Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info

foshaffer

Subscribe to foshaffer's blog Subscribe

Menu

Special Features

Comments

You condemn banks and the "1%". Yet without the banks you could not get a loan and without the top 1% there would not be money FOR Medicade to take care of you. That is the back stabbing part.

You wine about them and then dine on their dime.

www.aei-ideas.org

The top 1% pay almost as much as the other 95% and the top 10% "Top 10 Percent of Earners Paid 68 Percent of Federal Income Taxes" www.heritage.org

So the next time you are going on about them you should stop and think without them you would not have the opportunity you now have.

As to Obamacare lowering rates and taking "shoddy" products off the market.

"Comparing Kaiser Permanente's current rates for 21, 40, and 60 year old males* and the approved rates: Bronze level coverage will see a significant cost increase. A 21 year old single male will pay 85% more (from $85/mo to $157/mo) for the same coverage in 2014 than 2013. A 40 year old's premiums will go up 26% (from $159/mo to $201/mo). A 60 year olds' payments will increase 19% (from $359/mo to $427/mo).
The Gold plan coverage: 21 year olds will still see a sharp increase of 35% even in the gold plan (from $175/mo to $236/mo) while in contrast 40 and 60 year olds remain about the same.

"healthcare spending for the first three months of 2014 rose at the fastest rate in 34 years – since 1980. The ACA has prompted more Americans to visit their physicians and hospitals. According to the U.S. bureau of Economic Analysis, healthcare spending escalated by 9.9 percent over the first quarter of this year, mainly due to increased spending in hospitals."

Saying that ANY product that does not conform to what OBAMACARE says is good is the only way that definition could even be remotely classified as accurate. But accuracy has not been the forte of the left for quite some time.

Humtake - good post.

Shawn...I do not understand your point. The list shows government bailout of various corporations. It also tracks the ones that paid it back and the government made money and some that did not.

If you are trying to prove that Obama and the Democrats do not know who to loan money to it is a good proof. GM losts us money and went bankrupt anyway. The only thing it did was protect the labor unions contracts on the back of the retirees. Fannie and Freddie are PERFECT examples of where Government should not be inserting itself. Both were run by Democrats escaping from the Clinton administration - Franklin Raines and the infamous Jamie Gorlick who has been a central figure in almost every american disaster - from 911 to the Financial collapes.

So if that what you were doing I think you are right. Not sure what else it could be.

Back to the original point. Reagan economy provided 400K new jobs per month. Jan 14 - Less than 150K, Feb 14 220K March 14 210 April 14 300 May 230 June 260 July 210 Aug 130. So NO MONTH over 330 and we need 330 per month just to keep up with population growth.

Average over the 8 monts was 213 compared to the 420K per month during Reagan. Over the comprable time period Reagan added 3.3 MILLION new jobs compared to 1.7M by Obama. If you need 330 just to keep up - Reagan created 720K MORE jobs than you need to keep current...Obama LOST 930K jobs compared to basic requirement.

Tell me again how Obama is creating more jobs??? Fact is that Obama is reaching his unemployment number by creating a dependent class with massive increase in food stamps, welfare cards, and years on unemployment. Liberal policies in action!

What a crock. Do you guys even READ what this is based on?? Are you so desperate to try to validate the failed liberal policies that you hold on to ANYTHING? Before you try to REWRITE history ...here is actual history.

www.bls.gov

1st. Here is a Government write up of 1985 economic situation. You will see that just that year the average job growth was over 400K private sector jobs per month. Has there been a SINGLE month over 350 for Obama? Nope. What was last month 100K.

2nd. Obamas 6% unemployment is NOT due to job growth. It is due to people LEAVEING the workforce. And it Isn't Retirees - it is primarily between the age of 39 to 59. The current labor participation rate is 63% and FALLING. This DECREASES the unemployment rate not by job creation but by people leaving the work force. Under Reagan it as 65% and CLIMBING which means that MORE people not only had a job More people were looking for a job which should mean an INCREASE in unemployment. money.cnn.com

3rd. If you take the SAME labor participation rate as Reagan - Obama would be looking at 17% unemployment. As it is, he is still looking at 13% the longest time in our history of over double digit actual unemployment. www.macrotrends.net

So the Net is Reagan got his 6% by growing jobs....Obama is getting HIS 6% by creating a job market SO bad people stop looking or even participating. Fact are facts.

Drudge Retort
 

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable