somewhat forgivable given the complexity, but there's no excuse for improper coding and lack of testing.
Clearly the technological officer should have been aware of the issues before the launch and informed the president accordingly. If the administration was informed of the issues and decided to launch the site anyway, then the blame is squarely on Obama's shoulders.”
Southern Grey A1 on Nov 30, 2013 at 21:34:35
“He is the President, he signed the Bill into Law.
The name Affordable Health Care Act should have alerted you to the fact that this Law is implemented by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
Maybe you can give a short presentation at your next Tea Party Meeting. Just end the good news with he is still black, that way you won't fall out of favor.”
“The last last sentence in my post was sarcasm. Of course not anyone can go out and open a multi-billion dollar institution (if it were such an easy business then there would be more competition and hence lower fees). Only the very wealthy and large businesses even need the services of the large banks, so why complain about the fees of a service that most people don't even need?”
“Big deal. Banks should be able to charge any fees they want, and customers have the right to choose any bank they want. If all of the banks are taking-in huge profits by overcharging on customer fees, then start your own bank and become a multi-millionaire by charging less for the same services.”
godivademaus on Nov 26, 2013 at 03:15:50
“*shakes head sadly* You do realize that banking is not the sort of Mom and Pop business that you can grow like Mrs. Field's cookies, right? Comments like these make you appear to be a "non-serious" person, or, at least you shouldn't be taken for one. In order to operate a "bank" you need capital, or, at the very least the ability to borrow sufficient capital to lend it (in order to make money on the transaction). In order to undercut the big banks, one must be able to show you are are well enough capitalized that you can borrow at the same low rates, otherwise, there's no way you can undercut your competition. Credit Unions were able to do something along the lines of what you are talking about, but in order to do so they too had to be well-enough capitalized to be able to lend and charge interest... and so on.”
1dabut1 on Nov 26, 2013 at 03:15:06
thats all fine and dandy then do not let the banks borrow money from the tax payers. let them use their own money. i have no problem with that. we can go back to the greeenback days and leave the banks on their own.”
Raven Argyle on Nov 26, 2013 at 02:51:04
“Your understanding of banks, extraordinary. Your understanding of personal finance, staggering. Oh, oracle, font of wisdom, I know you have the (an) answer. Pray tell, I'm all ears...”
TheuintheUSofA on Nov 26, 2013 at 02:45:25
“Do you think the Fed will give me a .0007% interest rate loan to start my own Bank,
Like they give the Banks? After all I am a Taxpayer.”
“The website is just a facade for the private insurance industry anyway. Now the facade is pulled away. Go ahead, send folks directly into the jaws of the b.e.a.s/t that this legislation was enacted to feed.”
“You are so right, but you don't go far enough. To completely eradicate demand for ivory we must confiscate and destroy all antique ivory as well. It must all be ground to dust. We must also outlaw any pictures of ivory and burn any books that make reference to ivory or have pictures of ivory. But even that won't be enough. We must completely ban the word "ivory" from the English language and impose hefty fines for anyone who speaks or writes the word. Only then will be be able to truly eliminate the demand for ivory.”
FelixRat on Nov 16, 2013 at 08:26:49
“To have to create a pantomime caricature of the position with which you disagree, is a demonstration of the weakness of your argument.”
“This was relatively "new" ivory; antique ivory is already legal. Museums would not be interested in this ivory, although that's no reason to destroy it.”
artnude on Nov 16, 2013 at 04:44:59
“I did not see that noted in this particular story.
It still seems to me such a waste.
I don't see how it could solve the problem but can easily see how it could make it worse by increasing demand.
I am certainly no ivory expert nor an endangered species expert.
It makes me sad animals are exploited to extinction.
I saw a story today that they think the clouded leopard is now extinct.
I have no answers.
It just seems a futile effort to me.
It makes me sad.”
“People have been making carved art from ivory since ancient times. The Chinese have been carving ivory for thousands of years, and ivory is present in a large percentage of the cultural antiquities of people from all over the world. Your proposition to ban the trade of ivory "all together" is highly absurd.”
Jude Price on Nov 16, 2013 at 16:12:15
“It is absurd if one sees it only from a human perspective Joey C. Elephants were once in their millions, in the 18th century there were 13 million+ Elephants across Africa, by the 19th century they had diminished through human-caused death by trophy hunters and the ivory traders (for the East's objects d'art and the West's piano keys, combs and billiard balls) down to 9m, Today, there are less than 400,000 and at the rate of 38,000 a year being slaughtered for their tusks. The elephants killed are the knowledgeable, leaders, the matriarchs and bulls. Small broken and traumatised bands of teenage elephants try to lead their little brothers, sisters and cousins but even they are not safe - http://tinyurl.com/ivoryhaul. Utilisation of Elephant's tusks for carving might be a human tradition,a cultural practice but that doesn't make it right, now. The question here is what is more valuable, where do we place our value? Elephants are highly social, family oriented animals, long lived - their development and lives can be compared to humans. If human teeth were highly valued and there was a cultural practice of using them for art or talisman or whatever - would we still say "banning the trade" is absurd? It is without a doubt a moral and practical problem that our generation needs to address with as much courage and forthrightness and speed as possible if Elephants are to survive as intact wild species.”
“They say that their attempt to allow limited legal sales was a "failure" since demand has continued to rise since that time, but it's quite a leap in logic to say that the legal sales is the cause of the rise in the demand.
The demand could have risen for any other number of factors such as an increase in population--and most significantly--an increase in the buying power of China. The prices of (and demand for) Chinese antiques & antiquities has risen dramatically as the nouveau riche class in China has expanded, and those same buyers are also a likely primary component of demand for new ivory.
