Stanek Sunday funnies 2-17-13
Here are my top five favorite cartoons for the week that was. Vote for your favorite at the bottom of the post.
by Robert Ariail at Townhall.com…
by Gary McCoy at Townhall.com…
by Jack Ohman at GoComics.com…
by Michael Ramirez at Townhall.com…
by Walt Handelsman at GoComics.com…
“Kindergarten” liberals, as even one of their own, Kirsten Powers, called them on The O’Reilly Factor, had fun mocking Republican Marco Rubio for taking a sip of water during his State of the Union response. But Rubio is being more than a good sport about it, raising funds off the jokesters…
[polldaddy poll=6903032]
Feb.17, 2013 9:55 am |
Cartoons |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I’m officially never going on a cruise!
Still trying to understand how this drinking wagter thing counts as news.
Love your funnies! The “white smoke” projection desk is so on target! Just this morning, on the news (I think it was HLN,) the anchor asked about the Papal election, “What can Americans do to make an American more electable?” I laughed and shook my head.
I love the Rubio water bottles. I’ve been giggling about them all week. I’m so getting one. :D
I know there are not any funnies about Obamacare this weekend but I also thought of the weekly Sunday Funnies as open for discussion of other issues that come up each week. The wheels are coming off Obamacare. Under the new mandate employers are not required to cover dependents or offer family plans and neither are Obamacare exchanges. What a freaking joke. Don’t blame me. I voted McCain and then Romney.
http://nation.foxnews.com/obamacare/2013/02/11/obamacare-wheels-are-coming
Rubio’s drink of water didn’t bother me. His characterture of President Obama, on the other hand, disqualifies him for public office.
“Presidents in both parties – from John F. Kennedy to Ronald Reagan – have known that our free enterprise economy is the source of our middle class prosperity.
But President Obama? He believes it’s the cause of our problems. That the economic downturn happened because our government didn’t tax enough, spend enough and control enough. And, therefore, as you heard tonight, his solution to virtually every problem we face is for Washington to tax more, borrow more and spend more.”
That, my friends, is some crazy talk.
Oh, don’t forget the kooks at WND don’t think he’s a “natural born citizen.”
“His characterture of President Obama, on the other hand, disqualifies him for public office”
So it is written so it shall be, thus saith HAL!
sorry, U0104, I should have added “in my opinion.”
Hal, I agree that nobody can tell exactly ‘why’ a person behaves a certain way; so Rubio can’t know for sure that Obama is against free-enterprise intentionally or wether Obama is just implementing laws that are working against free-enterprise by accident. I see Obama taking money out of the the free enterprise and putting it in the government coffers for distribution. Why do you think Rubio claimed that president Obama is working against free-enterprise?
Truthseeker, I see some of the lowest tax rates of the last 100 years. What are you talking about?
Rubio was pandering to what he thinks is his base. They continue to feed on myths fed to them by Fox News and the right in general. It’s one of the reasons Romney lost, despite a weak economy and a vulnerable president. He wasn’t content to just run against Obama, to say he had better ideas, or point out policy differences, he decided to create a “fake Obama,” who is somehow out to destroy America and doesn’t believe in the same things that us “real Americans” believe in. He, therefore, lost all credibility because the voters by and large know, whether they support Obama or not, that he’s a decent man trying to do what’s right. So, Romney, and now Rubio, look like they can’t be trusted to observe reality and comment on it. The sad thing is, they would still get 47% of the vote, because enough voters just want a Republican, no matter how unhinged.
Hal – good post. Yes, the GOP still doesn’t get it.
“Truthseeker, I see some of the lowest tax rates of the last 100 years. What are you talking about?”
Hal, you need to find a way to live outside of your Obamamania bubble. People like are much better at agreeing with Obama so you can here it from his own lips and you tell me if did not INTEND to bankrupt the coal industry and drive up electricity rates to put them out of business. How in your mind do you see Obama himself admit to this and yet you deny he attacks free-enterprise so that he can promote cronies like Solyndra and battery makers and whatever else HE decides should get an advantage in the market. I can’t stop you from believing and saying Obama is not against free-enterprise so I will just post proof, a link of Obama explaining that his energy is to use a cap and trade policy that will regulate the coal industry into bankruptcy. And you can keep denying it. You are about 1000 Kool-aids south of brain dead.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpTIhyMa-Nw
truth –
That was a cute little rant, but you didn’t really say anything related to Hals’ post.
Let’s take now compared to 1988 – or 1995 - who is paying more in taxes?
truthseeker — yes, the wheels are coming off of ObamaCare, and perhaps a little sooner than expected.
But this is not a cause for rejoicing. The liberal elitists never expected Obamacare to succeed. To them, it was never more than interim technology leading us to the utopia of single-payer, socialized medicine. With socialists still in charge of the Senate and the White House, they are hoping for a crisis to solve.
Del –
We already have socialized medicine for all in this country – we just do it in the least efficient way possible (waiting for people to get very sick and then paying for them, if they don’t have insurance).
Regardless, I’ve always seen reform as a bandaid for the inevitable (single payer system). Unless society decides to literally let people die if they don’t have coverage, then you have universal coverage -and if the government is dishing out universal coverage already, it is in their best interest to make it more efficient.
Ex-RINO, Hal’s rant was about Rubio accusing Obama of being against free-enterprise? He didn’t get it. I am already ‘getting it’ at $3.69 a gallon for gas. Maybe you will start getting it too when gas prices hit $5 a gallon.
I paid about $4 under Bush for a while – so he was even more against free enterprise than Obama?
It continues to amaze me that republicans, ones that vote and even own computers, believe that the President has a lot to do concerning gas prices.
There is a difference between being against free-enterprise and being bad at it. The Republicans think Obama is bad at it but instead of saying that, they go right past rational to “he’s against the free enterprise system.” This is despite the fact that Obama (a moderate by any standard) has repeated said that he believes in private enterprise as the engine for our economy.
Here’s someone who makes the point better than I can (which I just found by googling:
There’s lots of reasonable disagreement over what’s the best policy for small businesses. But conservative elites like Jindal and, in this case, Carney, are working to convince their base that the Obama administration’s policies are animated by a dislike of, in Jindal’s telling, “private enterprise.” That is to say, we’re not having a technocratic debate about goals everyone agrees on, but an ideological debate of a kind we haven’t seen in this country since Eugene Debs was running for president.
There’s just no evidence for that. Obama’s policies throughout this recovery have been driven by a belief that Keynesian stimulus is the best way to stimulate the demand that both new and old businesses need to thrive. Most Republicans used to believe that — witness Bush’s 2008 “Economic Stimulus Act” — and they’ve turned on that belief during the last two years. Why they’ve turned on that belief is an interesting question. But Obama’s policies only make sense if you understand that his administration as trying to support businesses through this period, rather than if you imagine them as hostile to the very idea of business. The conservative effort to paint the Obama administration as somehow anti-private enterprise, however, doesn’t make sense at all, at least not as a description of reality.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/is-obama-anti-free-enterprise/2012/06/15/gJQAFvaNfV_blog.html
Del, Is it still possible that Obamacare is such a cluster-failure that people will come to their senses and reject the notion of government providing their health care? Government healthcare never did poll favorably did it?
“I paid about $4 under Bush for a while – so he was even more against free enterprise than Obama?”
Ex-RINO, Gas was less than $2 a gallon when Bush turned the presidency over to Obama. And the president can have a lot to do with the price of gas if he actively works to drive up gas prices and stops people from building new gas pipelines etc. We have Obama’s former Secretary of Energy just last year saying he thinks it would be good if gas prices in the US rose to European levels. But somehow you don’t want to blame Obama as being responsible for higher energy prices. You, like Hal, are about 1000 shits of Kool-aid South of brain dead.
truth -
If you understood economics more, you would find what you just said, one of the more humorous things I’ve ever seen on this board.
The reason gas was $2 a gallon when Bush turned over the presidency was because the economy was in a massive economic free fall. I’m not sure if you remember the last few months of Bushes term and into the first few months of Obama, but the economy nearly crashed. The $2 gas prices were nice, but it was quite the farewell present from what will hopefully by our last GOP president for quite some time.
Ex-RINO, your ability to just blatantly refuse to admit that Obama has a stated policy of WANTING the price of fossil fuel energy to skyrocket. He has a Secretary of Energy who had stated the same thing. I have posted links to them saying it so that you could watch them say it for yourself. But you cannot bring yourself to say about them, what they openly say about themselves. You are deluded.
I don’t care what a person WANTS to do. It is policy that matters, and it is long term policy. If some sort of gas tax came in, let me know.
Otherwise, I’d suggest you do some reading on the market and gas prices – it would be good for you to have a better understanding of how gas prices work.
Again though, thanks for the laugh and the fond remembrance of the last time the GOP held the office of the Presidency. When the economy lost about 5 million jobs in 9 months…yeah, good times. Thanks for that. The $2 gas was nice though – helped people save money on their way to pick up their unemployment check.
“I don’t care what a person WANTS to do”
Is that your way of agreeing that Obama WANTS to the price of fossil-fuel energy prices to skyrocket?
I have no idea – again, it doesn’t really matter. What matters is, you can’t point to any sort of tax or large piece of legislation.
What matters is, you don’t understand how gas prices work.
What matters is, you seemed to long for a time that it generally labeled as “the great recession”.
That’s what matters truth.
“Let’s take now compared to 1988 – or 1995 - who is paying more in taxes? ”
Ex-RINO, you have got to be freaking kidding me. How can I have a discussion about taxes with somebody who is unwilling to admit that Obamacare is even a tax. At latest estimates an Obamacare policy will cost businesses about an additional $7.20/hour per employee. OH, but we shouldn’t call that a tax or call that manipulating the free-enterprise market right? Sheesh!!!
If you accept that a reasonable goal is to reduce the amount of oil and gas we consume (for economic as well as environmental reasons), than higher prices are a way to achieve that goal. If you believe in supply and demand curves.
…and let me guess…your source for the $7.20 an hour is what, Fox political entertainment?
So for this year – who is paying more taxes? Give a profile.
Our business desperately wants government health care. We’re paying $10,000 per year per employee to provide heath care. Obamacare is not a tax on our business. In fact, it has made no difference whatsoever, except to prohibit the per-existing condition exclusion and to allow children to stay on their parents’ plan longer. Also, I think our premiums have leveled off in the past two years after many years of explosive growth.
Despite this, I’d love a reasonable tax we could pay in exchange for medicare for all. $500 per month per employee sounds like a bargain.
Hal -
Our business saw no increase in insurance premiums (it wasn’t just that the business decided to eat more – we saw NO increase from our providers).
Yes – if we could decouple insurance from employment – that would be a nice step.
Ironically, truth once supported Ryan’s plan, which supported turning people over from being covered by employers to being covered by individual plans…and now truth rails and yells anytime a company decides not to cover employees anymore.
I’m officially never going on a cruise!
Ex-GOP, I’ve been on several cruises and haven’t had any problems. I LOVE cruising. I’ve been to the Bahamas*, my future home, Bermuda (beautiful beaches but kind of boring) Key West (very colorful, but the beaches aren’t too nice) and Italy, Spain, and France. We saw the Coliseum, the leaning Tower of Pisa, which was absolutely amazing, Vatican City, etc. Barcelona was one of the most beautiful cities I’ve ever seen. Also visited the Marc Chagall Museum in Nice. He was one of the most brilliant artists of the 20th century, IMO. We met some very interesting people, too.
Anyway, thousands of people go on cruises every year with no problems. Don’t let this one ghastly incident dissuade you. I think you’ve mentioned you have young children, there are many cruise lines that have programs for children so mom and dad can relax and unwind.
I would like a Rubio bottle too, but in this extremely partisan city, I would have to keep it at home. I always joke with a friend that if I ever want to commit suicide, I should just walk into work with an IMPEACH OBAMA shirt on!
* You are all invited to visit my gorgeous beachfront estate in the Bahamas and stay as long as you like. Of course, I haven’t bought it yet because I haven’t one the Powerball yet. But ya never know . . .
I’m sorry, I meant I haven’t WON the Powerball yet. But when I do, I will send one of my private planes to pick you up!
“except to prohibit the per-existing condition exclusion and to allow children to stay on their parents’ plan longer.”
Obama says “it won’t cost taxpayers a dime. Hal says he would be happy to pay another $500/month per employee in taxes. Hal, would you be even happier if it cost your business $1000/month per employee? If it doesn’t, would you give all your employees a $500 month raise this year? If your business had that much profit then why didn’t you give everybody the equivalent raise in cash prior to Obamacare?
“I have no idea – again, it doesn’t really matter. What matters is, you can’t point to any sort of tax or large piece of legislation.”
Don’t you know how to use google Ex-RINO? The regulations causing energy prices to sky-rocket are not difficult to point to?????
http://www.governing.com/gov-data/energy-environment/coal-plants-to-shut-down-from-EPA-regulations.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/11/14/why-you-should-care-that-courts-overturn-epas-carbon-pollution-standard/
Obama never said “medicare for all” wouldn’t cost a dime. He has never even proposed a single payer system. All I know is that it would be great to separate health care from employment, and I don’t know why all employers are not demanding this. Health insurance costs have been hampering businesses for decades. All I was saying is that we’d be happy to pay some kind of health care tax if we were free from the (moral) obligation to provide heath insurance to all our employees. I was only guessing at the $500/month figure, but it seems that if every employer paid that, we’d have plenty of revenue to provide government health plan to everyone in America. WWJD?
Truth -
And again, the price of gas still isn’t as high as it was at a point in the Bush administration. So was he really big into regulations, or do you need to go back and understand the price of gas better? I’m not sure if you ever studied supply and demand – I would start with that.
Ex-RINO, ever hear of cause of and effect. When Obama intentionally causes the price of energy to skyrocket it doesn’t cause a temporary spike. Welcome to Obamanomics and gas prices that are not going down again. It is February and they are almost $4 a gallon. Don’t blame me.
Hal,
The cost of a policy under Obamacare policy on the exchange is estimated at $20k a year. And that still leaves your coworkers with co-pays and deductibles. Could you afford $1700 a month per employee?
truth -
Still waiting for the link on the $7.20 an hour figure.
Also, would like one on the $20K a year figure. I think I know where you are getting that stat, but I want to confirm.
truth -
I’m not blaming you.
Most of those I’ve read are blaming oil speculators who are driving up the price of oil. That seems like a reasonable place to put blame. There are also some general production issues at refineries slowing production.
Ex-RINO, Obama openly says he is trying to make energy prices skyrocket in order to reduce carbon emmissions; why don’t you give him any credit for rising energy costs?
truth -
Because I can’t find anybody credible that can point to anything that has been done to support what you are saying. Here are three articles within the past 6 months from pretty well known sources.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/on-energy/2013/01/02/refineries-are-to-blame-for-high-gas-prices
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/23/opinion/la-oe-yetiv-gas-prices-20120924
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/13/gas-prices-speculation_n_2676809.html?utm_hp_ref=business
What about the way Obama is always demonizing big oil and subsidizing oils competitors like ethanol and mandating the use ethanol? Doesn’t that end up increasing the cost of oil at the pump?
*water
Ony if there is actual action. Obama could stand on the White House lawn every day for a year and rail against big oil, but unless there are actual changes to economic policy, it isn’t going to do much.
And even then, most of the price of gas is tied to the price of oil, which is setup by global markets.
Very, very tough to bring down the price of gas – it could be rasied significantly through a gas tax.
Still waiting on those two health care links.
*Sigh* The day will come were I either learn to type properly or proofread my comments before I post them. That day was not today.
Or alternatively, I’ll start to make sure i don’t reread my own comments so as to avoid seeing the typos I’ve made and thus avoid being bothered by them.
So then you are saying that Obama’s stated policy of making fossil fuel energy costs skyrocket is a complete failure and hasn’t effected the price of energy?
I’m saying that there hasn’t been any policy passed down by Obama that has had much of an impact on energy prices – that the majority of the price is made up by other factors.
I’ve posted three links in support of that.
Still waiting for those other links on health care.
And do you also deny that the EPA’s regulations on carbon emmissions have had any effect on coal plants (causing them to shut down)or the price of electricity?
We’ve been talking gas prices – my car doesn’t run on coal – and I’m guessing yours doesn’t either.
I believe the $20k estimate was based on this latest IRS publication. http://www.irs.gov/PUP/newsroom/REG-148500-12%20FR.pdf Obamacare is such a cluster-failure and the regulations are so complex though that, like Pelosi said, we won’t really know how much it costs us until the IRS tells us how much we owe them.
That link isn’t working – please post the paragraph or section of what you are talking about. Thanks.
“We’ve been talking gas prices – my car doesn’t run on coal – and I’m guessing yours doesn’t either. ”
But you do have an electric bill don’t you?
And this is why I don’t generally debate health care with you.
We’ve been talking about gas prices – you brought it up first, and we’ve had post after post of gas prices.
Now you want to talk about electricity prices.
I’m willing to go there if you wrap up the gas prices and admit that you were overstating the effects of the president’s effect on gas prices and in fact, were wrong.
You can try the link in this article. For someone who claims to be keeping up on Obamacare though, why do you need me to point out the latest IRS estimates.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/irs-cheapest-obamacare-plan-will-be-20000-family
Truth –
First off, I wouldn’t shoot your mouth off when you’ve been completely whipped on your gas argument, and have a long history of posting wrong information.
I had seen this argument a while ago, and hinted at that fact when I asked you for a link – I just didn’t want to shell out a bunch of info if you were making up some other figure.
Costs for people on exchange will be linked to affordability, and will have factors such as smoking, age, deductible - all the things that exist now. Anybody claiming to know the price of plans is lying – the exchanges aren’t even built.
Two things to consider though:
– The scenario says ‘average’ – which means that cheapest would be far under, and some plans would be over, which makes sense because some people have pretty expensive plans.
– Affordability figures puts caps on what people can pay – this scenario is using a couple making $120K a year (not a great ‘average’ family to use, don’t you think).
Some more info on this scenario:
http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-myths.php
Ex-RINO,
You won’t even admit that Obamacare premiums collected by the IRS are a tax. Don’t you see that positions like that make you look the fool?
And if you want to call Obama’s stated policy goal of making fossil fuel prices skyrocket a failure you are entitled to your opinion. I think they are ‘working’ and I think energy prices are on their way through the roof.
Ex-RINO, just for future reference. How high would gas prices have to go before you would say Obama’s energy policy is working? Would $5 a gallon this summer move you?
Hal, 7:07PM
I can certainly understand your confustion. Be sure to click Part 1 when video comes up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HD09D5_U3DU&feature=iv&ann
Thanks Mary. Let’s hope we can get to single payer healthcare.
Hal,
I think you should instead hope Obama can get it straight as to what he even wants.
Oh my goodness truth – you certainly need to do some research. There are very limited things a President can do in the short term to affect gas prices. New taxes can kick it up – releasing from the strategic oil reserve can bring it down. But remember, we’ve been here before – Bush had gas prices around $4 a gallon, and I’m sure you wouldn’t say he was intentionally driving up prices.
