Ping Scheller - Let's chat Obama | Page 6 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Ping Scheller - Let's chat Obama

Yep, this is both healthy and sustainable: 70% of US Gubment spending is writing cheques to individuals......

Buried deep in a section of President Obama's budget, released this week, is an eye-opening fact: This year, 70% of all the money the federal government spends will be in the form of direct payments to individuals, an all-time high.

In effect, the government has become primarily a massive money-transfer machine, taking $2.6 trillion from some and handing it back out to others. These government transfers now account for 15% of GDP, another all-time high. In 1991, direct payments accounted for less than half the budget and 10% of GDP.

What's more, the cost of these direct payments is exploding. Even after adjusting for inflation, they've shot up 29% under Obama.

ObamaCare, Medicare...
Where do these checks go? The biggest chunk, 38.6%, goes to pay health bills, either through Medicare, Medicaid or ObamaCare. A third goes out in the form of Social Security checks. Only 21% goes toward poverty programs — or "income security" as it's labeled in the budget — and a mere 5% ends up in the hands of veterans.

Interestingly, despite Obama's frequent pledges to reduce income inequality, the share of direct payments going toward "income security" has dropped from 25% in 2009 to 20% in 2014. (The average share from 1980 to 2008 was 25.4%.)

Obama's Fiscal Year 2015 budget calls for this share to drop to just 17% by 2019, as his programs devote more and more federal tax money to middle-class entitlement programs such as ObamaCare.

Here's another way to look at it: If all these federal direct payments went only to the poor, every person living in poverty today would receive an annual check worth $55,900.

The 1% Handouts
Instead, a surprisingly large amount of federal money is handed out to wealthy Americans through Social Security, Medicare, farm subsidies, unemployment benefits, conservation programs, disaster payments and other programs.

An IBD analysis found that the richest 1% of Americans, in fact, receive roughly $10 billion each year in federal checks.

Outgoing Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who exposed these vast payment programs available to the rich, said "this reverse Robin Hood-style of wealth distribution is an intentional effort to get all Americans bought into a system where everyone appears to benefit."

The White House normally releases the Historical Tables section of the budget — where these direct payment numbers are detailed — along with the rest of the budget documents. But while Obama released the main parts of his 2015 budget last week, he delayed the release of this little-noticed section until this week

http://news.investors.com/031014-692704-us-government-payments-to-individuals-70-of-budget.htm

Hopefully an "approved" source.
 
So...not socialism then according to that article...plus you just said you were ok with income inequality. Make up your mind...are you for him or against him or.......


..is it because he's black?
 
Since it appears that one can only post from an so called "approved" source here's another good Reuters article on Obama's Delusions and Syria:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/27/us-syria-usa-senate-idUSBREA2P2DE20140327
A Republican saying he thinks a Democrat is delusional, does not mean Obama is delusional. You start with a fair report from Reuters "Lawmakers bash Obama administration's 'delusional' Syria policy" then break free from any constraints of fact to make another yet unfounded allegation.

Of course, that doesn't mean Obama ISN'T delusional either. Do you understand this?
 
I honestly don't think mike knows the difference between socialism and communism and seems to think socialism automatically equals evil. Oddly the most often voted best places to live in the world have socialist leanings and none of them are really found in the US. Why would that be I wonder?
 
I honestly don't think mike knows the difference between socialism and communism and seems to think socialism automatically equals evil. Oddly the most often voted best places to live in the world have socialist leanings and none of them are really found in the US. Why would that be I wonder?
Because socialist media are performing the ranking! Duh.
 
I honestly cannot say I have seen a shred cognizance in your arguments Mike. To engage in a debate you need to show a level of comprehension, simply paraphrasing a line from an article, then posting the accompanying link will never impress your point upon anyone.

A perfect example....

Schneller posses a direct question to you; you respond with an irrelevant link, to an irrelevant article

.... Reply with an actual thought of your own. Show some sign that you have actually assimilated any of the idea's from the articles you post, and articulate them in a way which engages others. If someone presents you with a personal opinion or question, based on facts as they understand them, or have cited. Show some respect and take the time to form your own opinion in response.

Everyone's sick of the spam, and thus, you find yourself the butt of 'yahoo/google' or 'cuz he's black' jokes. I'm sorry, it's just the way you present yourself.
 