For all anyone knows, the demand could very well have been even higher had not some effort been made legalize and regulate the trade.”
“Well, the true answer is to shift the cost by forcing some people to buy more coverage than what they actually need. I, for example, could easily afford a $10,000 deductible, yet Obamacare forces me to purchase a policy with a deductible of no larger than $800. The govt isn't concerned about me having "adequate coverage" since my income or assets aren't even factored into the requirement.”
“It's not really a big deal, but like the Supreme Court has already ruled, Obamacare is essentially a broad new tax. This tax will be paid for in various ways, and these cancelled insurance plans are part of the "cost shifting" mechanisms of the new tax. That's the reality of it.”
“Why are their healthcare policies "shams"? If the goal is truly to ensure that everyone has health insurance, then why deny coverage to people who already have it?”
woodrow2012 on Nov 15, 2013 at 00:31:58
“Beautiful point !!!!! Fanned !!”
hangdogit on Nov 15, 2013 at 00:11:24
“Because people with sham policies -- policies that offer just the illusion of coverage -- still face medical bankruptcy in a major illness. For example, a policy that does not cover hospital stays will be inadequate for someone who needs an extensive hospital stay.
The ideas is -- that with a national health-insurance pool in effect -- everyone will have adequate coverage no matter what medical care they may require. It is simply insurance -- spread across a wider set of policyholders to share risks and costs -- which is the purpose of insurance anyway.”
“What a mess. If they had just followed the simple directive of making healthcare more affordable to all Americans then this chaos could have been avoided. Instead they chose the much more complex and divisive path of forced mandates and tax penalties and this disaster is the result.”
galivantstom on Nov 13, 2013 at 19:37:56
“How do you make health care affordable to all americans and keep it simple at the same time? Go to single payer system. Pay for it by adding 1 or 2% flat tax to the social tax and take the earnings cap off of social security. Rather simple really.”
“As both an online buyer and seller I'd rather wait until Monday. I also wish they would cancel Saturday delivery for all the shipping companies. Nothing bugs me more than the FedEx "Home Delivery" guy showing up at 7PM on a Saturday night.”
Beans22 on Nov 11, 2013 at 06:55:10
“And the only person more annoyed than you is said Fedex Home Delivery guy.”
“Obama has basically continued the same policies, both domestic and international, as his predecessor. That was his choice. His first choice was to fill nearly all his advisory & management positions with govt "insiders" with close ties to business. Once he had done that his "business as usual" leacy was already established.
Having said that, there are many things he could have done differently. He could have actually ended the war in Afghanistan instead of ramping in up and extending it ad infinitum. At the nadir of the economic crisis he actually had real power to change things such as privatizing the banking industry or at least greatly restructuring it. Instead he chose to complete the bailout and pretty much leave everything as it was. What little reforms were made were so weak they are already unraveling.”
“Income disparity has increased dramatically during the Obama administration. The main reason for this is because the Obama administration made it a top priority to bail out Wall St above all else. He implemented a successful "recovery" for wealthy while leaving the rest of the American economy in the tank.”
lofanforobama on Nov 4, 2013 at 19:03:06
“Might want to revisit who bailed out Wall Street...
Regarding the rest of your claims, do you think Republican obstruction had any part?”
ghostcommander on Nov 4, 2013 at 18:12:45
“The Bailouts started under bush/cheney and continued by the FED. Since the radical extremist republicans and the Tea Party Crazies took over the House in 2011 they have blocked every legislative bill that would have benefited the middle and lower economic groups.
That's called Obstruction..”
sophiajim on Nov 4, 2013 at 17:53:41
“I believe if you check it was under Bush that the bank bailouts occurred . Obama had the stimulus”
RevMetheus on Nov 4, 2013 at 17:49:32
“Funny how President Obama started "bailing out Wall Street" before he was even elected...
oh wait, it wasnt Obama that originally arranged to bail out Wall Street, it was Bush, who also made sure the wealthy didnt have to pay as much taxes, or have their businesses deal with OSHA, and gave away OUR money for no bid contracts.
The American economy has been in the tank since the conservative think tanks tanked it in the name of "free markets."”
Bobcaaat on Nov 4, 2013 at 17:43:03
“Here's some advise .... when you are being trickled on, don't swallow.”
“Any way you choose to spin it, the charts don't look good for the Obama administration. Blaming the "other party" for your failures when you are the one who has been elected to lead the country shows at the very least a failure in leadership.”
ghostcommander on Nov 4, 2013 at 18:21:38
“Your post is laughable. The radical extremist republivans massively increased the National Debt, wrecked the economy, and will not help fix the problems they
created. Instead they constantly obstruct and blame President Obama and the Democrats. http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/002669.htm”
Republicanistan on Nov 4, 2013 at 17:29:47
“Because he can lead Republican Baggers? Easier to herd snakes.”
thermionic on Nov 4, 2013 at 17:22:57
“The chart goes back 65 years. "Any way you choose to spin it", the charts don't point to a "failure of leadership" for a man that has only been in office 6 years, and a man who has tried on multiple occasions to change the trajectory of that graph only to run head on into the the patyu of NO.”
Andrew956 on Nov 4, 2013 at 17:20:14
“yeah, except the Republicans have canned every recovery effort since they infested the House”
Telemachus on Nov 4, 2013 at 17:20:14
“And your simplistic notion that the current occupant of the White House is alone responsible for the economy shows at the least a failure to understand basic civics.”
PrefersaPension on Nov 4, 2013 at 17:19:13
“The majority of Americans knew who caused the financial collapse of this country and did not vote that party back in. The majority did not forget what a mess Obama inherited...maybe you have a poor memory or don't understand what happened, but the majority does.”