|Unlike Barack Obama, Idi Amin loved the little people. Sometimes he even had seconds.|
Ken Klukowski, senior legal analyst for Breitbart News: "Obama's Insurance 'Fix' Is Unconstitutional"
Obama said he would allow insurance companies to keep offering previously-offered insurance plans that Americans would like to keep. Nobody knows if this means all plans, or only some of them, and how the White House will make such determinations. He says he has enforcement discretion to make this change to the Affordable Care Act unilaterally, without consulting Congress.
This is a frightening claim of a sweeping power that is completely inconsistent with the Constitution. A president has prosecutorial discretion to prioritize which lawbreakers to prosecute in federal court, but there is no enforcement discretion to determine which laws on the books he will enforce.
Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution commands of every president: "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." Like every provision in the Constitution, it has a legal meaning and that meaning is the Supreme Law of the Land, which Congress, the courts, and yes, each president is bound by his oath of office to follow carefully.
But what do the veteran assholes on this blog know? We only ante'd up our very lives to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States. When my hand was in the air I don't remember making an oath to protect the President's signing statements or other Executive caveats. Democrats are beginning to panic. The President has already resorted to selective enforcement of the ACA to push out the real big pain past November 2014. The Republicans need to stop trying to "improve" Obamacare piecemeal and just let the American People who voted for this hopey changey stuff get it good and hard.
If you like your laughter, you can keep your laughter.
Legal meaning in the Constitution? That old white rural document?ReplyDelete
Simply transcend it.
Or just follow 3/5ths of it.Delete
When my hand was in the air I was still half-drunk, and thinking "what the fuck am I doing here?"ReplyDelete
As for the "constitutionality," we've all seen Obama in action; I'll guarantee that the necessary authority is in the Bill.
Naw, he's not that smart.Delete
You have a duty to join Miss T's coup, Rufus, you swore, half drunk or not!Delete
smarter than you, anyone, everyone anonymous.Delete
'he' has a name
"But what do the veteran assholes on this blog know? We only ante'd up our very lives to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States. When my hand was in the air I don't remember making an oath to protect the President's signing statements or other Executive caveats. "
Does this mean you are plotting a coup Miss T?
(NSA is listening - say no)
Regime change, starting November 2014 at the ballot box.Delete
I am, and have been for a long time, strongly Pro-Renewable Energy, and Pro-HealchcareReplyDelete
I am, also, strongly anti- stupid wars in the middle east.
I think I'll stay with Obama.
Obama is not running for reelectionDelete
Hillary or McCain ...
Yep, the 'Best and the Brightest' in all the land
Which will deliver 'Regime Change'?
The American People and MSM Prevented a Stupid Intervention in Siriya.Delete
Obama's Red Line Was Crossed.
The American People, yes.Delete
The MSM, Naw. They really, really, really wanted their "Shock and Awe II." I thought Andrea Mitchell was going to cry when it went down.
"I am, and have been for a long time, strongly Pro-Renewable Energy, and Pro-HealchcareDelete
DougFri Nov 15, 06:51:00 AM EST
Rufus IIThu Nov 14, 09:33:00 PM EST
it cost the global industry 39 times as much money to add one barrel of increased cumulative production from 2005 to 2012, as they spent to add one barrel of increased cumulative production from 1998 to 2005.
Rufus IIThu Nov 14, 09:35:00 PM EST
Man falling from 100 Story Building, as he passes the 5th floor:
"So Far, So Good" :)
What has the great and wonderful Rufus done to reduce his reliance on oil, coal, and etc?
Other than to spout a bunch of stuff about the wonders of Ethanol and buy a Flex Fuel Large Car?
I'm 100 percent PV for electricity, Solar Water, and fill up the 98 Carolla's 11 Gal tank about 5 times a year.
Pure Gas, thank you.
DougFri Nov 15, 06:52:00 AM EST
Rufus may sell, so that gives him license to remain a hypocritical sell-out.
DougFri Nov 15, 06:57:00 AM EST
...Solar Water Vendors need not inquire within.
It's a Mid-size car, thank you.Delete
And, being from the rural south I must, of necessity, drive more miles than you; but, I still use less petroleum (about 50 gallons.)
I am, and have been for a long time, strongly Pro-Renewable Energy, and Pro-HealchcareDelete
I am strongly pro-free Mac Air, free Pink Unicorns, and I want to fit into my original confirmation dress too.
I bet you're strongly in favor of that tax break that your state just gave to Boeing. What was it, $8 billion, or so?Delete
If Patty Murray is fer it I'm agin it. I am, after all, a Libertarian.Delete
LONDON (Reuters) - World shares climbed back towards five-year highs on Friday as markets cheered a robust defense of the Federal Reserve's money printing by Janet Yellen, ...ReplyDelete
1999 QE Infinity!Delete
Party on Dudes, and Dudettes!Delete
Seems QE is all upside...Delete
If the banker in a game of Monopoly gave every player another free $1500 in the middle of the game that would be all upside too, until negotiations began for properties.Delete
Secret Service officials reportedly accused of misconduct in 17 countriesReplyDelete
Secret Service officials are being accused of recently engaging in sexual misconduct and other indiscretions in a total of 17 countries, according to a report Friday in The Washington Post.
The paper reported that the claims were made by whistleblowers to a Senate committee. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., top Republican on that Homeland Security subcommittee, told the Post that the accounts contradict claims made by Secret Service leaders that the agency does not allow such behavior.
The shocking allegations follow the April 2012 incident where a number of agents were caught drinking and seeing prostitutes while on assignment in Colombia.
The Post also reported this week that two supervisors were removed from President Obama’s detail and are under investigation for alleged sexual misconduct. The paper reported that two senior supervisors at the agency, Ignacio Zamora, Jr., and Timothy Barraclough, were found to have sent sexually suggestive emails to a female subordinate
Join the Secret Service, Fuck da World.Delete
MSNBC's Maddow on Patterson’s rape and gun case: 'How can this possibly be?'ReplyDelete
By DAN POPKEY
Liberal talk-show host Rachel Maddow used Idaho and the strange case of Boise GOP Rep. Mark Patterson to decry a generational change in national policy on guns.
Maddow chose Patterson for her lead segment Wednesday night, calling the story “the most bizarre news of the day.” After lightly touching on the poor record of signups in the opening month of the health insurance exchanges, Maddow quickly moved on to 12 minutes on Patterson. (Scroll to bottom of story to watch Maddow's segment on Patterson)
Maddow carefully went through the details of Patterson having been stripped of his concealed weapons license by Ada County Sheriff Gary Raney for Patterson's failure to disclose he had a disqualifying record: a 1974 felony guilty plea for assault with intent to commit rape.
“Boise has to be mortified by this guy,” said Maddow. “In any normal world this is the time where the guy steps down to spend more time with his family.”
Instead, Maddow recounted how Patterson has assailed Raney for targeting him over a failed gun rights bill. “This whole ruckus now is just The Man coming for his guns in retaliation,” Maddow said in describing Patterson's response.
Maddow then showed video of President Ronald Reagan, who was shot in 1981 and in 1988 signed the Undetectable Firearms Act. The law expires next month. She also showed an ad pressing Congress to extend Brady Bill background checks to all gun sales.