Reply with an actual thought of your own. Show some sign that you have actually assimilated any of the idea's from the articles you post, and articulate them in a way which engages others. If someone presents you with a personal opinion or question, based on facts as they understand them, or have cited. Show some respect and take the time to form your own opinion in response.

I doubt we'll live to see the day when Mike shows some semblance of critical thinking, but it was a noble effort on your part.
 
It's July 4th, why not have a bit of Obama news......

President Obama has topped predecessor George W. Bush in another poll, but not one he would like.

In a new Quinnipiac University Poll, 33% named Obama the worst president since World War II, and 28% put Bush at the bottom of post-war presidents.

"Over the span of 69 years of American history and 12 presidencies, President Barack Obama finds himself with President George W. Bush at the bottom of the popularity barrel," said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.

Of course, Obama and Bush are the most recent presidents; historians will tell you that it takes decades to truly measure an individual president's performance.

Ronald Reagan topped the poll as the best president since World War II, with 35%. He is followed by presidents Bill Clinton (18%) and John F. Kennedy (15%).

Obama received only 8% in the best presidents poll.

The Quinnipiac poll also reports that 45% believe the nation would be better off had Mitt Romney defeated Obama in the 2012 presidential election; 38% say the country would be worse off with a Romney presidency.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/theov...bush-quinnipiac-poll-reagan-clinton/11985837/
 
Ronald Reagan topped this poll as the best president since World War II.

trickle down economics, Star Wars missile defense

Ha, ha. Enough said.
 
Last edited:
The "affordable care act" just keeps on giving:


WASHINGTON — The Obama administration on Friday unveiled data showing that many Americans with health insurance bought under the Affordable Care Act could face substantial price increases next year — in some cases as much as 20 percent — unless they switch plans.

The data became available just hours before the health insurance marketplace was to open to buyers seeking insurance for 2015.

An analysis of the data by The New York Times suggests that although consumers will often be able to find new health plans with prices comparable to those they now pay, the situation varies greatly from state to state and even among counties in the same state.

“I have a plan to cover L.A.,” read the sign held by Peter V. Lee, executive director of the California health exchange, at an enrollment event on Friday at City Hall. He is on a nine-day bus tour to persuade residents to sign up for insurance.


Sylvia Mathews Burwell, the secretary of health and human services, estimated on Monday that 9.1 million people would sign up for insurance under the Affordable Care Act by the end of 2015.

Estimate of Health Coverage Enrollment Leaves Room to GrowNOV. 10, 2014


“Consumers should shop around,” said Marilyn B. Tavenner, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which runs the federal insurance exchange serving three dozen states. “With new options available this year, they’re likely to find a better deal.” She asserted that the data showed that “the Affordable Care Act is working.”

But Republicans quickly pounced on the data as evidence of the opposite.

“Last year, many who liked their plan were surprised to learn they couldn’t keep it,” said Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, who is in line to become chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. “This year, many who like their plan will likely have to pay more to keep it.”

The new data means that many of the seven million people who have bought insurance through federal and state exchanges will have to change to different health plans if they want to avoid paying more — an inconvenience for consumers just becoming accustomed to their coverage.

A new Gallup Poll suggests that seven in 10 Americans with insurance bought through the exchanges rate the coverage and the care as excellent or good, and most were planning to keep it.

In employer-sponsored health plans, employees tend to stay with the same insurer from year to year. But for consumers in the public insurance exchanges, that will often be a mistake, experts said.

Nashville illustrates the need for people with marketplace coverage to look closely at the alternatives available in 2015.

A 40-year-old in Nashville, with the cheapest midlevel, or silver plan, will pay $220 a month next year, compared to $181 a month this year, for the same plan.

The least expensive plan is offered by another insurer, Community Health Alliance, one of the so-called co-op plans created under the federal law. It offers coverage for a monthly premium of $194.

But the lower premium means that consumers will have to pay a much larger annual deductible, $4,000, rather than $2,000. A policyholder who becomes seriously ill or has a costly chronic condition could pay hundreds of dollars in out-of-pocket expenses.

In addition, different health plans often have different networks of doctors and hospitals and cover different drugs, meaning that consumers who change plans may have to pay more for the same medicines.

Another problem for consumers is that if the price for a low-cost benchmark plan in the area has dropped, the amount of federal subsidies provided by the law could be less, meaning that consumers may have to pay more unless they switch plans.

Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story

Continue reading the main story

The data, released by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, indicates that price increases will be modest for many people willing to change plans. In a typical county, the price will rise 5 percent for the cheapest silver plan and 4 percent for the second cheapest.

Experts said the wide swings in prices were likely to continue. “Next year will see another reshuffling,” said Caroline F. Pearson, a vice president of Avalere Health, a research and consulting company. “Eventually, in a year or two, we will start to stabilize.”

The Times analysis found that premiums had increased much more sharply in places where fewer insurers were competing for customers. Prices for the lowest-cost silver plan increased by at least 5 percent in 89 percent of the counties with a single insurer. About a quarter of counties with one or two insurers saw an increase in rates of more than 10 percent. The analysis did not calculate how prices might change for people who keep their plans.

In 2015, as in 2014, large numbers of health plans have high deductibles — the amount that consumers owe before the insurer starts to pay.

In Muscogee County, Ga., which includes Columbus, 74 health plans are available on the federal exchange. Fifty-two of the plans have deductibles of $2,500 or more, and 27 have deductibles of $5,000 or more.

The Internal Revenue Service defines a high-deductible plan as one with a deductible of $1,300 or more.

In Charleston, W.Va., the state capital, only 14 health plans are available, and all are offered by Highmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield. Half of the plans have deductibles of $2,500 or more, and one has a deductible of $5,000 or more.

In Jeff Davis County in West Texas, 17 plans are available. All but four have deductibles of $2,500 or more, and seven plans have deductibles of $5,000 or more. By contrast, Dallas residents have a choice of 64 plans, and in Houston, 71 are available.
Continue reading the main story

In releasing the data, administration officials noted that more insurers had entered the market in many states. By the government’s count, 25 percent more insurers will be participating in the exchange next year, and consumers will have a choice of 40 different plans, on average, up from 31 this year.

New Hampshire shows how consumers may benefit from additional competition. In most of the state, the number of insurers is increasing to five in 2015, from just one this year. Prices for the lowest-cost silver plan have fallen by 14 percent.

But there remain large stretches of the country where consumers will still have a limited number of insurers to choose from.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/15/us...2015.html?_r=1
 
Bottom line: there are fewer Americans without medical coverage. And somehow you think that's a bad thing.

Well of course since it's illegal to not have it. Of course we'll see how "affordable" it will really be going forward. It certainly hasn't made it cheaper......

Penalty For Uninsured Not Signing Up For Obamacare To More Than Triple


CBS DC (con't)

WASHINGTON (CBSDC/AP) — Americans will see their bank accounts shrink if they don’t sign up for Obamacare in its second enrollment season.

Uninsured Americans who decide not to enroll will face a penalty of $325 per person, more than tripling the $95 penalty those who did not enroll had to pay the first time around.

Children under the age of 18 will be fined $162.50. The maximum amount an uninsured family will be penalized is $975 under the flat-rate method.

“The penalty is meant to incentivize people to get coverage,” Laura Adams, senior analyst of InsuranceQuotes.com, told CBS News. “This year, I think a lot of people are going to be in for a shock.”

CBS News reports that many Obamacare plans will be charging more as a 27-year-old earning 250 percent of the poverty rate will now have to pay an average of 7 percent more for the lowest-cost bronze plan. The analysis from Investor’s Business Daily found that the lowest-cost silver plan will rise 9 percent and the lowest-priced catastrophic policy will go up by 18 percent.

HHS Secretary: ‘The Affordable Care Act Is Working’

Adams stated that very few uninsured Americans don’t understand the penalties they are facing.

“There is very little awareness of this,” she told CBS News. “Until people understand the financial consequences, they don’t have an incentive.”

The Health and Human Services Department said earlier this week that between 9 to 9.9 million Americans will receive health care plans through the Affordable Care Act marketplaces for next year’s coverage. That’s lower than the 13 million estimated by the Congressional Budget Office.

The bugs have supposedly been removed from the famously troubled http://www.healthcare.gov website, which can withstand last season’s peak loads and beyond with at least 125,000 simultaneous users. The online application has been pared from 76 screens to 16 for most consumers.

The “young invincible” crowd of 18-to-36 year olds is crucial to the law’s success because insurance companies need their business to offset the costs of covering older, sicker and more expensive enrollees.