I just think you should consider rounding out some of your news sources – wherever you get your info from is certainly letting you down.
“Bush had gas prices around $4 a gallon, and I’m sure you wouldn’t say he was intentionally driving up prices.”
Ex-RINO, It does matter what people say. Obama says he is promoting an energy policy that is ‘intended‘ to make energy prices skyrocket by bankrupting fossil fuel companies with regulation and taxes through cap and trade. And of course no sane person would say that about Bush cause he would never say that or promote those kinds of policies.
@Ex-GOP
I’m surprised that you allow this guy to use you and his unethical methods to reward his own ego.
Well said mp. Why does anybody allow Obama to reward his ego while we pay the price?
truth - she was making fun of you.
I would suggest that you do some research and better understand the difference between talking and legislation.
I’ve offered you the chance to post specific information regarding policies that would affect gas prices. You haven’t done so.
So I revert back to an earlier thought – essentially that talk does nothing. A politician can say that they want gas to be a nickle a gallon. They can also say they want it to be $20 a gallon. What matters though is legislation. I don’t care about what you believe people have said. I really don’t. Point to some legislation, and we can talk about that.
You still also haven’t supplied a link or source on the $7.20 an hour statement.
@Ex-GOP
It illustrates how people consciously and subconsciously ignore data that doesn’t confirm their world view. They’ll ignore it, just brush it aside, if it doesn’t fit and then change the subject.
Unfortunately, this type of thinking transfers to everything else they do, even in their personal decision-making concerning things that have absolutely nothing to do with politics. They end up wondering why things go wrong for them.
It reminds me of 2008, when many of us saw the market crash coming. For those thinking objectively, the data was speaking loud and clear. Others ignored it and claimed that those of us who saw it coming were “deluded.”
Sound familiar? Yeah, Romney by a landslide.
…and I meant to type ‘he’ – I mix up guys and gals on this site too often!
Lol truth I just have to post something that I think of every time I see one of you talk about Obama and his ultimate power over the gas prices:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzEnKdBAb_o&feature=player_embedded
I’ve offered you the chance to post specific information regarding policies that would affect gas prices. You haven’t done so.
OK Ex-RINO, lets start with offshore drilling permits/leases comparing Bush to Obama. I believe that would affect the price of gas. If you don’t agree that reducing the number of offshore drilling permits by 61 percent would affect gas prices then explain to me why. If you agree then we can move on to the next policy.
Jack, it would be a lot funnier if gas prices weren’t up over 50 cents in the last month.
mp, I am willing to admit that I make mistakes about predictions. Now you should admit that you make mistakes by supporting things like a government take-over of health care you ninkumpoop.
” I don’t care about what you believe people have said. I really don’t. ”
Ex-RINO, it is not a matter of what I ‘believe’. It is a matter of fact. Coal miners are getting laid off and coal mines are shutting down because Obama is using the EPA to regulate coal mines into bankruptcy. Obama said he would do it, and he is doing it. I do care what people say and what they do. Don’t blame me for rising energy costs. I voted for McCain and then for Romney.
Draw your own conclusions:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/02/19/Obama-Energy-Is-Going-To-Be-a-Little-More-Expensive
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/02/20/high-risk-insurance-pool-halting-enrollment.html
Hi X,
Come on, you don’t expect us to believe your source. Bad planning and management by the government? Unheard of.
Ex-RINO, At this time do you believe paying more for energy is less important or more important then skyrocketing energy prices?
Ex-RINO, would you be willing to pay twice as much for energy that had half the carbon footprint?
Would you be willing to go a step further and manipulate the free market by subsidizing green energy and mandating it’s use?
Those are not ‘bad’ things. But you also need to take responsibility for the negative affects of what you do. Like regulating coal mines into bankruptcy and driving up the cost of gas and electricity.
truth -
Working through your comments.
First you posted no citation in regards to permits. Regardless, permits aren’t much of a measure because oil production is the measure – it doesn’t matter if permits are issued if they aren’t used.
Domestic oil production under Obama is up after years of falling under Bush:
http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=us&graph=production
truth -
Your question – “At this time do you believe paying more for energy is less important or more important then skyrocketing energy prices?”
That is a bizarre question – the wording of it, and the ambiguity of it. What is “skyrocketing” mean? 5% increase? 20% increase?
Furthermore, you are asking what is more important, paying more for stuff, or paying more for stuff? What are you actually asking?
It’s like you asked if I cared more about paying more for milk, or having high prices for milk.
What the stink are you even talking about?
Odd question number 2 of the night:
Ex-RINO, would you be willing to pay twice as much for energy that had half the carbon footprint?
Depends. I could make a case for it – I could make a case against it. You don’t present enough information.
Third crazy question of the night:
Would you be willing to go a step further and manipulate the free market by subsidizing green energy and mandating it’s use?
