Your opinion on the job that President Obama is doing so far (1 Viewer)

[BeaverCleaver]

For the liberals that think it is ok for waivers please tell me where I can get an application for my friends that run small businesses. Since you don't have problems with those waivers I assume you will more than glad to help hand them out so more businesses can get those waivers. TIA

 

[TobiasFunke]

I think it's safe to say that one can dismiss any person who uses either "Obamacare" or "Obamanomics" in a criticism of either health care reform or Obama's policies.

I'm sure you'd say the same thing about the term "Reaganomics".

If it was used as a pejorative as often as "Obamacare" or "Obamanomics", which I don't find that it is, then yes, I would.

We all see what we want to see.

"Reaganomics" is a terrible analogy. It's not always pejorative, and I'm betting some on the Right even use it.I don't see Obamanomics much, but Obamacare used exclusively pejoratively by opponents of the legislation. It also disregards the fact that the legislation significantly changes the Obama proposal.A better analogy would be to the left-wingers who referred to the Iraq wars as "Bush War I" and Bush War II." Anyone who used those terms did so pejoratively and also disregarded the fact that such significant events were the product of many decisions and policies and compromises. As a result, they would rightly be branded a left-wing partisan hack. Same thing with people who call the current and future state of the federal government's role in health care as guided by the legislation of the 111th Congress "Obamacare."

 

[Andy Dufresne]

A better analogy would be to the left-wingers who referred to the Iraq wars as "Bush War I" and Bush War II." Anyone who used those terms did so pejoratively and also disregarded the fact that such significant events were the product of many decisions and policies and compromises. As a result, they would rightly be branded a left-wing partisan hack. Same thing with people who call the current and future state of the federal government's role in health care as guided by the legislation of the 111th Congress "Obamacare."

That legislation was the exclusive product of the Democratic party with the de-facto head of that entity being Barack Obama so it is not a stretch to call it Obamacare. Unless you subscribe to the idea that it was Nancy that revived it after it had died, in which case it would be called Pelosicare.

 

[TobiasFunke]

For the liberals that think it is ok for waivers please tell me where I can get an application for my friends that run small businesses. Since you don't have problems with those waivers I assume you will more than glad to help hand them out so more businesses can get those waivers. TIA

Does one have to be a "liberal" to help you out? I'm left of center, but I'm not exactly Karl Marx.It appears to be an annual process, but your friends should be able to get all the information they need here.

Here's a review of the waiver program and a full list of approved applicants: http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/appro...for_waiver.html

And linked at that page, instructions on application: http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/patie...0100903_508.pdf

Good luck to them.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I think it's safe to say that one can dismiss any person who uses either "Obamacare" or "Obamanomics" in a criticism of either health care reform or Obama's policies.

I'm sure you'd say the same thing about the term "Reaganomics".

If it was used as a pejorative as often as "Obamacare" or "Obamanomics", which I don't find that it is, then yes, I would.

It's interesting that you see giving Obama credit for HCR a "pejorative."

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I don't see Obamanomics much, but Obamacare used exclusively pejoratively by opponents of the legislation.

I use this term all the time, and I was more or less supportive of Obamacare. My main complaint at the time was that Republicans should have given it some support to get a few changes, like interstate insurance sales.As a general principle, it's nice to have convenient names to refer to things. For well over a year, people were using the term "Obamacare" without controversy. Only when the program passed, remained unpopular, and turned into a political liability did some liberal bloggers get their panties in a bunch about this term. Well, too late. If you had an objection to this label, you should have said so a year ago.

 

[TobiasFunke]

A better analogy would be to the left-wingers who referred to the Iraq wars as "Bush War I" and Bush War II." Anyone who used those terms did so pejoratively and also disregarded the fact that such significant events were the product of many decisions and policies and compromises. As a result, they would rightly be branded a left-wing partisan hack. Same thing with people who call the current and future state of the federal government's role in health care as guided by the legislation of the 111th Congress "Obamacare."

That legislation was the exclusive product of the Democratic party with the de-facto head of that entity being Barack Obama so it is not a stretch to call it Obamacare. Unless you subscribe to the idea that it was Nancy that revived it after it had died, in which case it would be called Pelosicare.

I'd call it the "health care legislation" because that's what it is. It's really not that hard. Then if I was referring to a particular provision in it, I'd refer to that provision. More accurate, more useful, less pejorative. Seriously, is there any other legislation that is shorthanded with a president's name? Other than the "Bush Tax Cuts," which really just proves the point that these silly labels are a new political invention of certain people on one side of the aisle, I can't think of any. Nobody called it Clintelecon or Bushducation.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I don't see Obamanomics much, but Obamacare used exclusively pejoratively by opponents of the legislation.

I use this term all the time, and I was more or less supportive of Obamacare. My main complaint at the time was that Republicans should have given it some support to get a few changes, like interstate insurance sales.As a general principle, it's nice to have convenient names to refer to things. For well over a year, people were using the term "Obamacare" without controversy. Only when the program passed, remained unpopular, and turned into a political liability did some liberal bloggers get their panties in a bunch about this term. Well, too late. If you had an objection to this label, you should have said so a year ago.

If this is true, I take back what I just said. I personally don't remember it being used much at all by anyone other than some on the Right. But if that's generally been the case, "Obamacare" away.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Is this a good example of a right-wing rag using "Obamacare" as a pejorative?

How about this one? (From a couple of weeks ago no less)

Jonathan Chait is a right winger?

Et tu, Paul?