Maddow incredulously explained how Patterson, as one of more than 3,000 elected officials in Idaho, can continue to carry a concealed weapon without a permit because the 1990 Legislature exempted them from the licensing requirement. (She didn’t mention that Patterson has lost the right to carry in 29 states that have reciprocity agreements with Idaho.)
“Do you want to know how this story ends?” she said. “The guy gets to keep his guns!”
Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2013/11/13/2868538/watch-a-report-about-mark-patterson.html#storylink=cpy
Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2013/11/13/2868538/watch-a-report-about-mark-patterson.html#storylink=cpy
Ms Maddow passing on the Federal funds in the backstory, focuses upon the 'gun' and 'rape' aspects of the Patterson story ...Delete
Salacious stuff, coming out of Idaho.
Rape and corruption, the order of the day.
The norm for Idaho, just now seeing the 'light of day'
If only Patterson had respect for women he'd have avoided this mess, but that seems to be lacking in men that self-identify as Republican Idahoans.
Maddow could do 44 minutes covering a puppet show, the numbers she gets.Delete
Rufus is the most abject fraud, through and through, that I have ever had the displeasure of encountering.ReplyDelete
...only because I've never communicated w/Barrack Hussein Obama.
Import and Export Prices are down 2.0 and 2.1 percent YOY, respectively.ReplyDelete
We're dancing perilously close to Deflation.
Thanks to OBAMAS deflationary job and economy killing actions, that not even QE Infinity has been able to overcome.Delete
Deflation sounds pretty good to me right now, what with gas at 3 bucks and my health care premiums going up.Delete
The bubble will burst sooner, or later, with greater damage.Delete
One thing that has never failed throughout history is bubbles eventually busting.
You just had a double(?) mastectomy. If it weren't for your Group Insurance, or Obamacare, in case you lost your job, you wouldn't be able to buy health insurance, now.Delete
5 Million plus have lost their insurance.Delete
Obama put off the 30 million or more that WILL lose their policies by changing the law for a year, outside his Constitutional authority.
Using hypothetical individual cases to try to argue for a disastrous policy for over 300 million is...Delete
Consider the source.
How do you know the President did not have, doe not have, the authority, Doug?Delete
Have YOU read the ACA? Ms Pelosi never did.
Neither of you know ....
"What's in there"
You're just making up numbers, dude. As for his Constitutional Authority, there is obviously verbiage inside the bill that gives the Administration authority to DELAY whatever aspects of the bill that they wish to put off for, at least, one year.Delete
One year from Oct 1, 2013 is Oct 1, 2014. That works.Delete
Rufus, my insurance is through a co-op, like a credit union. I am a co-owner along with the doctors and nurses, and there are no shareholders insisting on maximum profits.Delete
Ada sheriff alleges ethics violation against Reps. Patterson, BoyleReplyDelete
Gary Raney says the Idaho attorney general’s services were used for ‘personal benefit.’
In an email to House Speaker Scott Bedke, Ada County Sheriff Gary Raney says Reps. Mark Patterson and Judy Boyle used taxpayer-funded legal advice to contest Raney’s revocation of Patterson’s concealed weapons license.
Patterson and Boyle have called Raney’s revocation of the license “retaliatory,” after Raney and Patterson clashed over a gun-rights bill authored by Patterson early this year.
Patterson and Boyle did not reply to requests for comment Tuesday. But Boyle told the Statesman on Nov. 1 that she asked for the attorney general’s help on behalf of constituents, not Patterson.
On Aug. 1, Boyle asked Attorney General Lawrence Wasden questions about the concealed weapons law. The opinion supplied to Boyle on Aug. 21 by Deputy Attorney General Paul Panther was cited by Patterson in a sheriff’s hearing in late August.
“Because Rep. Patterson procured and used this advice for his personal benefit, this is a violation of the Ethics in Government Act,” Raney wrote Bedke on Oct. 31. The ethics law provides for civil penalties of up to $500 for using public office for personal gain.
Raney also said that if Patterson, R-Boise, “used deception” to obtain the attorney general’s legal advice for his “personal benefit, he committed a crime,” citing Idaho Code, 18-2403 (5) (a), which defines theft through deception.
Raney also said that if Boyle, R-Midvale, knowingly obtained legal advice for Patterson’s personal benefit, she committed a crime, citing 18-2403 (5) (c), which defines theft through diversion.
The Statesman obtained Raney’s complaint Tuesday under the Public Records Law. Most of the two-page document was blacked out to remove information regarding the concealed weapons license application that Raney said is exempt from public disclosure.
Boyle’s Aug. 1 letter asked Wasden three questions: What penalties apply to violations of the confidentiality of the concealed weapons permit process? What crimes or withheld judgments would disqualify an applicant from a license? Are all the questions on the application form authorized by law?
Patterson and his attorney, Wade Woodard, say Raney violated the Public Records Law by telling the Statesman he ordered Patterson’s license revoked on Oct. 29. Woodard also argues that the withheld judgment cited by Raney is not grounds for revocation. Patterson received the judgment in Florida in 1974, after pleading guilty to assault with intent to commit rape.
In the Nov. 1 interview, Boyle said questions about the penalties for violating confidentiality are “something that my constituents have asked me through the years.”
“She already had it in the works,” said Patterson in an Oct. 31 interview.
On Nov. 1, Boyle said she learned “in the last few days” from Patterson that Raney was moving to revoke his license. Raney began the process May 22.
Boyle said constituents also asked when a withheld judgment would disqualify an applicant.
“Does that last forever or does it end when you’ve paid your due (and completed the terms of sentencing)?” Boyle said. “It’s kind of unclear.” Boyle said she questions whether such a sentence should bring a lifetime ban.
Deputy Attorney General Panther told Boyle there are no criminal penalties for officials who release details of exempt records. Any civil action, he said, “would be heavily dependent on the facts of a specific case.”Delete
Assault with intent to commit rape is a serious felony that would exclude issuance of a license, Panther wrote.
Panther said one question should be removed from the form: “Have you previously applied for a concealed weapon permit in Idaho?”
NO VETTING REQUESTS
House Ethics Committee Chairman Lynn Luker, R-Boise, declined comment. Bedke was working on his ranch in Nevada on Tuesday and was unreachable. Bedke has acknowledged receipt of Raney’s email, but only complaints from House members can trigger an Ethics Committee inquiry.
Attorney general’s spokesman Bob Cooper said ethics matters are the business of the House. Any criminal charges would be the responsibility of the county prosecutor, Cooper said.
Cooper also said it’s not Wasden’s job to police legislator requests. The law says it is the attorney general’s duty to give written opinions to any legislator or statewide elected official “upon any question of law relating to their respective offices.”
Said Cooper: “There’s nothing in the statute that provides for the attorney general to make an assessment of the motivations of a legislator. It says they ask a question, you give the answer.”
As one of more than 3,000 elected officials exempt by Idaho law from the licensing requirement, Patterson may carry a concealed weapon as long as he remains in office. His first two-year term ends Dec. 1, 2014. Absent a license, however, he would lose his right to carry in 29 states with reciprocity agreements with Idaho.
“... And the truth shall set you free.”ReplyDelete
Rep. Mark Patterson is in public opinion jail, where constituents hold the keys and voters will arrange for any pardons and releases.