Yes – I’m fine with that. Years ago, government invested in natural gas technology and helped companies out, and that is leading to big expansions now. Very little issue with it. Republicans subsidize oil companies all day long – why not invest in new technologies, because if we develop good things that lead to better stability long term, we’re all better off.
truth
Okay, I’ve answered questions of yours – here is one for you. You stated “At latest estimates an Obamacare policy will cost businesses about an additional $7.20/hour per employee.”
Please cite your source.
The first question was worded wrong so I understand your confusion.
The next question was me offering some positive affect from Obama’s policy of regulating fossil fuel production into bankruptcy. Namely less carbon footprint.
The third was about Obama manipulating the free market and picking winners and losers by subsidizing ethanol and mandating it’s use.
The last was telling you to take responsibility for the negative affects of what you do. Like regulating coal mines into bankruptcy and driving up the cost of gas and electricity. You should take credit for the positive effects and accept responsibility for the negative effects of what you do.
And you never responded to my post from yesterday at 11:55pm so I will post it again:
Ex-RINO said “I’ve offered you the chance to post specific information regarding policies that would affect gas prices. You haven’t done so.’
truthseeker said:
“OK Ex-RINO, lets start with offshore drilling permits/leases comparing Bush to Obama. I believe that would affect the price of gas. If you don’t agree that reducing the number of offshore drilling permits by 61 percent would affect gas prices then explain to me why. If you agree then we can move on to the next policy.”
I’m fine with that. Years ago, government invested in natural gas technology and helped companies out, and that is leading to big expansions now.
Years ago, government (Obama) “invested in” (subsidized) and helped out (paid off) solar energy companies, and that’s lead to nothing but bankruptcy after bankruptcy at the expense of literally millions of dollars.
truth/xalisae –
I’ll start with your 1:06 post and xalisae’s post this morning. All I’ll say is this.
I will 100% respect both of your opinions on this if you call an end to all government subsidies. When a person complains about Obama picking and choosing winners, I’ll throw it right back at you and say that you aren’t making an argument against subsidizes in general – you are simply not liking the funding.
NASCAR gets subsidies. Films get help (subsidies is getting too hard to spell over and over again!). Medicare Advantage gets government help (above Medicare). The oil industry gets government help. Sports stadiums get government help.
So let’s just clear things up – are you against ALL government investment into private companies (and are therefore against big oil’s breaks/medicare advantage/etc…) or do you simply have issues (or get cheap talking points) with some of the green companies that have been invested in?
truth –
I sort of answered your question on the permits before – but let me try a different way now.
I don’t think permits are the true measure. The problem is, a lot of permits are issued that are never acted on.
I think the truer measure is oil production. Now, I have a sinking suspicion that you don’t read many of the articles i post. I would beg you to read this one, simply because it quickly answers two of your questions – what makes up gas prices, and how is the US doing in oil production:
http://www.businessinsider.com/domestic-crude-production-and-gas-prices-2013-2
It is an article from this week, and it is from a neutral site.
If you don’t read it, or still want me to expound on my answer, let me know.
So you are saying that reducing the number of offshore drilling permits by 61 percent would affect gas prices because there are still other permits out there that haven’t been drilled yet. Then by your logic (which is no logic at all really) we could reduce the number of permits for building homes by 61% and it wouldn’t affect the availability or price of homes because there are still home building permits that haven’t been acted on. Really?
Nope truth – not suggesting that. I’m saying that there are a few things you need to factor:
1) First, it is a measure of new permits – not a measure of total drilling spots. The stat is that there have been much fewer permits handed out than under Bush. Permits are still increasing, and those permits from before are still out there. It’s like if I gave you $100, and then I gave you $50 more. You could say that I gave you 50% less money the second time around – but it was still an increase on top of what you had before.
2) If you look at oil production numbers (from the article I posted) – you’ll see we are producing more oil than ever. One of the odd things about the price of oil is, if you believe we are best off if all our oil comes domestically (I’m one of those people) – the high price of oil/gas is actually a very good thing. One, we’re producing and selling more cars that get good gas milage. Two, a lot of permits that were just being sat on are now being used because the high price of oil makes getting that oil worth it. When oil was $30 a barrel, it really wasn’t worth it for a lot of operations. At the prices it is now, it makes it worth it, thus the higher production. So permits – sure, that means a bit – but production is really what matters, and production is up.
3) In regards to the price of oil still (you say gas, but let’s start with oil) – again, if you read the article, price of oil is set by global demand. Producing more in the US isn’t going to do much (if anything) to gas prices. It is a good thing because it creates more jobs here, but it won’t affect the price of something when the price is set at a global level.
Make sense?
Still waiting on you for the $7.20 an hour figure.
– the high price of oil/gas is actually a very good thing.
OK, so you willing to admit that you agree with Obama and you are one of those people who thinks the high price of gas is a good thing.
truth – you left out the whole first part of my sentence.