I didn't know this guy was a conservative. You learn something new every day.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Is this a good example of a right-wing rag using "Obamacare" as a pejorative?

How about this one? (From a couple of weeks ago no less)

Jonathan Chait is a right winger?

Et tu, Paul?

I didn't know this guy was a conservative. You learn something new every day.

I honestly hadn't seen that before.Still not my own preferred term, but it's hard to raise much of a stink about it being used as a pejorative political term if people like Krugman and Eugene Robinson were using it months and months ago.

 

[rolyaTy]

I think it's safe to say that one can dismiss any person who uses either "Obamacare" or "Obamanomics" in a criticism of either health care reform or Obama's policies.

I'm sure you'd say the same thing about the term "Reaganomics".

If it was used as a pejorative as often as "Obamacare" or "Obamanomics", which I don't find that it is, then yes, I would.

It's interesting that you see giving Obama credit for HCR a "pejorative."

That's not what I'm doing.

 

[Fennis]

I think it's safe to say that one can dismiss any person who uses either "Obamacare" or "Obamanomics" in a criticism of either health care reform or Obama's policies.

Would you say the same thing about people who refer to "the Bush tax cuts?" "Reaganomics?"Edit: I should have read ahead a little further -- I just saw that huge quote and hit reply. My bad.

"Palinesque"

 

[Statorama]

All are equal under the law...unless you donate money to Obama's campaign

If you would like to know what the White House really thinks of Obamacare, there’s an easy way. Look past its press releases. Ignore its promises. Forget its talking points. Instead, simply witness for yourself the outrageous way the White House protects its best friends from Obamacare.

Last year, we learned that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had granted 111 waivers to protect a lucky few from the onerous regulations of the new national health care overhaul. That number quickly and quietly climbed to 222, and last week we learned that the number of Obamacare privileged escapes has skyrocketed to 733.

Among the fortunate is a who’s who list of unions, businesses and even several cities and four states (Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio and Tennessee) but none of the friends of Barack feature as prominently as the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

How can you get your own free pass from Obamacare? Maybe you can just donate $27 million to President Obama‘s campaign efforts. That’s what Andy Stern did as president of SEIU in 2008. He has been the most frequent guest at Mr. Obama‘s White House.

Backroom deals have become par for the course for proponents of Obamacare. Senators were greased with special favors, like Nebraska Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson and his Cornhusker Kickback and Louisiana Democrat Sen. Mary L. Landrieu and her Louisiana Purchase. Even the American Medical Association was brought in line under threat of losing its exclusive and lucrative medical coding contracts with the government.

Not only are the payoffs an affront to our democracy and an outright assault on our taxpayers, the timing itself of the latest release makes a mockery of this administration’s transparency promises. More than 500 of the 733 waivers, we now know, were granted in December but kept conveniently under wraps until the day after the president’s State of the Union address. HHS is no stranger to covering up bad news; in fact, this is becoming a disturbing pattern. Last year, Secretary Kathleen Sebelius hid from Congress until after the Obamacare vote a damning report from the Medicare and Medicaid Office of the Actuary showing Obamacare would cost $311 billion more than promised and would displace 14 million Americans from their current insurance.

For this administration, transparency promises last only until the teleprompter is unplugged.

Backroom deals and cover-ups may be business as usual for Washington, but understanding why the Obama administration protects its friends from Obamacare offers special insight into what the purveyors of the mandate themselves think about their own law. This is key: The waivers aren’t meant to protect victims from unintended consequences of Obamacare; they are meant to exempt them from the very intentional increased costs of health insurance that the law causes. Under Section 2711 of the Public Health Service Act, Obamacare increases the annual cap of insurance benefits, which sounds great - as does everything else in big government - until the bill comes due, in this case, in the form of higher insurance premiums.

In short, the administration has decided that you will face increased health insurance premiums, but special friends in the unions will not. Look closely, and you’ll see not only the White House‘s duplicity but also what the Obama administration really thinks of its crown jewel, Obamacare. White House words say that the annual insurance benefit cap is a feature of the program, but its actions say that it’s a bug.

The question remains: If Obamacare is such a great law, why does the White House keep protecting its best friends from it?

Our democracy cannot allow a president to exercise the unholy power of picking and choosing winners and losers, of choosing who must follow his flawed laws and who gets a free pass. If any American deserves a waiver from Obamacare, then all Americans do.

It was Mr. Obama himself who infamously said, “We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends.” This president speaks anything but softly, and Obamacare is his big stick.

It’s time to give every American his own waiver: Repeal Obamacare.

Dr. Milton R. Wolf is a board-certified diagnostic radiologist, medical director and cousin of President Obama. He blogs daily at miltonwolf.com.

 

[Statorama]

A significant breakdown of how the Health Care Law affects Americans that aren't lucky enough to have donated a huge sum of money to the Obama campaign

 

[Sarnoff]

Obama praised the Bruce Randolph school in Denver in the State of the Union speech for going from one of the worst schools in the state to one with 97% of seniors graduating. What he didn't mention was the reason for their success: they were allowed to run autonomously, without having to abide by district Education Department and union rules. Only after throwing out the unions did the school turn around.

 

[Sarnoff]

More on the SOTU speech: From the moon landing to solar shingles. Is there a better example of American decline?

 

[Sarnoff]

On Egypt:

"Events in the Middle East are moving too fast for the Obama administration"

"Obama will go down in history as the president who lost Egypt"

"President Obama is doing what Jimmy Carter did with Iran in 1978. Uh-oh."