We think Patterson belongs there and we believe the only way he is going to get out is if he decides to surrender himself to complete transparency about his life — especially regarding criminal activity.
He is the person who decided to enter politics and become a public figure and project a patriot/family man image. He is the person — the only person — who knows the depth and breadth of his past.
We need full disclosure about his mysterious past in order for any kind of relationship to continue.
Patterson, a Republican and freshman member of the Idaho House from District 15 in Southwest Boise, has some explaining to do about rape charges earlier in his life in Florida and Ohio, about misrepresenting himself and his credentials in campaign materials in 2012, and being vague about other things the public now questions about his ability to tell the truth.
He has been remanded to public opinion jail because of what has come out after Ada County Sheriff Gary Raney moved to revoke his permit to conceal and carry a gun earlier this year. Raney did this because of Patterson’s previously undisclosed guilty plea to assault with intent to commit rape in a 1974 Florida incident. That makes him a felon on that count. He was acquitted of a rape charge in Ohio in 1977.
Though, at times, Patterson says his memory is failing (due to a medical issues and treatment) regarding details of the two rape charges, police reports speak loudly and clearly from the past. In the 1974 Florida incident, the alleged victim stated to police that Patterson used a dog to intimidate her and if “she did not do as he (Patterson) told her,” the 85-pound Doberman “would attack on command.”
Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2013/11/15/2870259/headline-goes-here-and-more-goes.html#storylink=cpy
Patterson’s family hired a private detective whom, he says, obtained a recording of the assault victim later recanting her rape charges. We would listen to that if it even exists and can be produced, but we would listen more closely to the details about where Patterson has lived since then and whether there is more troubling behavior in his past.Delete
Earlier this week, Patterson emerged from the fog of memory lapse he suffered from during an interview with Dan Popkey of the Statesmen (Oct. 31). Some frayed memory wires allowed him to craft a press release (Nov. 10) that said, “I had absolutely no sexual contact with this person whatsoever,” referring to the 1974 rape charge. He made this statement even though it contradicts what police say he told them on the day of his arrest, including Patterson’s graphic language about having sex that we won’t repeat here.
The memory-lapse-youthful-indiscretion story Patterson spins in his I-am-the-victim press release about the permit revocation, rape charges and conspiracies swirling about him will not get him out of public opinion jail. If he desires release, he must go before his constituents in an open forum and answer their questions about what went on in his life during and since 1974 — where he has lived, attended school and worked, and whether there have been any other run-ins with the law.
We deserve to know this because he has been awarded the sacred trust as a member of the Idaho Legislature.
We also are interested in the legalities involved in how the details of his gun permit revocation became public. But that is a separate issue and should provide no cover. Patterson must come clean about his past. If he can’t be truthful and forthright about that, what else matters?
We hope the House Ethics Committee moves to investigate Patterson. He still has his concealed weapon even after the revocation of his permit — a perk of being elected an Idaho lawmaker. If he chooses, he can continue to conceal his past.
But his sentence in public opinion jail will never end.
Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2013/11/15/2870259/headline-goes-here-and-more-goes.html#storylink=cpy
'FIX' COULD MAKE IT WORSE!ReplyDelete
More Navigators Exposed in New Video...
NYT: 'Crisis of Confidence'...
Obama slams lobbyists, then hires one...
KRAUTHAMMER: Why Liberals Are Panicked...
Bachmann: I lost my insurance...
Obamacare advocate poised to become next surgeon general...
Obamacare advocate poised to become next surgeon general...Delete
President thwarts Congress on Obamacare changes...
HOWARD DEAN: What legal authority?
Insurers: 'Fix' could raise costs...
HHS Admits Obamacare Plans Cost More 'In Many Cases'...
More Navigators Exposed in New Video...
NYT: 'Crisis of Confidence'...
Obama slams lobbyists, then hires one to help Obamacare...
Krauthammer: Why Liberals Are Panicked...
HOWARD DEAN: What legal authority?
Legal Authority: I don't need no stinkin legal authority!
The Constitution is nuthin but a bunch of negative rights.
Just ask Rufus.
Seriously doubt that Howard Dean read the ACA, even after it was signed into Law.Delete
A simple reading of the Judges finding in the law suit that challenges the ACA on "Origination" showed that it was pretty frivolous.
An opportunity for Fund Raising and Headline Grabbing, but without legal merit.
Another instance where the charges of"unConstitutional" were without foundation.
Whether this new round of charges has merit, or not, will have to wait on the specifics
Yeah, and Justice Roberts arbitrarily deeming Obamacare Constitutional make perfect sense.Delete
...to us commoners.
Roberts is a Beltway Cocksucking Disgrace.
It's a TAX, don'tcha know?Delete
Too bad the ACA didn't originate in the House as all taxes must.Delete
Judge Roberts was lauded, by you and others, as being a GREAT choice, back before he made any Supreme decisions.Delete
Now that he has, he has fallen out of favor..
It's just another day in paradise.
He is a great choice. Now he needs to vacate the ACA on the grounds it didn't originate in the House as all taxes must.Delete
All legislation that raises taxation DOES NOT have to originate in the House. As Panama Ed relates, the Federal Judge read the Bill, read the Constitution, and promptly said it, the challenge, was Nonsense.Delete
Bills that are not Primarily tax bills Do Not have to originate in the house.Delete
Even If they contain an Element of taxation.Delete
Wrong, Ms T.Delete
Not ALL taxes.
Under the Supreme Court’s precedents—sparse as they may be on this subject11—so long as the primary purpose of the provision is something other than raising revenue, the provision is not subject to the Origination Clause.
From the decision in Sissel v HHS
This comment has been removed by the author.Delete
You guys ought to read the "real" sources, not depend n pundits to do your thinking, analysis, for you.Delete
The Sissel decision is available on-line, in its entirety, you ought to read it.
Before commenting about it.
SCOTUS is set up precisely to decide whether lower level precedents are definitive. Roberts is playing the long game. The first ruling got the ball within putting distance of the hole. Obama will totally understand THAT metaphor.Delete
"There is nothing in the Affordable Care Act that said that your insurance company should cancel you," said Minority Leader Pelosi.Delete
In fact, the Affordable Care Act says that plans created after March of 2010 must be cancelled, and the law also gave the administration the authority to write regulations that forced the cancellation of some policies that existed prior to March 2010.
"Did I ever tell my constituents that if they liked their plan they could keep it?" Pelosi asked. "I would have if I'd ever met anybody who liked his or her plan. But that was not my experience."
In fact, Pelosi said in 2009: "If you like what you have, you can keep it." Pelosi's website still states: "Keep your doctor, and your current plan, if you like them."
Disgusting, Dishonest, Shriveled Up C...
Yo, Doug, the thing about bubbles is you never know if it really is a bubble until after it pops.ReplyDelete
But back in 2000, you kind of had a clue with the www.FreshLettuceDeliveredDaily.com IPO.Delete
And in 2007, with a $14,000 picker of fresh lettuce getting a $700,000 mortgage for a McMansion, that was a heads-up too.Delete
Anybody following Twitter?Delete
All I know is I'd pick the losing position, so I'm out.