It depends on what you are going for. A lot of economists and people who know more than you or I argue that for the long term stability of the country, high gas prices are good. Romney essentially argued that for years as well – he didn’t decrease the gas tax in Mass. when called to do that (when gas prices spiked in 2006 because he said high gas prices are here to stay and we shouldn’t encourage people to use more gas (I can provide the direct quote if you want).
Money drives behavior though. A lot of Americans actually pay less for gas now because instead of having hummers, they have hybrids. People are smarter about it. And we have more jobs in the US tied to oil exploration now. There’s even projections that the US will become independent (in regards to oil) in the future.
Enough questions from you though – here’s one for you on this topic.
If you had the choice between paying $4.00 for gas, but it all came from the US, or $1 a gallon but it all came from Iran or Venezuela, what would you choose?
So let’s just clear things up – are you against ALL government investment into private companies (and are therefore against big oil’s breaks/medicare advantage/etc…) or do you simply have issues (or get cheap talking points) with some of the green companies that have been invested in?
Romney said it best during the campaign: Is it worth borrowing money from China to fund? If not, take it off the table. That would remove 99% of subsidies/foreign aid/government contracts.
I notice you’re eerily silent about that high-risk pool closing article I posted. Duly noted.
xalisae – you didn’t say who that post was for – I figured it was Jack or Mary – I’ve really only engaged with truth lately on this thread, so I never read it. I’ll read it now though – just don’t get all snotty about it. Post a name if you want somebody to read it.
xalisae -
What’s your point on high risk pools? Do you think they should be better funded? Do you think they are a good idea or a bad idea? Do you think they never should have been setup? You really aren’t saying anything. I read the article. I have thoughts – but I don’t know why you even posted it.
$7.20 an hour times 30 hours per week time 52 weeks = $11,232.
If the employer previously covered 60% of a $8k insurance plan and and now is mandated to pick the lion’s share of an Obamacare policy that would easily reach that number. Throw in the overhead and legal and it probably costs them even more.
“$7.20 an hour times 30 hours per week time 52 weeks = $11,232.
If the employer previously covered 60% of a $8k insurance plan and and now is mandated to pick the lion’s share of an Obamacare policy that would easily reach that number. Throw in the overhead and legal and it probably costs them even more. ”
truth, source? Please?
truth – you said this: “At latest estimates an Obamacare policy will cost businesses about an additional $7.20/hour per employee.”
Now you are saying essentially that minimum wage workers make $7.20 an hour?
Do you have ANY idea what you are talking about? Any at all? Or do you just come on this board, make stuff up, and hope that people don’t call you out on it?
How did your first statement turn into that explanation? Seriously odd. Interested to see the source you (don’t) post.
” Now you are saying essentially that minimum wage workers make $7.20 an hour?
Do you have ANY idea what you are talking about? Any at all? Or do you just come on this board, make stuff up, and hope that people don’t call you out on it? ”
I don’t think he’s trying to say that minimum wage workers make 7.20 an hour. I think he’s just trying to expand on his first (unsourced) statement about the costs to businesses for Obamacare.
But honestly I am rather confused at this point so idk.
What’s your point on high risk pools? Do you think they should be better funded? Do you think they are a good idea or a bad idea? Do you think they never should have been setup?
I think they were foolish to begin with, and anyone who thought the government would magically somehow be able to cover everyone, kiss everyone’s boo-boos and make them all better through the power of pennies from heaven is naive beyond words.
I don’t think “they should be better funded”-I don’t think they should exist as a government fixture AT ALL.
Bad idea.
They never should’ve been established in the first place, but you know that’s my position, because I’ve already told you before. This was not a job for government. This never was. It was and still is a job for non-profit charitable entities.
“I don’t think he’s trying to say that minimum wage workers make 7.20 an hour. I think he’s just trying to expand on his first (unsourced) statement about the costs to businesses for Obamacare.”
Bingo Jack.
Ex-RINO, An additional $7.20 sounds like a reasonable estimation of the cost incurred to provide an employee with one of those overpriced Obamacare policies. Help me out with a question about price fixing. Price fixing is setting a maximum price they will pay for medication or medical procedures. What good is Obamacare’s no lifetime cap’ policy if they can deny you care anyway by saying it costs too much?
So that’s a number you just decided sounds good???? Omg, truth, I like you buddy but you can’t expect to have an actual debate if you are just claiming things that you believe sound reasonable, rather than actual projections by reliable sources, and then expecting people to argue as if your random numbers are fact.
Oh, and Ex-RINO, celebrate those mandatory Obamacare free development reduction drugs and services. Heck, find out when the Sandra Fluke show is passing through Wisconsin and you can celebrate with her.