And I can't resist this headline from WaPo:

"Egypt protests show George W. Bush was right about freedom in the Arab world"

 

[D_House]

Sarnoff and Statorama: thanks for keeping it all in one thread. Jim11 could learn from you two.

 

[Sarnoff]

Sarnoff and Statorama: thanks for keeping it all in one thread. Jim11 could learn from you two.

Just living up to our part of the agreement. And Jim11 doesn't start nearly as many threads as cr8f and FSM... they're the ones that really need the lesson.

 

[D_House]

Sarnoff and Statorama: thanks for keeping it all in one thread. Jim11 could learn from you two.

Just living up to our part of the agreement. And Jim11 doesn't start nearly as many threads as cr8f and FSM... they're the ones that really need the lesson.

I don't know what agreement you're talking about. I just find it amusing to see a page of back to back posts of linked articles from the same posters. Carry on.

 

[Statorama]

Sarnoff and Statorama: thanks for keeping it all in one thread. Jim11 could learn from you two.

n/pI want this to be the "go-to" thread for a complete history of the Obama presidency, both good and bad. A one stop shop for all your Obama needs.So far, so good. Side question, why hasn't Obama been impeached yet? Granting specific monetary political favors to people that donated huge sums to your campaign seems ejection worthy to me.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Sarnoff and Statorama: thanks for keeping it all in one thread. Jim11 could learn from you two.

n/pI want this to be the "go-to" thread for a complete history of the Obama presidency, both good and bad. A one stop shop for all your Obama needs.

So far, so good.

Side question, why hasn't Obama been impeached yet? Granting specific monetary political favors to people that donated huge sums to your campaign seems ejection worthy to me.

For what it's worth, if you really wanted this thread to have the good and the bad, you wouldn't post garbage like this. Nobody with any interest in posting about the "good" has any interest in reading this kind of nonsense.

 

[Statorama]

Sarnoff and Statorama: thanks for keeping it all in one thread. Jim11 could learn from you two.

n/pI want this to be the "go-to" thread for a complete history of the Obama presidency, both good and bad. A one stop shop for all your Obama needs.

So far, so good.

Side question, why hasn't Obama been impeached yet? Granting specific monetary political favors to people that donated huge sums to your campaign seems ejection worthy to me.

For what it's worth, if you really wanted this thread to have the good and the bad, you wouldn't post garbage like this. Nobody with any interest in posting about the "good" has any interest in reading this kind of nonsense.

But it's the truth. The Obama administration has endowed it's largest donors with waivers from his signature healthcare law. A law that's so good his friends/contributors need protection from it.

He's granting political favors with a monetary benefit to hundreds of groups that donated large sums to his campaign. Why is it "nonsense" to feel this should be investigated?

 

[Statorama]

An article posted in the Egypt thread has a section that highlights Obama's leadership during the crisis. Thanks Higgins.

link

10 Lessons from the Revolution in Egypt... So Far

This weekend, while Cairo was burning and Hosni Mubarak struggled to maintain power, I was in a kind of virtual Vulcan mind meld with a network of regional experts for my day job at Wikistrat, a Tel Aviv-based online scenario-modeling firm, ginning up ideas of what might come next for Egypt: Does the big man step down? Or do the people win? Does it all happen very fast, or way too slow? They're not easy questions to answer, and what happens in the next day or so will be crucial. But based on that weekend of analysis — and quite a bit of time spent in Egypt, including close interactions with the military there — a clearer picture is starting to emerge.

5. Mohamed ElBaradei has good timing.

Enough for Lenin to admire. I mean, who even knew this guy was Egyptian until a few months ago? Then suddenly he's everywhere — on shoulders, maybe even in office. Armed with a Nobel Peace Prize from his days as head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, you can pretty much go ahead and slot him in for Person of the Year if he's president come December. That's how important Egypt is in the Arab/Muslim world. Right now, our man is under house arrest in Cairo, which is a #######' brilliant gig, because it instantly credentializes his role in these events.

6. Obama does not.

The legacy of diplomatic boners here is magnificent: Hillary Clinton describing the Mubaraks as "friends of my family" last year, then just days ago describing the regime as "stable" (a term she sidestepped on Meet the Press yesterday), while Joe Biden denies Mubarak is a dictator and questions the legitimacy of the protestors' demands. (Earth to Joe: That's Beijing's line). Obama, as always, hangs to the back, confusing laconic with leadership and fostering the majority opinion in the Middle East that "freedom-loving" America is once again leading from behind. Hate to say it, but with the White House missing in action on this, you've got to ask: Where's Dubya when you need him?

 

[Sarnoff]

At least he's doing something right

It's about time we crack down on all those illegals in this country. 259% increase is good, but we need to get this up a lot higher. Kick all these freeloaders out!

Study finds jump in immigration prosecutions

By PETE YOST, Associated Press Pete Yost, Associated Press – Tue Feb 1, 6:58 pm ET

WASHINGTON – New government data shows the Obama administration has sharply increased immigration prosecutions and has stepped up cases against white-collar crimes, drug violations, organized crime and official corruption.

An analysis compiled by a private group using government data also found that there has been a decline in the Justice Department's felony prosecutions aside from immigration cases, particularly outside the Southwest.

The study was released Tuesday by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a private, nonpartisan group based at Syracuse University that compiled the data from the first two years of the Obama administration and the last two years of the Bush administration.

Justice Department spokeswoman Jessica Smith said Tuesday that the department cannot confirm TRAC's numbers or its methodology. She said the Justice Department's U.S. Attorney's offices filed a record number of criminal cases in U.S. District Courts last year.

"The U.S. attorneys' offices and the litigating divisions have been extremely busy with active investigations not necessarily reflected in these numbers, as well as the thousands of criminal cases they've pursued in the last two years," Smith said. "In fact, we've seen increases in the last two years in some of the most complex areas of criminal prosecution, including white collar, organized crime, public corruption and significant drug trafficking cases."

TRAC said that felony immigration prosecutions in federal court systems along the border from Houston to San Diego went up 259 percent from 2007 to 2010, increasing nearly 16,000 to 36,321.

Nationally, felony prosecutions that were not immigration cases totaled more than 18,500 in 2007 and 2008, the last two years of the George W. Bush administration, while prosecutions declined to just over 16,000 in the first two years of the Obama administration, according to TRAC.

In complex top-priority areas, drug prosecutions rose modestly to 26,805 last year, up from 26,336 in the last year of the Bush administration, TRAC found. White-collar crime prosecutions topped 9,700 last year, up from 8,108 in the last year of the Bush administration. There were 727 public corruption prosecutions last year, up from 675 in the last year of the Bush administration. Organized crime prosecutions were 572 last year, up from 450 in 2009 and 481 in 2008.

Weapons prosecutions totaled 7,614 last year, TRAC reported, down from 8,188 in 2009, 8,484 in 2008 and 8,919 in 2007.

 

[Statorama]

Obama administration starts the waiver process for companies emitting greenhouse gases

Good? Bad? You decide.

Side note: The company that got the waiver uses GE products (two natural gas-fired General Electric 7FA Gas Turbines with Heat Recovery Steam Generators (HRSG) and one General Electric Steam Turbine.). In January, Obama named GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt to lead his new jobs commission. Isn't that cozy.

The Obama administration will spare a stalled power plant project in California from the newest federal limits on greenhouse gases and conventional air pollution, U.S. EPA says in a new court filing that marks a policy shift in the face of industry groups and Republicans accusing the agency of holding up construction of large industrial facilities.

According to a declaration by air chief Gina McCarthy, officials reviewed EPA policies and decided it was appropriate to “grandfather” projects such as the Avenal Power Center, a proposed 600-megawatt power plant in the San Joaquin Valley, so they are exempted from rules such as new air quality standards for smog-forming nitrogen dioxide (NO2).

 

[bg0546]

U.S. in Contempt Over Gulf Drill Ban, Judge Rules

By Laurel Brubaker Calkins - Feb 3, 2011 12:53 PM MT

The Obama Administration acted in contempt by continuing its deepwater-drilling moratorium after the policy was struck down, a New Orleans judge ruled.

Interior Department regulators acted with “determined disregard” by lifting and reinstituting a series of policy changes that restricted offshore drilling, following the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history, U.S. District Judge, Martin Feldman of New Orleans ruled yesterday.

“Each step the government took following the court’s imposition of a preliminary injunction showcases its defiance,” Feldman said in the ruling.

“Such dismissive conduct, viewed in tandem with the re-imposition of a second blanket and substantively identical moratorium, and in light of the national importance of this case, provide this court with clear and convincing evidence of the government’s contempt,” Feldman said.

President Barack Obama’s administration first halted offshore exploration in waters deeper than 500 feet in May, after the explosion and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig off the Louisiana coast led to a subsea blowout of a BP Plc well that spewed more than 4.1 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

Overly Broad

Feldman overturned the initial ban as overly broad on June 22, after the offshore-drilling industry and Gulf Coast political and business leaders challenged it. U.S. Interior Secretary Kenneth Salazar said later that day that he would “issue a new order in the coming days that eliminates any doubt that a moratorium is needed, appropriate, and within our authorities.”

In July, Salazar instituted a second drilling moratorium that was also challenged by an industry lawsuit claiming the ban was harming the Gulf Coast economy, which is heavily dependent on deepwater drilling activities. That ban was rescinded in October, before Feldman could rule on its validity.

Feldman later ruled that enhanced drilling safety rules Salazar imposed to permit companies to resume offshore exploration violated federal law, and he struck down those as well. Opponents of those rules complained to Feldman that regulators were continuing to block the resumption of drilling after Feldman’s rulings.

Wyn Hornbuckle, a Justice Department spokesman, said the government is reviewing yesterday’s ruling. He declined to comment further.

Informal Moratorium

The Offshore Marine Service Association, a group representing offshore service vessels and shipyards, urged the president to end what it called an informal moratorium on offshore drilling.

“President Obama claims to have lifted the Gulf moratorium, yet not a single deepwater permit has been issued in nine months,” Jim Adams, the association’s president, said in a release after the ruling. “As a result, thousands of workers are out of jobs, Americans are paying more for gasoline and heating oil, and our nation is becoming even more dependent on unstable nations for our energy needs.”

Feldman also ordered the government to pay the legal fees of Hornbeck Offshore Services LLC, which filed the initial lawsuit. The company had described the fees as “significant.”

Hornbeck “was put to considerable expense, after Judge Feldman issued the injunction, contending with the government’s litigation posturing and defiance of the court’s order,” Sam Giberga, the company’s general counsel, said today in an e-mail.

“The government was not at liberty to impose its own will after the court struck down the policy,” Giberga said. “The government, like any citizen, had to obey the ruling, even if it didn’t like it.”

The case is Hornbeck Offshore Services LLC v. Salazar, 2:10-cv-01663, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana (New Orleans).