Janet Yellen: No Equity Bubble, No Real Estate Bubble, And No QE Taper YetDelete
In her first public appearance as nominee to succeed Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, Janet Yellen faced the Senate Banking Committee, reiterating her intention to keep the monetary spigots wide open while rejecting the notion that we are seeing asset bubbles as a consequence of quantitative easing. Yellen noted there is “no set time” for tapering, implicitly admitted the Fed lost control of the market during the summer so-called taper tantrum, and agreed that investors buy gold to protect from “catastrophe.”
“It could be costly to fail to provide accommodation [to the market],” Yellen told Senators on Thursday, making it clear that she is a staunch supporter of quantitative easing and ultra-loose monetary policy. “This program can’t continue indefinitely,” she also added, noting the longer we have QE the greater the risk for financial stability, “and I look forward to leading when the time is appropriate for normalizing.”
Yeah, Wall Street, and Real Estate are in Freefall.Delete
(except the Jobs fall is real)
Both of them.
Rufus tells us so.
You are correct, Doug, under Obama the number of Federal employees has fallen.Delete
He has cut the ACTUAL number of Federal employees, not just cut the rate o growth.
So, yea, Obama is a job destroyer, in the Government sector.
He cannot tell the private insurance companies how many processors and phone operators to hire.
That really WOULD be un-Constitutional.
Farmer Fudd is right:Delete
As for the Real Estate market, if you have a 'solution' to the Depression in market values ...Delete
Really would like to hear it.
Who is Farmer Fudd, Doug?Delete
As Anonymous has written, many of the posts attributed to him are not his ...
40% or so, originate somewhere else.
Improvisational Blogging, every one is a character in the plot.
“They're called 'facts', Doug, and our role is to amplify those, not cheerlead.Delete
And I don't care at all what you think of my motives.”
Obama came up with Sequester, Pubs embrace it to control spending...Delete
All Bush's Fault in RatRufieWorld.
The Biggest Real Estate Market in the country, California, is going UP.Delete
...not the only one.
I'd bet on Texas too.
Not to mention North Dakota and Wyoming.
Pick and choose "Facts" as you will.Delete
False charges of cheerleading are just that:
The sequester the "Best" thing to come out of the "Tea Party" Congress.Delete
Then they ALL ran away from it.
None of the DC politicos have the courage of their convictions
Well, Doug, if you have counter facts, you should present them.Delete
But your norm is to spout opinion and claim that those opinions are facts.
Now, I love opinions. thrive on opinions.
But they are not facts.
If opinions are not fact based, they are easily busted.
Find some facts, change some minds.
Negative, ED, the sequester was a Donk initiative. Patty Murray was on the panel ramming it through. The strategy was to threaten what they assumed the GOP would consider sacrosanct, Defense appropriations, to pressure them to bend on other discretionary spending. The GOP said, in effect, "Great start, Mr. President, may we have more?" And the Donks caved. That's how I only spent 6 days on the beach rather than 22.Delete
AZ Real Estate is "recovering" from the ridiculous heights the city of broiling sand once stood.Delete
Hawaii, above previous highs.
Mommy in Tennis Shoes.
Al Queda is helping people with their roads, bridges, and etc.
As was the case with the study with regards where the rising costs of Health Care were generated.Delete
The increases were not Elderly centric.
Your predisposition was found to be faulty. What most of us "knew" was not factual.
Do you still have a link to that?Delete
I failed to read it at the time.
Hard to believe, but I'm willing to.
Sales volume Doug, not just the sale price averages have to be factored into total Market Value.Delete
Average prices may have recovered, volume of sales has not.
The market is still depressed, at least here.
The 'banks' are holding their assets, rather than selling, maintaining high book value where it does not really exist.
Limiting supply maintains higher price levels
Accounting tricks as it were.
In my opinion.
Which I think would be borne out by the facts.
No, that health care story was just of passing interest.Delete
The Sissel decision, I have pieces of that.
This one does not convince me.Delete
Me and my wife spent nearly nothing before age 60, likewise my folks, and everyone I know.
After 60: Look out!
"Accounting tricks as it were.Delete
In my opinion."
Free Fed Money, in my opinion.
One thing for sure:
More investors, fewer homeowners.
In 2012, household formation was 1/4 the historical average. In Atlanta, 70% of all sales last year were all cash; with the same trend found widespread by the NAR. There is a message in those numbers and it is not one of vibrant family home ownership.Delete
Taking the US as a whole, are there exceptions? Certainly. The real estate industry is not a monolithic one; but an exception to a rule does not negate the overall trend.
Similar stats here in AZ, allen.Delete
A little lower on the % paying 'All Cash', maybe 60%, so I've been told by folks I think would know.
How much control does the Fed have on the housing market? The current state of housing and the Federal Reserve. Fed now owns roughly 12 percent of home mortgages.ReplyDelete
The Fed is the housing market. That sentence is often thrown around but there is little hyperbole here. Since September of 2012, the Fed has essentially purchased all mortgage backed securities (MBS) issued. This is a massive deal for the biggest household debt market on the planet. The Fed started QE1 memorably on December of 2008 and this phase ended in March of 2010. QE2 started in November of 2010 and ended in June 2011. QE3 started in September and 2012 and has been dubbed “QE infinity” since the Fed is now essentially purchasing all MBS issuances with no stop date planned. The perception is that the Fed can fully control interest rates and to a certain degree this is true (or was true). But why did rates rise more than 100 basis points this year at the apex of Fed MBS buying? First, QE has been going on for nearly five years now. The “market” is fully manipulated. Looking back at the last half decade of data, we find that current Fed policy has been a boon for investors and has priced out many American households.
"The amount of MBS purchases is extreme. The Fed is increasing its balance sheet to nearly $4 trillion. There is no exit to this game and the market is starting to understand this. So far, the market has been consumed by investor buying to a level never seen. Last month it was still over 30 percent nationwide. Yet is this truly beneficial when all you do is create asset inflation without any subsequent rise in household incomes? It is no surprise then that over this QE experiment the actual homeownership rate has declined steadily."Delete
Regardless of who first mentioned the idea of Sequester was, Ms T, the "Tea Party" Congress passed it.Delete
If we went back and looked at who voted for it, we'd find bi-partisan voting on passage.
After the 2010 election we have been in the "Tea Party" Congress era.
Any legislation passed, is passed by the "Tea Party" Congress.
"So while US home prices are rising strongly because of this intervention and massive investor buying US household incomes are back to where they were a generation ago. For the millions of new renter households, rents are also up but on a stagnant stream of income, a larger portion of disposable income goes into housing. Not exactly the best use of money.Delete
This is the impact of Fed intervention in the current market. Investors love a riskless trade and easy debt. Since the Fed looks out for member banks, they were the first and largest party to benefit. However, many are realizing there is no exit planned for that $4 trillion in the Fed’s balance sheet. A 100 basis point jump in mortgage rates is not a small move especially when the Fed is the housing market."
The Fed is the banks, Doug, it is not the Government.Delete
It is not even audited by the Government.
"After the 2010 election we have been in the "Tea Party" Congress era.Delete
Any legislation passed, is passed by the "Tea Party" Congress."
Yep, Obama and Harry Reid's Senate had nothing to to with it.
Regardless of who first mentioned the idea of Sequester was, Ms T, the "Tea Party" Congress passed it.Delete
If we went back and looked at who voted for it, we'd find bi-partisan voting on passage.
