“same OLD story. Nothing changes. Very little hope.”
emptynester2 on Dec 10, 2013 at 07:14:49
“but a lot of change! Obama suckers!”
steven noyb on Dec 10, 2013 at 06:52:01
“Well one thing we can't do is give up.
Try to stifle division between the people, divided and separated we fall!”
mbmike2 on Dec 10, 2013 at 06:39:38
“Actually, I believe most misunderstood Obama when he gave his speeches about hope. He actually said HOPELESSNESS! Over 11 million have found the job market so hopeless that they have dropped out. It has helped to bring the unemployment rate down and gives the Libs a false sense of accomplishment from this failure. It's hard on people to have to constantly lie for their master. That's wh Obama needs a fresh new liar to help in generating new lies to replace the old ones.”
“seems just a few years ago there was a movie that said the ice in Antarctica was all melting. seems strange it could be so cold and all the ice melt.”
Brian Robson on Dec 9, 2013 at 23:23:43
“July and August, when these records were set, are the middle of the antarctic winter. Global Warming doesn't mean that EVERY day is hotter, just that the AVERAGE is higher. Its still going to get colder in the winter and hotter in the summer. New records will be broken just by random chance or because we have the ability to look. The average temps in Antarctica are rising, and the ice there is melting more every summer (Jan-Feb).”
HarryP on Dec 9, 2013 at 23:20:12
“Ice melt during wintertime ?”
ubrew12 on Dec 9, 2013 at 23:18:13
“IPCC: "Antarctica lost five times more land ice into the ocean in the last decade, than in the decade before."
"seems strange it could be so cold" Do you know what else is strange? That the Andes can be so high. Most of my denier friends find that puzzling beyond belief.”
TUNCH on Dec 9, 2013 at 23:17:47
“Not all the ice...don't exaggerate.
If you watch the news you see enormous ice shelves breaking off every year.”
“So why has Obama continued Reagan's trickle down policy? What else would you call QE? that money goes in at the top - how much makes it to the bottom?”
notthatsara on Dec 9, 2013 at 10:33:24
“Why haven't Any of the presidents changed the radical direction of our economic system? Once any policy is in Place, it's hard to change it. It would wreck havoc over the WORLD'S economy and since we have so many misinformed citizens in our country, they will have a backlash. This is the ONLY way they know. They weren't born in the 80's or lived it, or didn't realize the end results at the time. This is why the GOP is fighting the ACA. It will be hard when so many people LIKE it. They love the "trickled-down" mantra because it's end results fits their economic philosophy. Control and Conqeur. ...RICH and Poor. No in-between because that would cause problems in their quest to control. Sometimes we don't see the forest for the trees.”
MarvinM on Dec 8, 2013 at 13:10:38
“Actually, 'trickle-down' does work, to an extent, but only if people take what they have and spend it. The rich have largely been taking their money and putting it in offshore accounts, not 'spending' it. What investments they make are as likely international, not US investments. And then they avoid having to pay tax (or as much tax) on their gains.
The middle class and poor cannot leverage money the same way. Unemployment benefits are not put into a savings account and saved up to by stocks or even put in a CD. They are spent. Cutting off UB means where a woman might have paid her local hair salon for a wash n' cut, she'll just do it herself. Where once the guy was paying for a lawn service, he'll cut the grass himself. Where they used to eat out and support local restaurants, now the couple or family will eat in. Those businesses lose customers. It has a direct and negative impact on the local economy.
Since there is no evidence that extending the benefits causes the person to stay unemployed longer, why hurt these businesses? It will only make things worse, not better.
Lack of customers will cause the hair salon, the lawn service, the restaurant, to lay off an employee or two. And what will those former employees do then? File for Unemployment Benefits!
Stop that cycle now. Extend benefits for now, roll it back slowly and incrementally as the unemployment rate drops.”
scared1234 on Dec 8, 2013 at 12:40:19
“He tried to get a tax increase for the wealthy but the gopters in Congress wouldn't let him. He has tried to get the minimum wage increased but the gotpers in Congress won't let him. So you see, it is indeed ALL the gopters fault.....”
abbienormal on Dec 8, 2013 at 12:23:31
“QE is meant to reduce unemployment and it has been successful in doing that. I know that because unemployment has been reduced and there have been absolutely no measures taken by Congress to reduce unemployment and they keep trashing Obama's Job's Act.
Anyway, I think the theory is that liquid markets allow companies to make capital investments on the cheap and then they need to hire more people. The problem is that it only deals with the supply side and only has a lagged effect on the demand side. If Congress goes down the path of reducing unemployment and SNAP benefits, the demand side is really going to lag.”
“no no. I read it as 1587 per month. What was the plan cost before subsidy? All the plans I have been looking for are much much higher than 132. I am 51, no smoke. I will not qualify for subsidy, and so far cannot afford any of the obamacare plans.”
murphthesurf3 on Dec 6, 2013 at 11:39:04
“I am 63. Not a smoker. Missouri. $169.14 a month (without subsidy $700.14 per Month) A note...I now live on and work a small farm. In 2008 my lifelong work, for which I was well compensated, paid plenty of taxes, blew away in the economic meltdown. I now live on less than a third of what I did then. I have savings, two pensions (available in two years), IRA accounts/investments, social security and medicare BUT none of that is available right now. I will be spending 30 percent less on my insurance and getting better insurance because of the subsidies. You might be interested in the revenue sources for the subsidies. http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/11/07/243584170/how-the-affordable-care-act-pays-for-insurance-subsidies One thing I am picking up is how the subsidy qualifiers are not taking into account the complete picture of an individual's personal economy. Are you one of those whose income is offset by obligations that the system does not pick up on? Or was your insurance so tailored that the basic platform now being required gives you too much insurance? I am interested.