To contact the reporter on this story: Laurel Brubaker Calkins in Houston at laurel@calkins.us.com.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-03/u...udge-rules.htmlCan someone please tell the Obama administration that no, they are not exempt from following the laws of the land and the rulings of the Judicial Branch. Thanks.

 

[Statorama]

How Obama handled the Iranian People's uprising

"It is not productive, given the history of US-Iranian relations to be seen as meddling - the US president, meddling in Iranian elections," Mr Obama said.

How Obama is handling the Muslim Brotherhood led uprising in Egypt

Obama's public call Tuesday evening, communicated directly to Mubarak in a telephone call, that "the time for a transition has come, and that time is now."

 

[TobiasFunke]

Sarnoff and Statorama: thanks for keeping it all in one thread. Jim11 could learn from you two.

n/pI want this to be the "go-to" thread for a complete history of the Obama presidency, both good and bad. A one stop shop for all your Obama needs.

So far, so good.

Side question, why hasn't Obama been impeached yet? Granting specific monetary political favors to people that donated huge sums to your campaign seems ejection worthy to me.

For what it's worth, if you really wanted this thread to have the good and the bad, you wouldn't post garbage like this. Nobody with any interest in posting about the "good" has any interest in reading this kind of nonsense.

But it's the truth. The Obama administration has endowed it's largest donors with waivers from his signature healthcare law. A law that's so good his friends/contributors need protection from it.

He's granting political favors with a monetary benefit to hundreds of groups that donated large sums to his campaign. Why is it "nonsense" to feel this should be investigated?

I assume you referring to the SEIU and other health care legislation waivers. As far as SEIU goes, they were granted only to four locals, not the entire union, and were among hundreds of other waivers that weren't restricted to friends of or contributors to the president. Anyone can apply for a waiver, and anyone who is deemed to qualify will receive one. Unless you have some evidence that organizations who were political allies received waivers, while organizations who were equally or more qualified for those waivers and applied for them were rejected, then what you are doing is nonsense, like I said. It's juvenile finger-pointing and incredibly shallow analysis, nothing more, and it suggests to me that you have no interest in hearing both sides of the story. I usually assume that's the case with you anyway, but since you asked, there you have it.

 

[Boom Switch]

Stongly disapprove is running away with it, go figure...

 

[Statorama]

Two more unions added to the waiver rolls, bringing the total to 729.

It's good to be friends with the king.

ETA : Actually this is a very good tactic for Obama's re-election campaign. Waivers to Obamacare will go a long way toward keeping unions in line for voting in 2012.

 

[urbanhack]

How Obama handled the Iranian People's uprising

"It is not productive, given the history of US-Iranian relations to be seen as meddling - the US president, meddling in Iranian elections," Mr Obama said.

How Obama is handling the Muslim Brotherhood led uprising in Egypt

Obama's public call Tuesday evening, communicated directly to Mubarak in a telephone call, that "the time for a transition has come, and that time is now."

You might be interested in this

 

[Statorama]

I assume you referring to the SEIU and other health care legislation waivers. As far as SEIU goes, they were granted only to four locals

Your Numbers are a little off there, chief

- SEIU Local 2000 Health and Welfare Fund, representing 161 enrollees

- SEIU 32BJ North Health Benefit Fund, representing 7,020 enrollees

- SEIU Local 300, Civil Service Forum Employees Welfare Fund, representing 2,000 enrollees

- SEIU Health & Welfare Fund representing 1,620

That’s in addition to three other previous SEIU waiver winners: Local 25 SEIU in Chicago with 31,000 enrollees; Local 1199 SEIU Greater New York Benefit Fund with 4,544 enrollees; and SEIU Local 1 Cleveland Welfare Fund with 520 enrollees — which brings the total number of Obamacare-promoting SEIU Obamacare refugees to an estimated 45,000 workers represented by seven SEIU locals.

 

[Statorama]

I'd also include those that were denied waivers, but the government won't release that data

Dozens of applicants were denied waiver requests because they "did not demonstrate that compliance with the minimum annual limits requirements would significantly increase premiums or decrease access to benefits," an HHS spokeswoman said.

= No payola

 

[Statorama]

You might be interested in this

I'm not comparing it to the uprising in 1979, I'm comparing it to the Iranian uprising in the last couple of years (the one that Obama didn't want to "meddle" in).

 

[TobiasFunke]

I assume you referring to the SEIU and other health care legislation waivers. As far as SEIU goes, they were granted only to four locals

Your Numbers are a little off there, chief

- SEIU Local 2000 Health and Welfare Fund, representing 161 enrollees

- SEIU 32BJ North Health Benefit Fund, representing 7,020 enrollees

- SEIU Local 300, Civil Service Forum Employees Welfare Fund, representing 2,000 enrollees

- SEIU Health & Welfare Fund representing 1,620

That’s in addition to three other previous SEIU waiver winners: Local 25 SEIU in Chicago with 31,000 enrollees; Local 1199 SEIU Greater New York Benefit Fund with 4,544 enrollees; and SEIU Local 1 Cleveland Welfare Fund with 520 enrollees — which brings the total number of Obamacare-promoting SEIU Obamacare refugees to an estimated 45,000 workers represented by seven SEIU locals.

Seven SEIU locals (if Malkin is to be believed) out of over 150 total SEIU locals in the country. You really nailed me on that point, chief. Unless you're saying that it was those locals, not the national union, that was one of the campaign's "largest donors."Sorry to have rained on your Obama-bashing with this brief interlude of logic and reason. I'll let you go back to closing your mind now. If you actually find a company that was denied a waiver even though you think they were more qualified to receive one than one of the companies that was granted a waiver, let me know in a PM and we can discuss it. Or if you prefer to keep your mind closed and take your talking points from Michelle Malkin without thinking them through, then enjoy that.