Good for them, it's always good to reduce the size and scope of the Federal government.
"The Fed is the banks, Doug, it is not the Government.Delete
It is not even audited by the Government."
Yeah, Presidents and other Pols have zero influence on policy.
Senate Democrats are T Partiers.Delete
rat is crazy dementedDelete
somebody identified severe hypothyroidism in his early development
give him a break he can't help it
Farmer Fudd, he's the kind of Idaho Republican who climbed the ladder of success wrong by wrong.”Delete
And here we all were told time after timet he was a fascist!!Delete
A fuckin' fascist.
A fuckin' fascist farmer.
A fuckin' fascist farmer named Fudd.
When he was really an Idaho Republican all along.
Thanks for clearing that up for us all, Mae.
If you were really Mae West I'd invite you to come up and see me sometime.
But, you are just the obsessed and demented and professional asshole rat.
“Farmer Fudd, he had just about enough intelligence to open his mouth when he wanted to eat, but certainly no more.”Delete
rat is obsessed, dementedDelete
He is tiresome, repetitious, no one likes him, nearly all want him to leave, six or seven have declared him crazy, though they differ on the cause, he is frustrated, curses, and issues death threats and seeks attention.
Miss T could improve the blog by taking his threatening and profane and repititioius posts down.
Which would be most of his input.
Make it a better place.
My primary responsibility is to keep the threads under 200 posts. I will be going to the doctor today, but I have another post queued up and ready to go, if Deuce cares to publish at the 200 mark, or he can post one of his own. As for babysitting, I didn't like doing that in the Navy and I don't do it now. Apparently my only mandate is to remove posts by morons who google addresses or something.Delete
P.G. Wodehouse Fri Nov 15, 11:46:00 AM ESTDelete
“Farmer Fudd, he had just about enough intelligence to open his mouth when he wanted to eat, but certainly no more.”
That is so applicable to so many, usually those posting tens of thousands of monomaniac redundancies. For these poor souls all that matters is getting attention, even if that means well earned ridicule.
Men in general are quick to believe that which they wish to be true.
“Sometimes you can see things happen right in front of your eyes and still jump to the wrong conclusions.”
Some Idaho Republicans ARE fascists.Delete
Republicans are not exempt from fascism, fascism and Republicans, they are not mutually exclusive of each other.
A Fudd can be both Republican and fascist, the Farmer Fudd is both.
The Emperor’s New RulesReplyDelete
November 15, 2013 By Matthew Vadum 5 Comments
Stung by public anger and his rapidly plunging approval ratings, President Obama wants to delay the cancellation of existing health care insurance policies for one year.
It has nothing to do with the public interest. It has everything to do with crass political calculations.
As an electoral tsunami gradually develops that threatens to drown Democrats and give Republicans a healthy majority in the Senate, Democrats remain focused. They are clinging to the increasingly unlikely prospect of recapturing the House of Representatives in next year’s elections, a move that would allow them to ram through more America-killing legislation. This, of course, assumes the Democrats keep control of the Senate, something that at the moment seems quite impossible.
President Obama yesterday played out a tableau that could easily have come from Hans Christian Andersen’s “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” Obama preyed on the most gullible Americans, the lowest of low-information voters, putting on a show for their benefit.
But even Americans who can’t name the Vice President of the United States know something about Obamacare, so they are not likely to be easily manipulated.
Obama might have gotten away with such a dimwit-friendly tack but for the fact that everyone in the country knows Obama lied about Obamacare allowing Americans to keep their health plans and their medical doctors. In addition, too many people are experiencing real hardship as the Affordable Care Act causes their insurance to be canceled — and they know who to blame for their pain and suffering.Delete
In the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House, the president and press corps may as well have been surrounded by unicorns, leprechauns, and satyrs as Obama threw pixie dust in the air and waved his magic wand after mispronouncing incantations in Austrian.
Obama exposed the residents of all 57 states of the nation to his lies yet again, promising that even now Americans would be able to keep their health insurance plans if they liked them.
“I completely get how upsetting this can be for a lot of Americans, particularly after assurances they heard from me that if they had a plan that they liked, they could keep it,” Obama said in his by-now tiresome fake sympathy routine.
“And to those Americans, I hear you loud and clear. I said that I would do everything we can to fix this problem. And today I’m offering an idea that will help do it.”
Obama explained that a grandfather clause in the Affordable Care Act already allows people whose insurance plans don’t change to keep their plans. He didn’t bother to explain that that consumer protection measure is more or less moot because insurance plans change constantly.
“Today, we’re going to extend that principle both to people whose plans have changed since the law took effect, and to people who bought plans since the law took effect,” Obama said.Delete
Except that His Imperial Majesty is doing no such thing. While taking credit on live television for appearing to do something about the cancelation crisis caused by the Obamacare law, Obama passed the buck to insurers and state regulators.
The president said state insurance commissioners retain authority to decide which plans can be sold in their states and insurance companies “can extend current plans that would otherwise be canceled into 2014, and Americans whose plans have been canceled can choose to re-enroll in the same kind of plan.”
Except that they can’t. The Obamacare statute says they can’t and the economics of the situation won’t allow it. The legal infrastructure of the health care insurance market has been changed. Policies were canceled because they don’t subsidize all the new services that Obamacare mandates. Those policies no longer exist for a reason. Insurers can’t just push a button and bring them back into existence.
Stung by public anger and his rapidly plunging approval ratings, President Obama wants to delay the cancellation of existing health care insurance policies for one year.Delete
This after blaming the Republicans for shutting down the government over precisely that issue.
Obama’s bizarre pronouncement reflects leftists’ disdain and ignorance of market processes, and the president’s determination to proceed in defiance of those processes. A locomotive going 60 miles per hour can’t stop instantly when brakes are activated. Similarly, the Obamacare juggernaut has so many moving parts spread out over such a wide area that locking up one part of the beast won’t stop it from continuing to barrel forward.Delete
Continuing his lunchtime stroll through La-La Land, Obama said,
“We’re also requiring insurers to extend current plans to inform their customers about two things. One, that protections — what protections these renewed plans don’t include. And number two, that the marketplace offers new options with better coverage and tax credits that might help you bring down the cost.”
It’s pure fantasy, of course, but lying, stalling, misdirecting, and stonewalling have served the Obama administration well over its first five years. Besides, extravagant healthcare subsidies begin to kick in next year, and all that free money floating around is bound to calm at least some irate consumers.
When consumers find out they’ve been hoodwinked, the Left is counting on them to blame the corporate world. Obama and desperate Democratic lawmakers are already blaming insurance companies for en masse cancelations, and saying insurers should let consumers keep their plans, seemingly oblivious to the fact that all this upheaval was caused by the Obamacare law.Delete
Obama’s fanciful fix requires cooperation from insurance companies and state regulators, and so far he’s not getting it from either.
Health care insurers promptly slapped down Obama’s proposal and refused to accept the blame.
“This doesn’t change anything other than force insurers to be the political flack jackets for the administration,” said one insurance industry source. “So now when we don’t offer these policies the White House can say it’s the insurers doing this and not being flexible.”
“The only reason consumers are getting notices about their current coverage changing is because the ACA requires all policies to cover a broad range of benefits that go beyond what many people choose to purchase today,” said Karen Ignagni, CEO of America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP).
