Forum Groups

 

Forums / Politics / Debate Aftermath

Debate Aftermath

52 posts
  1. Sandy Clark
    Sandy Clark avatar
    0 posts
    10/5/2012 8:10 AM
    The best response the Obama machine can come up with is that Romney is a liar! I believe they painted Romney in a certain way and when reality didn't fit the caricature, they were inept and defenseless. People saw who looked like a knowledgeable leader and who looked dazed and unprepared. I would think today's suspiciously optimistic jobs number may just be more of a lie. Portions were the best since the 1960's? We haven't seen a .3% drop or rise in 4 years. Isn't it interesting that it just happens after the debate the President lost badly. It will be revised up quietly later in the month and will be reported in the food section of the paper in section F on page 21. Jack Welch stated that some economist had broken the White House code and had predicted this miraculous jump well in advance of today's numbers. What a classy campaign the President is running!



  2. Melvin Waldron
    Melvin Waldron avatar
    43 posts
    10/5/2012 9:10 AM
    I saw something the other day that said Gov. Romney's statement of, was it 12 million new jobs he will create, will be created regardless of who's the president. It was some news story that looked at both campaigns and the talking points they regularly use. Had something to do with fact checking the campaigns and debate. They found issues with both sides, something I'm sure we all agree with but don't always listen too as we hear what we want to hear and decide our votes on that.

    I still don't see how the governors numbers will add up, tax cuts with increased defense spending. My wife yelled down at me as she was watching the first few minutes and said, "Romney is going to take away our mortgage deductions" She was guessing of course as we all have, since the Gov. states there will be deductions that are done away with but he won't say what they are. Of course I have changed the topic that Sandy was commenting on and that's the jobless numbers. Isn't that done by a non-partisan group?

    Mel

    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

  3. McCallum David K
    McCallum David K avatar
    10/5/2012 9:10 AM
    I ust hope Obamacare will pay for that a$$ whipping he took Wednesday night



  4. Melvin Waldron
    Melvin Waldron avatar
    43 posts
    10/5/2012 10:10 AM
    David McCallum said: I ust hope Obamacare will pay for that a$$ whipping he took Wednesday night


    It will if it was a pre-existing condition.

    Mel

    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

  5. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    10/5/2012 11:10 AM
    Jack Welsh is just another angry conservative. To suggest that the President or even the Secretary of Labor can manipulate the Bureau of Labor Statistics to that extent is ridiculous. There would be so many people involved that they could not keep a conspiracy of that magnitude quiet.

    http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm



  6. Wallace Jeffrey V
    Wallace Jeffrey V avatar
    10/5/2012 11:10 AM
    The President blew it. Looked like somebody slipped him a couple of Xanax. He lied. Romney lied. Nothing to see here people. Move along, move along. Nothing to see here. "Hey you! Romney! I said move along!" Geez....some people just love seeing bloody train wrecks......



  7. Sandy Clark
    Sandy Clark avatar
    0 posts
    10/5/2012 11:10 AM
    Many of you were not around when Kennedy and Nixon had what may have been the first television debate. Those that listened on the radio clearly thought Nixon won. Everyone watching on television clearly gave the debate to Kennedy. It boiled down to perception based on style. I am not going to argue who had the most accurate facts because it doesn't matter. At this point, both of them are going for that so-called undecided vote and the key is to make them feel comfortable. It is sad to say but these are politicians and they are looking at less sophisticated voters.

    Do I think government can manipulate numbers? Of course I do. It doesn't need to be a conspiracy. The Labor Department is part of the Executive Branch. I absolutely believe that no matter the party, every opportunity will be taken to make the guy in office look better. They will be adjusted downward within 30 days. You just don't suddenly have a portion of the report showing the best increase in 40 years when little in the work place has changed. Every report for the last year has been corrected, reflecting less growth and more unemployment. This one will do so as well. Old Jack Welsh was considered a pretty darn successful CEO in his day. Many still trust his opinion.



  8. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    10/5/2012 12:10 PM
    As former Bush White House aide Tony Fratto put it, "BLS is not manipulating data. Evidence of such would be a scandal of enormous proportions & loss of credibility."