 

[Statorama]

I assume you referring to the SEIU and other health care legislation waivers. As far as SEIU goes, they were granted only to four locals

Your Numbers are a little off there, chief

- SEIU Local 2000 Health and Welfare Fund, representing 161 enrollees

- SEIU 32BJ North Health Benefit Fund, representing 7,020 enrollees

- SEIU Local 300, Civil Service Forum Employees Welfare Fund, representing 2,000 enrollees

- SEIU Health & Welfare Fund representing 1,620

That’s in addition to three other previous SEIU waiver winners: Local 25 SEIU in Chicago with 31,000 enrollees; Local 1199 SEIU Greater New York Benefit Fund with 4,544 enrollees; and SEIU Local 1 Cleveland Welfare Fund with 520 enrollees — which brings the total number of Obamacare-promoting SEIU Obamacare refugees to an estimated 45,000 workers represented by seven SEIU locals.

Seven SEIU locals (if Malkin is to be believed) out of over 150 total SEIU locals in the country. You really nailed me on that point, chief. Unless you're saying that it was those locals, not the national union, that was one of the campaign's "largest donors."Sorry to have rained on your Obama-bashing with this brief interlude of logic and reason. I'll let you go back to closing your mind now. If you actually find a company that was denied a waiver even though you think they were more qualified to receive one than one of the companies that was granted a waiver, let me know in a PM and we can discuss it. Or if you prefer to keep your mind closed and take your talking points from Michelle Malkin without thinking them through, then enjoy that.

Republicans have already said they're going to investigate the waiver claims. We'll see which one of us had the "closed mind" about this. You can go back to your Obama worship until then.

ETA: Republican investigatory link

 

[TobiasFunke]

I'd also include those that were denied waivers, but the government won't release that data

Dozens of applicants were denied waiver requests because they "did not demonstrate that compliance with the minimum annual limits requirements would significantly increase premiums or decrease access to benefits," an HHS spokeswoman said.

= No payola

Thanks for confirming what I suspected. Accusations of corruption completely devoid of any evidence whatsoever. Really solid work here.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I assume you referring to the SEIU and other health care legislation waivers. As far as SEIU goes, they were granted only to four locals

Your Numbers are a little off there, chief

- SEIU Local 2000 Health and Welfare Fund, representing 161 enrollees

- SEIU 32BJ North Health Benefit Fund, representing 7,020 enrollees

- SEIU Local 300, Civil Service Forum Employees Welfare Fund, representing 2,000 enrollees

- SEIU Health & Welfare Fund representing 1,620

That’s in addition to three other previous SEIU waiver winners: Local 25 SEIU in Chicago with 31,000 enrollees; Local 1199 SEIU Greater New York Benefit Fund with 4,544 enrollees; and SEIU Local 1 Cleveland Welfare Fund with 520 enrollees — which brings the total number of Obamacare-promoting SEIU Obamacare refugees to an estimated 45,000 workers represented by seven SEIU locals.

Seven SEIU locals (if Malkin is to be believed) out of over 150 total SEIU locals in the country. You really nailed me on that point, chief. Unless you're saying that it was those locals, not the national union, that was one of the campaign's "largest donors."Sorry to have rained on your Obama-bashing with this brief interlude of logic and reason. I'll let you go back to closing your mind now. If you actually find a company that was denied a waiver even though you think they were more qualified to receive one than one of the companies that was granted a waiver, let me know in a PM and we can discuss it. Or if you prefer to keep your mind closed and take your talking points from Michelle Malkin without thinking them through, then enjoy that.

Republicans have already said they're going to investigate the waiver claims. We'll see which one of us had the "closed mind" about this. You can go back to your Obama worship until then.

ETA: Republican investigatory link

No, we won't. We already know who's close-minded. Because you see, I'm not dismissing the possibility completely- I never would pretend to know the truth about anyone or anything without total knowledge of the facts. I'm just not making a judgment without evidence (of which there is absolutely none at the moment). Whatever the truth may be, the fact is that I'm open to it and haven't made any final determinations, whereas you've made up your mind. That's pretty much the definition of "close-minded." Sorry, but I assume that deep down the fact that you're close-minded isn't news to you.

 

[bg0546]

I'd also include those that were denied waivers, but the government won't release that data

Dozens of applicants were denied waiver requests because they "did not demonstrate that compliance with the minimum annual limits requirements would significantly increase premiums or decrease access to benefits," an HHS spokeswoman said.

= No payola

Thanks for confirming what I suspected. Accusations of corruption completely devoid of any evidence whatsoever. Really solid work here.

You're strangely silent on the story about Obama administration being held in contempt of court yesterday. I wonder why........

 

[urbanhack]

You might be interested in this

I'm not comparing it to the uprising in 1979, I'm comparing it to the Iranian uprising in the last couple of years (the one that Obama didn't want to "meddle" in).

You can't see the difference in our relationship with both countries?

 

[Statorama]

I'd also include those that were denied waivers, but the government won't release that data

Dozens of applicants were denied waiver requests because they "did not demonstrate that compliance with the minimum annual limits requirements would significantly increase premiums or decrease access to benefits," an HHS spokeswoman said.

= No payola

Thanks for confirming what I suspected. Accusations of corruption completely devoid of any evidence whatsoever. Really solid work here.

As I said before, Republicans will investigate. It's going to open your Obama worshipping eyes.

 

[Statorama]

Obama's blocking of new power plants triggers nationwide blackouts

The rolling blackouts now being implemented in Texas and across the country as record cold weather grips the United States are a direct consequence of the Obama administration’s agenda to lay siege to the coal industry, launch a takeover of infrastructure under the contrived global warming scam, and help usher in the post-industrial collapse of America.

Edit: More

Fury is building over rolling nationwide blackouts triggered by the Obama administration’s deliberate agenda to block the construction of new coal-fired plants, as local energy companies struggle to meet Americans’ power demands amidst some of the coldest weather seen in decades.

- As we reported yesterday, four hospitals in Texas reacted furiously after they were hit with planned outages despite being promised they would be spared even as power to Super Bowl venues remains uninterrupted.

- Thousands in New Mexico have been left without natural gas as Gov. Susana Martinez on Thursday declared a state of emergency. “Due to statewide natural gas shortages, I have ordered all government agencies that do not provide essential services to shut down and all nonessential employees to stay home” on Friday, Martinez said after meeting with public safety personnel in Albuquerque,” reports the Associated Press.

- Borderland residents have been asked to limit their use of natural gas as the Texas Gas Service asks that larger commercial facilities voluntarily close their doors to save supplies.

- People in Tucson have been asked to limit their use of hot water and moderate their thermostat levels to save on energy.

- Shortages of natural gas in San Diego County has forced utility companies to “cut or reduce the gas supplied to some of their largest commercial and industrial customers,” reports North County Times.

- In El Paso, “Hundreds of thousands of electricity customers continue to face periodic blackouts, and nearly 900 gas customers still have no heat,” reports the El Paso Times, with El Paso Electric resorting to using generators in a struggle to meet demand while still having to implement forced outages.

Coal-fired power plants are used to convert coal to synthetic natural gas. The Obama administration’s efforts to block the construction of new clean-burning coal plants has massively exacerbated this week’s outages.

Mexico has now announced that it will suspend supplying power to southern US states, underscoring how America has been left completely dependent and desperate as a result of the Obama administration’s war on the coal industry.

Cold weather is not the primary culprit behind the power outages that have hit many areas of the country this week. The real blame lies with the Obama administration’s deliberate war against the efforts of local power companies to meet America’s energy needs by building new plants, the vast majority of which have been blocked by judges, governors and the EPA over the last four years at the behest of the Obama administration in the name of preventing global warming.

State authorities in Texas have been engaged in a long-running battle with the EPA as the feds attempt to block the construction of new plants by enforcing adherence to new clean air permit regulations that cripple smaller companies’ ability to afford desperately needed new energy centers and plants. Twelve states are mounting a legal challenge against EPA restrictions that threaten to bankrupt the entire industry.

But it’s not just in Texas where the federal government has embarked on an all out siege against energy independence.

- Back in July 2008, a Superior Court judge in Fulton County blocked the construction of a coal plant in Georgia, citing global warming concerns and the need to limit CO2 emissions.

- In January 2009, the Obama EPA blocked approval for a coal-fired power plant in South Dakota, claiming the state, “didn’t meet requirements under the Clean Air Act in part of its proposed permit for the plant.”

- As Governor of Kansas, Obama’s current Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius slapped a de facto ban on the construction of all new coal-fired plants across the state.

- Last month, Senators in Obama’s home state of Illinois blocked the construction of a clean-burning coal gasification and power generating plant.

- As a result of the EPA’s recent remand of air permits, Shell Oil announced yesterday that it has “dropped plans to drill in the Arctic waters of the Beaufort Sea this year,” ensuring more shortages and higher energy prices for Americans already laboring under soaring food costs.

The federal government’s siege against independent power companies’ efforts to build coal-fired plants is part of the unfolding agenda to de-industrialize the United States even as China and Mexico build new power plants at ever accelerating speeds.

Global warming alarmists have consistently gone on record to openly voice their agenda to de-industrialize the United States in the name of saving the planet.

In his new book, author and environmentalist Keith Farnish called for acts of sabotage and environmental terrorism in blowing up dams and demolishing cities in order to return the planet to pre-industrial society. Prominent NASA global warming alarmist and Al Gore ally Dr. James Hansen endorsed Farnish’s book.

The global elite resolved to exploit contrived fears about climate change to de-industrialize the United States back in 1991 when the Club of Rome, a powerful globalist NGO committed to limiting growth and ushering in a post-industrial society, said in their report, The First Global Revolution, “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…. All these dangers are caused by human intervention… The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”

In 1969, Dr. Richard Day, the National Medical Director of the Rockefeller-sponsored “Planned Parenthood,” asserted that a move towards a “unified global system” would necessitate the sabotage of American industry.

“Each part of the world will have a specialty and thus become inter-dependent, he said. The US will remain a center for agriculture, high tech, communications, and education but heavy industry would be “transported out,” Day stated.

In 2008 Obama openly stated his plan to bankrupt the coal industry.

 

[Statorama]

Republicans have already said they're going to investigate the waiver claims. We'll see which one of us had the "closed mind" about this.

You can go back to your Obama worship until then.

ETA: Republican investigatory link

No, we won't. We already know who's close-minded. Because you see, I'm not dismissing the possibility completely- I never would pretend to know the truth about anyone or anything without total knowledge of the facts. I'm just not making a judgment without evidence (of which there is absolutely none at the moment). Whatever the truth may be, the fact is that I'm open to it and haven't made any final determinations, whereas you've made up your mind. That's pretty much the definition of "close-minded." Sorry, but I assume that deep down the fact that you're close-minded isn't news to you.