Mathew Vadum, the man who wants to limit freedom and liberty, hates poor people.Delete
Conservative columnist Matthew Vadum is just going to come right out and say it: registering the poor to vote is un-American and "like handing out burglary tools to criminals."
"It is profoundly antisocial and un-American to empower the nonproductive segments of the population to destroy the country -- which is precisely why Barack Obama zealously supports registering welfare recipients to vote,"
"Encouraging those who burden society to participate in elections isn't about helping the poor,"
Just another fascist Fudd, one who wants to limit the ability of the people to have any input in their lives.
“The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians.”
This Matthew Vadum, he is an authoritarian,
“Changing the rules after health plans have already met the requirements of the law could destabilize the market and result in higher premiums for consumers. Premiums have already been set for next year based on an assumption of when consumers will be transitioning to the new marketplace. If now fewer younger and healthier people choose to purchase coverage in the exchange, premiums will increase and there will be fewer choices for consumers. Additional steps must be taken to stabilize the marketplace and mitigate the adverse impact on consumers.”ReplyDelete
State insurance regulators also threw cold water on the crazy proposal.
Washington State Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler, a Democrat, said allowing state residents to keep their non-ACA-compliant policies would wreck his state’s health insurance exchange so the state won’t permit it. District of Columbia Insurance Commissioner William P. White, who was appointed by the city’s Democratic mayor Vincent Gray, said the proposal “undercuts the purpose of the exchanges, including the District’s D.C. Health Link, by creating exceptions that make it more difficult for them to operate.”
All of this chaos created by Obamacare and President Obama’s admission that his system isn’t working, vindicates the aggressive approach taken by conservatives who pushed hard to defund Obamacare before the partial shutdown of the federal government last month.
The Senate Conservatives Fund, which has been at the forefront of the fight, loosed a mass email after Obama’s speech yesterday, boasting that, “Ted Cruz was right. Republicans should have refused to fund Obamacare.”Delete
According to the SCF,
“The president’s health care law is an unmitigated disaster and now Democrats in Washington are running for political cover. If Republicans had listened to Mike Lee (R-UT) and Ted Cruz (R-TX), they could have won this fight and stopped Obamacare. Instead, Mitch McConnell (R-KY) sabotaged the effort and now Americans are paying the price.”
The SCF points out that Congress will have another opportunity to defund Obamacare two months from now. “Obamacare funding expires January 15 and Republicans should not renew it,” the political committee says in the email. “If Democrats cause another government shutdown to protect this terrible law, Republicans should hold firm and use the showdown to push for full repeal.”
Although the House is expected today to take up Congressman Fred Upton’s (R-Mich.) largely symbolic legislation that would supposedly allow Americans to keep their insurance plans, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) urged repeal. “There is no way to fix this,” he said following Obama’s presser.
Even Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is now calling for the repeal of Obamacare. Just weeks ago McCain labeled those fighting Obamacare as “wacko birds.”
It should be noted that Obama’s midday press conference yesterday, which started more than a half hour late, came the day after the the administration’s latest lies about enrollment numbers were made public.
Leftist Greg Sargent of the Washington Post, ever the patient Obamacare cheerleader, eagerly conveyed the administration’s lies, claiming “[a]round 106,000 enrolled in new plans during October.” He linked to a grossly misleading flow chart at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that tries to justify the make-believe enrollment figure.
The chart states with lawyerly precision that “106,185 have selected a Marketplace plan,” and that “396,291 Americans were determined or assessed eligible for Medicaid/CHIP.”
Therefore, the chart concludes, “For October 1-November 2, 502,446 (396,261 + 106,185) Americans are positioned to have health coverage in 2014 through the Marketplace, Medicaid and CHIP.” The 502,446 figure is interesting but irrelevant.
The indispensable Avik Roy of Forbes says the real enrollment figure (as of Nov. 8) was a pathetic 45,865 spread out over 19 states. That represents a laughable 0.7 percent –that’s seven-tenths of one percent– of the total first year enrollment goal of 7 million by March 15, 2014. There have been about 5 million cancellations nationwide, according to Roy.
Visiting healthcare.gov or a state exchange website, creating an an online account, applying for coverage, and choosing a government-approved exchange plan, doesn’t count as an enrollment, Roy reminds us. An insured person has to pay the initial premium to have coverage begin and for the action to count as an enrollment.
Unless the government meets its enrollment goal, tricking young, healthy persons into agreeing to heavily subsidize older, sicker persons, the Affordable Care Act cannot succeed, Roy writes. “Low exchange enrollment results in higher premiums for those who do enroll, as the costs of coverage and care are spread out among premium-paying enrollees.”
With all this news of Obamacare-created chaos descending on the nation, now is not the time to be cutting deals with pitiable Democrats.
Although Obamacare may already contain within itself the seeds of its eventual self-destruction, Americans who care about the future of this country have to keep the pressure on. We can’t assume this hideous program will go away on its own.
Conservatives have to keep pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes until they are blue in the face and ready to drop from exhaustion.
Right-wing hack says helping poor people vote is criminalReplyDelete
Matthew Vadum attacks those who help "nonproductive segments of the population" participate in democracy
Matthew Vadum has now explicitly endorsed disenfranchising poor people for the sole reason that they’re poor and will vote for people who will do things to alleviate their poverty. It is positively Swiftian, if Jonathan Swift had been an actual cannibal.
The piece is published at the hilariously named “American Thinker” site, because Vadum is too dimwitted even for the Examiner or a Breitbart site or the Washington Times or Human Events or any of the other homes of the conservative movement’s lesser talents.
Here is your pull quote:
Welfare recipients are particularly open to demagoguery and bribery.
Registering them to vote is like handing out burglary tools to criminals. It is profoundly antisocial and un-American to empower the nonproductive segments of the population to destroy the country — which is precisely why Barack Obama zealously supports registering welfare recipients to vote.
Wow, “nonproductive segments of the population.” The bit that likens the act of participation in the democratic process to a crime has gotten the most amount of attention, but the bit where Vadum adopts the language of eugenicists is the real low-light for me.
He probably had to go over-the-top awful to get some buzz. Matthew Vadum is a very silly person who seldom lets facts get in the way of a good made-up story. He made it this far peddling bullshit about ACORN.
Now that there is no such thing as ACORN, people have less of a reason to pay attention to Vadum, and so he just claims that there is still an ACORN and they are still very powerful and evil.
Golly, to think this Mr Vadum would say such things about US Senior Citizens, those Americans receiving Social Security and Medicare benefits. If those Senior Citizen welfare recipients were not allowed to vote, the Republican Party would become an empty shell.Delete
What kind of drugs was Matthew Vadum taking?
Vadum on Valium?Delete
Foreclosure Auctions Tick Up on Higher Home PricesReplyDelete
Presidential Policy vs. Fed Policy on JobsReplyDelete
Mitt Romney said Thursday night that, if elected president, he would create millions of jobs. On Friday morning, the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, said that the Fed’s policies may have helped create millions of jobs since the financial crisis.
So who actually has the most power to create jobs today – the president, or the Fed chairman? The answer to that question tells us whether we now live in the age of democracy, or the age of the central bank.
In an important speech at Jackson Hole, Wyo., on Friday, Mr. Bernanke explained why he thought the Fed’s unorthodox policies had worked.