What Has The Affordable Care Act Accomplished A Year Later?

Experts say education is one of the biggest challenges as many consumers only focused on the low monthly premium last year and didn’t understand the potentially high deductible and out-of-pocket costs. Consumers were confused when they discovered their doctor wasn’t in their plan’s network or that they had to pay for testing because deductibles hadn’t been met.

Insurance companies say volume will always be an issue because open enrollment coincides with Medicare enrollment and many large groups also renew their policies in January. But insurers say they’ve expanded Internet bandwidth, added staff and increased customer service hours.

And the bigger point that you miss is that what if people didn't want it? And PS, don't forget "if you have a doctor you can keep your doctor/plan/etc" outright lies.......
 
Well of course since it's illegal to not have it. Of course we'll see how "affordable" it will really be going forward. It certainly hasn't made it cheaper......

And the bigger point that you miss is that what if people didn't want it? And PS, don't forget "if you have a doctor you can keep your doctor/plan/etc" outright lies.......

I think you're misinformed. About 15% don't have health insurance. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/health-insurance.htm
And
http://kff.org/uninsured/fact-sheet/key-facts-about-the-uninsured-population/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/many-americans-still-lack-health-insurance/

Why would a sane person not want health insurance?
 
Last edited:
What we have here Mike, is a difference in philosophy. It's libertarian vs social responsibility.

I happen to think that one of the responsibilities of the people that we elect to form a government is to provide an infrastructure which benefits the population. Things like roads, bridges, schools/education, hospitals/health care, provided and paid for with revenue generated by a progressive income tax (where higher income earners pay more).

The cost of this system is that the well-off portion of the population subsidize the cost of services for those less well-off.

I understand that some people disagree with this system and want to pay for only for services they personally use, and provided by private suppliers.

The cost of this system is that those less well-off suffer amidst plenty. Sometimes they are less well-off because they are lazy, but sometimes they are less well-off due to circumstances beyond their control.

It comes down to what kind of society you prefer to live in. A selfish, everyone out for themselves/screw everyone else kind of society, or a society where we look after one another through government distribution of resources.

It appears we are on opposit sides of this fence. I would like Canada to be more like the Nordic countries, you would prefer Canada to more like a republican run United States.

I think it all boils down to that.
 
Last edited:

I never said all Americans have health insurance.

And does it matter why? America is supposed to be about freedom and choice. Making not having something illegal is an affront to what America was built on. Of course Leftard Liberals don't care that they are destroying American piece by piece.

I like this editorial:

Mychal Massie is a respected writer and talk show host in Los Angeles .)

The other evening on my twitter, a person asked me why I didn't like the Obama's. Specifically I was asked: "I have to ask, why do you hate the Obama's? It seems personal, not policy related. You even dissed (disrespect) their Christmas family picture."

The truth is I do not like the Obamas, what they represent, their ideology, and I certainly do not like his policies and legislation. I've made no secret of my contempt for the Obamas. As I responded to the person who asked me the aforementioned question, I don't like them because they are committed to the fundamental change of my/our country into what can only be regarded as a Communist state.

I don't hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America. They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same, Michelle Obama's raw contempt for white America is transpicuous.

I don't like them because they comport themselves as emperor and empress. I expect, no I demand respect, for the Office of President, and a love of our country and her citizens, from the leader entrusted with the governance of the same. President and Mrs. Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people. The Reagan's made Americans feel good about them-selves and about what we could accomplish.

His (Obama's) arrogance by appointing 32 leftist czars and constantly bypassing congress is impeachable.. Eric Holder is probably the MOST incompetent and arrogant DOJ head to ever hold the job. Could you envision President Reagan instructing his Justice Department to act like jack-booted thugs?

Presidents are politicians and all politicians are known and pretty much expected to manipulate the truth, if not outright lie, but even using that low standard, the Obama's have taken lies, dishonesty, deceit, mendacity, subterfuge and obfuscation to new depths. They are verbally abusive to the citizenry, and they display an animus for civility.

I do not like them, because they both display bigotry overtly, as in the case of Harvard Professor Louis Gates, when he accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly, and her code speak pursuant to now being able to be proud of America. I view that statement and that Mind set as an insult to those who died to provide a country where a Kenyan, his illegal alien relatives, and his alleged progeny, could come and not only live freely, but rise to the highest, most powerful, position in the world.