“So that’s a number you just decided sounds good???? Omg, truth, I like you buddy but you can’t expect to have an actual debate if you are just claiming things that you believe sound reasonable, rather than actual projections by reliable sources, and then expecting people to argue as if your random numbers are fact. ”
Jack, I didn’t just pull a number out of thin air. I did read it somewhere a week or so ago but can’t source the article for you. When it was questioned I extrapolated it myself on your behalf. Sure sources are important but reasonable people should be able to at least come close to agreement on simple math to make a “reasonable’ cost per hour estimate. The truth is what YOU think about the data that came from the source.
“Jack, I didn’t just pull a number out of thin air. I did read it somewhere a week or so ago but can’t source the article for you. When it was questioned I extrapolated it myself on your behalf. Sure sources are important but reasonable people should be able to at least come close to agreement on simple math to make a “reasonable’ cost per hour estimate. The truth is what YOU think about the data that came from the source.”
But the problem is, I can’t see where you got your number, however reasonable it may be. The math obviously works out the way you stated it, the problem is I have no idea how you came up with the 11K a year/ $7.20 an hour, what are you basing that amount of extra expenses a year on? What factors play into that? How do you know it’s about 11K a year and not 3K a year or 25K a year? What industries does this apply to? Does this include rates for part time employees that don’t get healthcare benefits through their employees, or is it just based on full time employees?
Do you see my issue here?
Jack, it was based on estimates that the average Obamacare policy will cost around $20k a year. If an employer picks up 60 of those costs then it is $12k on the policy cost alone without any other overhead.
This is pretty ridiculous truth, even for you. I’m disappointed – I’m okay with you having beliefs that I disagree with – that’s going to happen. I’m okay with you screwing up stats once in a while. Again, that’s going to happen.
But you said this: “At latest estimates an Obamacare policy will cost businesses about an additional $7.20/hour per employee”
Now:
– You can’t find a stat to support that
– You somehow believe this sounds reasonable because “an average policy will cost around $20K a year”.
But that doesn’t make sense unless you say that an average policy will cost $20K MORE a year because in your first quote you said it would RAISE the cost of healthcare $7.20 an hour.
From now on, can you let me know when you’ve actually got an argument, or when you are simply lying to try to bolster your point? It’s deceitful, and it’s wrong – and I don’t buy the argument that you “read it somewhere”. A little common sense should have been in order there.
What a joke – straighten up or stop wasting my time.
” But that doesn’t make sense unless you say that an average policy will cost $20K MORE a year because in your first quote you said it would RAISE the cost of healthcare $7.20 an hour.”
Ex-RINO, I know you are ‘logically challenged” so I should not be surprised that you are mathematically challenged too. I will try and keep it as simple as possible for you. Pre Obamacare businesses could choose from various policies and align the cost with what they could afford. If the policy pre-Obamacare cost $8k annually and now the policy choices available to them are $20k policies then they could be on the hook for a percentage of that extra $12k in mandated insurance coverage. I would crunch the numbers further for you like telling you that 80% of $12k is $9.6k. And I could tell you that Obamacare legal counselling and overhead to comply with the regulations and mandates is costing businesses an additional $2.4k a year per employee but I don’t want to confuse you. Did you know that $9.6k plus $2.4k is equal to $12k and that $7.2 an hour at 30 hours a week equals $12k per year?
And of course, no source. No source for the 8K, no source for the $20K, no source for the 2.4K.
You make crap up. It is called lying.
The company I worked at say 0% increase. In fact, the rise of spending has slowed to its lowest level in years:
http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20130107/NEWS/301079968
Again – don’t waste my time. I wouldn’t put a AA baseball player in the big leagues if they aren’t ready – and if you can’t get stats straight, and get your arguments together, then you should argue with people more at your level – not mine.
Ex-RINO, what league are you in? Certainly not the same league as legal scholars or judges because the SCOTUS declared Obamacare mandates to be a tax but you won’t even admit Obamacare mandates are taxes. Since you deem anything without a source to be a lie can you provide me a link to your source you used to determine Obamacare is not a tax. I’d like to know what source you deem to be more credible on tax law then the Supreme Court of the United States. Was it written by a member of Obama’s legal team?
“The company I worked at say 0% increase.”
Oh, did they get a waiver?
No waiver truth – private company.
But you should be happy to see that the number of insurance plan request for double digit increases has gone down dramatically - http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/02/23/health-insurance-company-requests-for-double-digit-premium-increases-plummeting-more-proof-obamacare-is-working/
More proof that health care reform is working.
Medicare spending is also slowing, which is great news. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-24/medicare-spending-slows-as-hospitals-improve-care-peter-orszag.html
You’d notice these things if you weren’t making up stats to use – if I were you, I’d go to some new websites, and actually read some articles. Learn a few things.
FYi for anybody still on this thread…the $20K number truth kept running with was wrong the whole time – interesting story on the spreading of misinformation.
http://www.healthinsurance.org/blog/2013/02/26/why-is-it-that-the-truth-never-goes-viral/