Usually after an economic shock, the Fed just cuts its key interest rates to revive the economy. But after 2008, it did far more. To help credit flow in the economy, it has also purchased $2.75 trillion of bonds, in effect printing money to do most of that buying.
The jobs impact from these may have been substantial, Mr. Bernanke said. The first two rounds of bond buying may have increased private sector employment by two million jobs, according to a study he cited.
Sounds impressive. But it’s nothing next to the 12 million jobs Mr. Romney said that he could create with a plan that includes skills training, school choice, trade agreements and lower taxes for business. “What America needs is jobs,” he said. “Lots of jobs.”
Mr. Bernanke, in contrast, didn’t sound at all confident about the near-term ability of politicians to generate economic growth, and as a result, jobs. The big disagreements in Congress over the budget constitute a daunting economic headwind, he said.
But Mr. Bernanke doesn’t have to wait for democratic machinations to play themselves out. He said Friday that the Fed was ready to do more to support the economy and sustain job growth.
The important point is that he doesn’t have to contend with matters like legislation and Congressional votes. Not only can he act more or less at will, he also has the freedom to act with unbelievable force.
It’s something he did in the depths of the financial crisis. Almost single-handedly, Mr. Bernanke was able to get an additional $1 trillion pumped into the economy, something a politician can only dream of. This is how David Wessel describes it in his book, “In Fed We Trust”:
The Fed, it was increasingly clear, could and would act when the political system was frozen. Even in the face of strong political resistance to more taxpayer money to rebuild the banking system, Bernanke demonstrated that the Fed was neither paralyzed nor out of ammunition: he pressed the F.O.M.C., the committee of Fed governors and regional Fed bank presidents, to increase the cap on Fed purchases of mortgage-backed securities from $500 billion to $1.25 trillion and, for the first time in the Great Panic, to okay the purchase of $300 billion of longer-term Treasury debt securities.
In other words, if the study he cited Friday is correct, Mr. Bernanke himself was deeply instrumental in creating over a million jobs.
JFK Vs The Federal ReserveReplyDelete
By John P. Curran
On June 4, 1963, a virtually unknown Presidential decree, Executive Order 11110, was signed with the authority to basically strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Federal Government at interest. With the stroke of a pen, President Kennedy declared that the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank would soon be out of business. The Christian Law Fellowship has exhaustively researched this matter through the Federal Register and Library of Congress. We can now safely conclude that this Executive Order has never been repealed, amended, or superceded by any subsequent Executive Order. In simple terms, it is still valid.
When President John Fitzgerald Kennedy - the author of Profiles in Courage -signed this Order, it returned to the federal government, specifically the Treasury Department, the Constitutional power to create and issue currency -money - without going through the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank. President Kennedy's Executive Order 11110 [the full text is displayed further below] gave the Treasury Department the explicit authority: "to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury." This means that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury's vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation based on the silver bullion physically held there. As a result, more than $4 billion in United States Notes were brought into circulation in $2 and $5 denominations. $10 and $20 United States Notes were never circulated but were being printed by the Treasury Department when Kennedy was assassinated. It appears obvious that President Kennedy knew the Federal Reserve Notes being used as the purported legal currency were contrary to the Constitution of the United States of America.
"United States Notes" were issued as an interest-free and debt-free currency backed by silver reserves in the U.S. Treasury. We compared a "Federal Reserve Note" issued from the private central bank of the United States (the Federal Reserve Bank a/k/a Federal Reserve System), with a "United States Note" from the U.S. Treasury issued by President Kennedy's Executive Order. They almost look alike, except one says "Federal Reserve Note" on the top while the other says "United States Note". Also, the Federal Reserve Note has a green seal and serial number while the United States Note has a red seal and serial number.
President Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963 and the United States Notes he had issued were immediately taken out of circulation.
Who owns the Federal Reserve?ReplyDelete
The Federal Reserve System fulfills its public mission as an independent entity within government.
It is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution.
As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the Congress of the United States.
It is considered an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms.
However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by the Congress, which often reviews the Federal Reserve's activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government" rather than "independent of government."
The 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by the Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized similarly to private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership."
For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System.
The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.
Stock that is not "really" stock and dividends, not based upon profit, but that are guaranteed, by Law.Delete
Stock that only the member banks can own
Profit, well, dividends that are double the yield of the Treasury Bonds.
It is a Humpty Dumpty world where words mean what the spin miesters want them to mean.
Nothing more, nothing less.
My error, the dividends are not double the Treasury Bond rate ...Delete
Five Year maturity notes are yielding 1.5%, so a 6% return would be four times that.
If the banks loaned the money on mortgages, they'd be garnering almost 4%,
So that 6% return, it seems mighty SWEET.
For a guaranteed by law kind of a thing.
In addition to the profit potential that the power of the Federal Reserve System delivers to share holders.
Oprah Winfrey tells BBC many Americans hate Obama because he’s BLACKReplyDelete
No, many dislike Mr. Obama because he is Mr. Obama.
The two are exclusive of each other, allen.
So, while Ms Winfrey is undoubtedly correct, it does not follow that every one that dislikes Mr Obama does so because of his skin color.
So yu can be correct, too.
Your response would be have been more accurate if you had taken this type of approach ....
Sure, and many dislike Mr. Obama just because he is Mr. Obama.
For a fellow that looks, searches, for instances of discrimination against Jews ...Delete
You certainly quickly discount the possibility that other groups or individuals are discriminated against, because of their heritage, skin color, religion, tribal associations, etc..
Why is that?
Why do you spend the majority of your time bashing jews, israel, zionism, judaism, the citizens of the State of Israel?Delete
Why is that?
Actually I dislike Obama's white cracker half...Delete
His white cracker mom was crazy and a slut and his black Kenyan father was a total drunk and a slut chaser.Delete
I dislike both halves of his parentage. Not because of color but because of behavior. Same reason I dislike Obama.
The misogynist Fudd just will not give it up.Delete
His disrespect for women, legend.
Always he comes with sexual derogation and denigration when speaking of women, always.
Even those he admires, he disrespects, sexually.
Those that would defend the misogynist ....
“To those who abuse:Delete
the sin is yours, the crime is yours, and the shame is yours.
To those who protect the perpetrators:
blaming the victims only masks the evil within, making you as guilty as those who abuse.
Stand up for the innocent or go down with the rest.”
...now on to something positive...
Boosting Global Crop Yields Without Genetic Modification
PS: I have no problem with genetically modified food production.
If ObamaCare covered mental illness and mandated therapy it might do rat some good. And his wife too thereby if he still has one. He spends 24/7 around here. Call it spousal abuse, In house divorce. Matrimonial abandonment. Call it what you will he doesn't live with her anymore in any real sense and I'm betting she took off like the wise woman from Salvador.ReplyDelete
Maybe he's got her chained in the basement, anon.Delete
You're such an ignorant, racist fucker. Obamacare DOES cover mental health treatment. Fucking Moron.Delete
And, Obama's mom was such a "crazy slut" that Zbigniew Brzenski tracked him down all the way to Occidental College to recruit him for Columbia.Delete
Zbigniew Brzenski is he not that anti-semite, Jew hating asshole that screwed America over Iran?