Michelle Obama is free to hate and disparage whites because Americans of every description paid with their blood to ensure her right to do that. I have a saying, that "the only reason a person hides things, is because they have something to hide." No president in history has spent over a million dollars to keep his records and his past sealed.

And what the two of them have shared has been proven to be lies. He lied about when and how they met, he lied about his mother's death and problems with insurance, Michelle lied to a crowd pursuant to nearly $500,000 bank stocks they inherited from his family. He has lied about his father's military service, about the civil rights movement, ad nausea. He lied to the world about the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address.

He berated and publicly insulted a sitting Congressman. He has surrounded himself with the most rabidly, radical, socialist academicians today. He opposed rulings that protected women and children that even Planned Parenthood did not seek to support. He is openly hostile to business and aggressively hostile to Israel .

His wife treats being the First Lady as her personal American Express Black Card (arguably the most prestigious credit card in the world). I condemn them because, as people are suffering, losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements, he and his family are arrogantly showing off their life of entitlement - as he goes about creating and fomenting class warfare.

I don't like them, and I neither apologize nor retreat from my public condemnation of them and of his policies. We should condemn them for the disrespect they show our people, for his willful and unconstitutional actions pursuant to obeying the Constitutional parameters he is bound by, and his willful disregard for Congressional authority.

Dislike for them has nothing to do with the color of their skin; it has everything to do with their behavior, attitudes, and policies. And I have open scorn for their constantly playing the race card.

I could go on, but let me conclude with this. I condemn in the strongest possible terms the media for refusing to investigate them, as they did President Bush and President Clinton, and for refusing to label them for what they truly are. There is no scenario known to man, whereby a white president and his wife could ignore laws, flaunt their position, and lord over the people, as these two are permitted out of fear for their color.

As I wrote in a syndicated column titled, "Nero In The White House" - "Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader.

He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequaled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood.

Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation, and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement - while America 's people go homeless, hungry and unemployed.
 
How to lie your way into taxing the Americans by tricking them into thinking Schneller and others that Obamacare is good for everyone:

Obama and Emanuel Told Staffers to Brush up on Gruber's Fake Numbers

By M. Catharine Evans


Sources told Politico's Mike Allen in November 2009 that Obama was so keyed up about a Ron Brownstein blog post at The Atlantic's political website that he made it mandatory reading for the West Wing.

What was so urgent about Obama's must-read that his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, assigned the article as homework at a White House meeting and, according to an administration official, told senior staffers "not to come back to the next day's meeting if they hadn't read the article"?


Here's Brownstein's opening line in the November 21, 2009 piece, entitled "A Milestone in the Health Care Journey":



When I reached Jonathan Gruber on Thursday, he was working his way, page by laborious page, through the mammoth health care bill Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had unveiled just a few hours earlier.


After wading through 2,600 “laborious” pages, Brownstein wrote that Gruber was elated the Reid bill included everything he thought of doing in "bending the cost curve."

At the same time, Talking Points Memo writer Christina Bellatoni, like Politico's Allen, noted that Obama considered the Brownstein article such a stellar summary of cost controls that his enforcer Emanuel threatened to ostracize staff members if they didn't read it.

Days later, on November 28, 2009, Politico's Mike Allen followed up with another post, titled “MIT analysis backs Obama.”

Allen wrote that it was Gruber's "microsimulation analysis” that gave the Democrats ammunition against Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's assertion that the bill would mean “higher premiums, higher taxes, and massive cuts to Medicare." Gruber's report concluded just the opposite, that the bill would ensure that Americans would pay less out-of-pocket costs for better coverage.

Six years later, the results are in, and now we know from Gruber's own admission he found a way to game the CBO numbers in order to get Obama's signature law passed. Consequently, Obama’s demand that senior staff get up to speed using Brownstein's November 21 health care primer makes perfect sense. As the Senate began debating the health reform bill, Gruber's figures were front and center. Obama and his nest of progressive loyalists had too much at stake to risk a White House staffer not getting the MIT professor’s lies straight.

Conclusion? Obama is in this massive trillion-dollar fraud up to his dead, cold eyeballs.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...#ixzz3JPIRaVvi
 

Back
Top Bottom