Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And yet, through all your blather, scripted vitriol and attempted insults you didn't show how I was in any way incorrect. BTW, I did not vote for Trump.
If all you read is as you describe here rather than why you are incorrect, then I am at a loss for words...
"Scripted vitriol?" Baffling.
No more words, different words or smaller words are going to help here any. As you were. Don't mind me...
No he didn't but he most certainly felt the DNC did and as we have seen, he wasn't done with politics. He wanted a (D) to follow his term.
Goldman Sachs was Obama's top donor. He wanted them to remain so for the DNC.
When digging yourself into a hole, stop digging!
Now we go from what I referenced as total donations from the "securities and investments" sector to only that of Goldman Sachs, so you are arguing of Obama's $775+ million raised, Obama needed or concerned himself with about $1.25 from Goldman Sachs? Not the number one donor either BTW.
Of course the POTUS typically campaigns for their party as they are leaving office. That is entirely understandable if not expected. Your theories as to when, where, what and why in politics are very difficult to understand given the facts of these matters, but here too, never mind me. Just trying to get the facts out there regardless how they are considered (or not)...
He made a campaign promise to prosecute them. He did not. Fact.
Fact. What Obama indicated were his intentions in this regard did not transpire as many expected and hoped, including me. Call that what you wish, a "lie, lie, lie," as you so often do. Speculate as to why as well, but I think for better or worse Obama chose to focus on new legislation that would help prevent further abuse into the future rather than go the way of attempting prosecution for past wrong doing in an environment when just about everyone had their hand in the cookie jar in not altogether honorable fashion...
As such, the concern about the health of the finance industry is/was not an altogether unwarranted one, but thinking it was for want of Goldman Sachs political contributions is somewhat ridiculous if you ask me.
He made a campaign promise to prosecute them. He did not. Fact.
Candidates make campaign promises all the time that they are unable/unwilling to keep. So what else is new? Already posted an article as to why they were not prosecuted. If you decide to not accept that explanation, that's your choice, but don't continue claiming that you were not given an answer. I never said you'd LIKE the answer, but it IS the answer.
Sadly, justice in America is not blind to wealth and power - that is not a problem unique to Obamas presidency, it's a fact of life throughout the entire course of American history (and beyond). Once in a while such people do get prosecuted, but the odds of that are much lower than is the case for a "regular" person. Part of that is the influence of wealth and power, part of that is because "white collar" crimes are MUCH harder to prove than other types of crimes. Not a lot of reason for a prosecutor to charge someone with a crime if he/she thinks they will be unlikely to get a conviction.
Obama said preniums would come down by up to 400%. It hasn't happened. Mine went up 62% last year and 110% this year.
being forced to buy insurance on an exchange that will soon have no choices is absolutely bad legislation.
covering people that are more sick than should be covered based on a bet that 20somethings that dont need insurance would buy that they dont need to cover the subsidies needed for such is bad legislation.
but hey kudos to those that got insurance on the back of my premium hikes, if I wanted to live in a socialist hellhole country Id move rather than have it dropped on my doorstep.
Your analogies could use improvement
Your statements could use some clarification, as someone else already requested, not likely to follow I'm guessing...
Anyone who expected health care costs to suddenly go down upon first arrival of Obamacare must have some awfully interesting ideas about what is driving health care costs in the first place, and not understanding the differences between what Obama had in mind, what Congress eventually passed as the ACA, and how the different states affected premiums and participation levels in different ways doesn't help understanding any better.
I don't think there is a Democrat Congressman who doesn't feel the ACA needs fixing/improving and wanting to get on with it, but the GOP and then Trump have laid down on those tracks for many years now.
If you think of the ACA as a form of insurance and recognize how participation levels truly matter and how long it takes to work out the wrinkles toward a more optimum delivery for all concerned, despite entrenched special interests intent on not letting that happen, is it any wonder America is still getting less health care coverage at an extremely high cost compared to most other modern countries who adopted universal health care a very long time ago!
And Obamacare will continue to fail and be a disaster, until Americans demand it be repealed. And it will be Obama's fault, as it is now, and it will always reflect badly on Democrats. Maybe that's a good thing?
If that happens (and I believe it will), the D's will still blame Trump!
As Trump stated early-on, one option is to simply allow Obamacare to continue down the path of rising premiums, rising deductibles and decreased insurance company participation. The D's made a lot of provisions to make it difficult to repeal their failed healthcare plan. Meanwhile, their 'poison-pill obstructionism' makes it very clear their only agenda and goal is to oppose Trump.
At this point, it seems like to best course of action is to simply move-on the other high-priority agenda items and stop trying to fix the problem the D's created with their one-sided mandate.
With regard to all the snarky comments about "deal making," a 'deal' requires two parties in search of a solution, both willing to compromise. Let Obamacare stand or fail based on it's on merits (or lack thereof). By the time the 2018/20 elections roll-around, even the D's will have began to see how ill-served they are by the elite Washington leftists who only know how to say "no" and serve no interests but their own.
If that happens (and I believe it will), the D's will still blame Trump!
As Trump stated early-on, one option is to simply allow Obamacare to continue down the path of rising premiums, rising deductibles and decreased insurance company participation. The D's made a lot of provisions to make it difficult to repeal their failed healthcare plan. Meanwhile, their 'poison-pill obstructionism' makes it very clear their only agenda and goal is to oppose Trump.
At this point, it seems like to best course of action is to simply move-on the other high-priority agenda items and stop trying to fix the problem the D's created with their one-sided mandate.
With regard to all the snarky comments about "deal making," a 'deal' requires two parties in search of a solution, both willing to compromise. Let Obamacare stand or fail based on it's on merits (or lack thereof). By the time the 2018/20 elections roll-around, even the D's will have began to see how ill-served they are by the elite Washington leftists who only know how to say "no" and serve no interests but their own.
Curious, since you seem to have some confidence in articulating what is happening now, as noted in bold above, can you describe how things were going with health care in America when Obama was first campaigning for Obamacare?
For example, were we not struggling with a path of rising premiums? Rising Deductibles? Increasing costs and more people being excluded?
You simply cannot make a deal with people who see no win in dealing. The GOP has proven over and over again since back before Obama that health care coverage in America is not their problem or concern, and now again, they are simply letting things be, because they have no idea how to make things any better, whether better than before the ACA or better now after.
But now after all this time, to have this opportunity to "do their thing" only to do nothing? To somehow blame Democrats for this or not hold the Republicans accountable is about all the proof we need that for some people, their political ideology transcends all facts, reason and logic. Right or wrong, they are always right regardless. No wonder Congress can't seem to do any better. So many there -- too many -- represent this way of thinking, wrong-thinking.
Taxpayers will fork over nearly $10 billion more next year to cover double-digit premium hikes for subsidized health insurance under President Barack Obama’s law, according to a study released Thursday.
Seems like a bargain compared to 30 billion for a wall that probably will go down in history as Trump's biggest folly.
And yet, through all your blather, scripted vitriol and attempted insults you didn't show how I was in any way incorrect. BTW, I did not vote for Trump.
Yes, you cold be correct if Mexico suddenly wants to pay the US to build a wall to keep Americans from crossing into Mexico, but other than that, Mexico stated they will not pay for the wall. But even in this scenario, will we be charging them yearly for the maintenance on the wall too?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