Yeah, Jimmy "the Dhimmi" Carter,the Jew hating ex-president...
The point is, he is an incredibly powerful man for whom Obama's mother worked; and he thought enough of her to seek out, and sponsor her son.Delete
There's none so blind as those who will not see.
This comment has been removed by the author.Delete
Take a pinch of Zbigniew Brzensk and a dash of Lester Crown.Delete
Throw in a tour of Pakistan with John Brennan as the guide.
Rufus IIFri Nov 15, 02:44:00 PM ESTReplyDelete
You're such an ignorant, racist fucker. Obamacare DOES cover mental health treatment. Fucking Moron.
Mandated therapy? Without that what's the use, Fucking Moron.
rat thinks everyone else, all the people here, are c r a z y and not his sweet self.
Hopeful rat song here:
Is Dr. Ben Carson a racist, ignorant fucker, Rufus?Delete
I said he ought to run the program.
Mandated therapy would do you a lot of good too, Rufus, might even get off the booze.
Sobriety is a start!
racist, ignorant fucker? I don't know. But he is batshit crazy.Delete
I won't insult your intelligence, Farmer Fudd, by suggesting that you really believe what you just said.Delete
T, if you are in the middle of a thread and the thread starts getting trashed-talked and you are so inclined, DELETE. With my blessings.ReplyDelete
I'll be the first to comply.
THAT is a horrible mistake, Deuce.Delete
“The essence of fascism is to make laws forbidding everything and then enforce them selectively against your enemies.”Delete
“Anon, who wrote so many posts without signing them, was often a woman.”Delete
“His character would be blamed, loathed, discussed, and adored –Delete
- but somewhere there, behind his mask, 'Farmer Fudd' would remain faceless.
But always the misogynist, racist, bigoted fascist.Delete
That was the essence of the Fudd, ....
The mask, to hide the disfigured face
Where a Rat had gnawed his nose, clean off.
It was in the forest of the mindDelete
Light fading, shadows growing
He could not see the forest for the trees
He fell upon his knees, in torment he did scream
Begin now, Miss T.Delete
“When truth is replaced by silence,the silence is a lie.”
“Don't join the book burners. Don't think you're going to conceal faults by concealing evidence that they ever existed. Don't be afraid to go in your library and read every book...”Delete
“Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings.”Delete
“Censorship of anything, at any time, in any place, on whatever pretense, ...Delete
has always been and always will be the last resort of the boob and the bigot.”
So the instructions/permission to Miss T from Deuce are those of a boob and a bigot?Delete
Maybe he is simply an older gentleman and just likes clean language.
Never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
“In you is the ability that will move you from nonentity and mediocrity to an entity of meteority.
Take responsibility now!”
“If the crow has to be shoved down your throat; maybe you should just let it fly.”
It appears the rat is almost begging.
Rufus II Fri Nov 15, 03:51:00 PM ESTDelete
THAT is a horrible mistake, Deuce.
OBAMACARE UNDER THE BUSReplyDelete
November 15, 2013
Upton Bill passes with bipartisan support
No fewer than 39 House Democrats threw Obamacare under the bus, joining with Republicans to pass legislation sponsored by Rep. Fred Upton that allows insurers to offer noncompliant health care policies not just to grandfathered policyholders, but also to anyone who chooses to forego all the requirements of Obamacare.
The vote of 261 to 157 can be considered lopsided, and is far stronger than the majority which passed Obamacare in the first place. Nevertheless, the White House avers the President will veto it.
Senate boss Harry Reid no doubt will torpedo Upton and the Landrieu Bill as well, which not just permits, but requires insurers to offer the grandfathered policies that have been cancelled. The only possibility either bill has is that panicky Democrat senators up for re-election insist on an opportunity to go on record against the handiwork for which they voted, and for which they bear responsibility for inflicting on Americans. Because there were no votes to spare in the Senate each of them fairly can be characterized as providing the margin of victory that facilitated this travesty. "If Senator [insert Dem here] had not voted for this bill, you would not have lost your insurance, your low deductible, or low monthly payment."
The fascist Republicans are now going to order the Insurance Companies around?Delete
Why Obama (or Republicans) Can't Just Uncancel All Those Insurance Plans
Insurers are also wary. The industry had a cool response to the reversal. Even if insurers want to extend the old policies, and their regulators agree, it’s not clear that there’s enough time. Will doctors and hospitals accept the resurrected plans? Rates and plans are normally filed for approval months ahead of time. “The complexity of trying to uncancel millions of canceled individual policies with only six weeks left in the year is staggering,” Citigroup (C) analyst Carl McDonald wrote, Bloomberg News reports.
Extending old plans changes the risk pool next year. The people in the individual market whose plans were cancelled have already passed medical underwriting—the insurance industry’s practice, banned from next year on, of denying coverage to people for being sick or having other preexisting conditions. That means they’re generally a healthier bunch than those entering the exchanges next year. The idea that some of these folks would have to pay more for more robust plans was baked into the law—their premiums will help subsidize coverage for sicker people whom insurers can no longer turn away. That’s why regulators, actuaries, and insurers are warning that the change could destabilize the market next year and drive up premiums for everyone else.
Even if it works, the fix is not a fix—it’s a delay. Obama didn’t say he’d let people keep their old, noncompliant health plans indefinitely. Year-long policies that start through Oct. 1, 2014, will be considered OK, and the administration is “assessing whether to extend it beyond the specified time frame,” according to the administration’s letter (pdf) to insurance commissioners. But whenever the administration does start enforcing that piece of the law, people are going to get another round of cancellation letters from their insurance company. If they don’t have comparable choices on the exchanges, they’ll get angry all over again.
The Republicans will be sucked right into the trap that even now is being set.Delete
Since they have no alternative, and the hands of time cannot be turned back ...
The Dems will have the "Alternate Fix" ready, the Republicans will be in an impossible position.
Unable to repeal, unable to move forward, they will be ambushed in place.
The Republicans are moving from Serious ground to Dangerous ground.Delete
Easily hemmed in, with fragmented command, they will fight valiantly, but are bereft of winning options.
More rat droppings for the uninformed.
Obama has opened the door for the insurance companies to raise rates significantly for 2015.
Those bills for the January 1, 2015 rate increases will start arriving about a month before people go to the polls.
Sucked into the trap? You would have thought those suckers would have planned their timing a little better.
They picked up 4 Democrats. 35 Democrats have been voting against Obamacare right along.ReplyDelete
Perhaps but there are about 14 dems in the Senate who are leaving the sinking ship. Hillary is leaving too. She is no fool. ObamaCare is becoming more unpopular by the day and it never had majority support in the country. Now that people are getting screwed and are beginning to feel it the ship is taking on more water every hour.Delete
Who, anonymouse will have the Alternative, first?Delete
"14 dems in the Senate who are leaving the sinking ship."Delete
You must have gotten that for plumbrumdumbpolling.
What are their names, these Fourteen Democrats in the Senate?Delete
Sens. Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe. Screwem. Damne, Goode, and Reddy.Delete
That's half of 14Delete
This comment has been removed by the author.Delete
Just think of they can get done when the other half of their team shows up.Delete
It's bad enough when Bill Clinton gets on Obama for the ACA. But now even Jimmy Carter is accusing the prez of incompetence.
That's gotta hurt.