As I said in my post above, "we'll see". I TOO am open to hearing the other side of this, and will gladly report if the Republican findings show no wrong doing.I think your failure to realize that (or even read my post) indicate who's a little more closed minded on this one.

ETA: Besides, this thread isn't about us, it's about reporting the truth about Obama. The Obama Administration HAS granted 729 waivers to Obamacare. That's the fact, jack.

 

[tommyGunZ]

2 years into Obama's presidency: He's protecting me (no major terrorist attacks on US soil), my 401K has been on fire, and many of my friends who were laid off are now finding work.

Not sure how anyone being objective can still be #####ing about the job Mr. Hussein Obama is doing. Put an R behind his name and Republicans would be bowing and calling him the 2nd coming of Reagan.

 

[Orange Crush]

Obama praised the Bruce Randolph school in Denver in the State of the Union speech for going from one of the worst schools in the state to one with 97% of seniors graduating. What he didn't mention was the reason for their success: they were allowed to run autonomously, without having to abide by district Education Department and union rules. Only after throwing out the unions did the school turn around.

Sorry I don't spend more time in this thread. Its a nice condensed list of grievances from the other side of the aisle. As to the story above, Obama both when he was campaigning and as president has been very critical of the status quo in grade school education in this country, and has frequently called for large scale reforms, but within the public school set-up. He wasn't being hypocritical in the least when he focused on the Bruce Randolph school. He wants schools to get rid of teachers who can't teach, and to institute merit pay to attract teachers who can inspire students and improve standards.

 

[Statorama]

Obama praised the Bruce Randolph school in Denver in the State of the Union speech for going from one of the worst schools in the state to one with 97% of seniors graduating. What he didn't mention was the reason for their success: they were allowed to run autonomously, without having to abide by district Education Department and union rules. Only after throwing out the unions did the school turn around.

Sorry I don't spend more time in this thread. Its a nice condensed list of grievances from the other side of the aisle. As to the story above, Obama both when he was campaigning and as president has been very critical of the status quo in grade school education in this country, and has frequently called for large scale reforms, but within the public school set-up. He wasn't being hypocritical in the least when he focused on the Bruce Randolph school. He wants schools to get rid of teachers who can't teach, and to institute merit pay to attract teachers who can inspire students and improve standards.

It's also for stories that show Obama in a positive light. I truly welcome those, as it's good to know things aren't as bleak as I read them to be sometimes.Please contribute more to the thread. I'd like this to be a reflection of the Obama Presidency, both good and bad.

 

[Statorama]

2 years into Obama's presidency: He's protecting me (no major terrorist attacks on US soil), my 401K has been on fire, and many of my friends who were laid off are now finding work.Not sure how anyone being objective can still be #####ing about the job Mr. Hussein Obama is doing. Put an R behind his name and Republicans would be bowing and calling him the 2nd coming of Reagan.

Glad things are working out well for you, and it's probably why you drink from the Obama kool-aid troughA lot of people don't have it as well and have a different opinion.The rest of us view the big picture and see Obama's decisions in a long-term light.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Republicans have already said they're going to investigate the waiver claims. We'll see which one of us had the "closed mind" about this.

You can go back to your Obama worship until then.

ETA: Republican investigatory link

No, we won't. We already know who's close-minded. Because you see, I'm not dismissing the possibility completely- I never would pretend to know the truth about anyone or anything without total knowledge of the facts. I'm just not making a judgment without evidence (of which there is absolutely none at the moment). Whatever the truth may be, the fact is that I'm open to it and haven't made any final determinations, whereas you've made up your mind. That's pretty much the definition of "close-minded." Sorry, but I assume that deep down the fact that you're close-minded isn't news to you.

As I said in my post above, "we'll see". I TOO am open to hearing the other side of this, and will gladly report if the Republican findings show no wrong doing.I think your failure to realize that (or even read my post) indicate who's a little more closed minded on this one.

ETA: Besides, this thread isn't about us, it's about reporting the truth about Obama. The Obama Administration HAS granted 729 waivers to Obamacare. That's the fact, jack.

Side question, why hasn't Obama been impeached yet? Granting specific monetary political favors to people that donated huge sums to your campaign seems ejection worthy to me.

Just to be clear- you are saying that this position is "open-minded."

He's granting political favors with a monetary benefit to hundreds of groups that donated large sums to his campaign. Why is it "nonsense" to feel this should be investigated?

Again- you think this is an open-minded position. You say there have been 729 waivers total. So of these 729, it is your claim that "hundreds donated large sums" to the Obama campaign. Any way you could maybe provide a link to substantiate that claim? Perhaps listing the "hundreds" of these 729 and how much they donated, which I assume you know since you characterized their donations as "large"? Even that proves nothing without showing similarly situated people who didn't make such donations being refused waivers, of course. But we can cross that bridge next. Let's take care of the basics first. Link?

 

[Statorama]

You say there have been 729 waivers total. So of these 729, it is your claim that "hundreds donated large sums" to the Obama campaign. Any way you could maybe provide a link to substantiate that claim? Perhaps listing the "hundreds" of these 729 and how much they donated, which I assume you know since you characterized their donations as "large"? Even that proves nothing without showing similarly situated people who didn't make such donations being refused waivers, of course. But we can cross that bridge next. Let's take care of the basics first. Link?

It's going to be investigated, the truth will come out.Isn't that what we all want? The truth?

ETA: SEIU donated $16.9 Million in the 2008 campaign