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/10/does-the-white-house-manipulate-jobs-numbers/



  9. Jon Gansen
    Jon Gansen avatar
    1 posts
    10/5/2012 4:10 PM
    Scott Wahlin, CGCS said: As former Bush White House aide Tony Fratto put it, "BLS is not manipulating data. Evidence of such would be a scandal of enormous proportions & loss of credibility."

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/10/does-the-white-house-manipulate-jobs-numbers/


    Most everywhere I read it says it surprised most economists. That morning at 6:00 NPR had it as very disappointing news for Obamas campaign because of dismal job numbers and the unemployment rate. I was very surprised to find out it dropped 3-4 tenths later. Big question I have is how many gave up looking and are off unemployment.
    These two articles explain some.


    http://www.examiner.com/article/breakin ... te-is-14-7

    http://www.policymic.com/articles/15935 ... al-picture



  10. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    10/5/2012 5:10 PM
    Jon, You can read the report for yourself. Here it is:
    http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm



  11. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    10/5/2012 5:10 PM
    Jack Welsh is a jerk and the whole culture of GE would fit him very well. My grandfather was a HVAC Engineer and was the GM of a GE Production Plant where he had 800 employees. My grandfather told my Dad after he went to work for GE not to listen to any of the stuff about retirement benefits because you're not going to get them. They will lay you off first. At my father's plant in Daytona Beach they duplicated his department with young people at low wages then laid off my father and his people. He was 52 and short of getting a descent pension. As it turned out they needed someone with tank combat experience to help demonstrate a tank simulator they were building in the very same plant. He went from going to work in suits to going to work in ACUs. He did all right, but his people all got screwed. With people like Jack Welsh in charge you are working for someone scheming against your best interests. That is what the right considers leadership. That is one reason why I am progressive.

    In the case of many of us old guys, if our bosses were as ruthless as Jack Welsh, we'd be gone.



  12. Clay Putnam
    Clay Putnam avatar
    33 posts
    10/6/2012 1:10 AM
    Steve Jobs was a [u">notorious [/u">Richard to his staff. Well documented. And liberal. Gave a ton of money to the Dems. The left's lunatic leader?



  13. Jon Gansen
    Jon Gansen avatar
    1 posts
    10/6/2012 9:10 AM
    Scott Wahlin, CGCS said: Jon, You can read the report for yourself. Here it is:
    http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm


    Here is what this report doesnt say. Should the BLS report this? By the way this is MSNBC.

    http://www.mrctv.org/videos/morning-joe ... make-sense



  14. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    10/6/2012 11:10 AM
    Jon Gansen said: Here is what this report doesnt say. Should the BLS report this?


    It is their job to calculate these figures. I suppose there could be a problem that resulted in an incorrect conclusion, but I cannot imagine there is anything sinister about it. These are not political people; they work there regardless of which Party the current President represents. Statistical Analysis never made any sense to me.



  15. Jon Gansen
    Jon Gansen avatar
    1 posts
    10/6/2012 11:10 PM
    [quote"> Statistical Analysis never made any sense to me.

    That I can agree on.



  16. McCallum David K
    McCallum David K avatar
    10/8/2012 7:10 AM
    In the aftermath of last weeks debate the administration has gone on tour declaring everything Romney said was a lie and had already called Ryan one BEFORE his debate with biden. I'll point out one of the presidents from last Tuesday.....one he denied more than once

    quote "Gov. Romney may dance around his positions, but if you want to be president, you owe the American public the truth" President Barrack Obama on Thursday after the debate.........the quote in itself is laughable as he had brought a whole new meaning to telling a lie

    late in the debate when Romney for the third time raised the issue of Obamcare's creation of a THIRD PARTY unelected, appointed board, who will decide what kind of medical treatment you ought to have............Obama replied "NO, it isn't"...............sorry Mr President......a LIE.

    As our former speaker once said you have to pass it to find out whats in it and she was sooooooooo correct. Deep in the 2300+ pages of the AFCA (though Obama said last week at the beginning of the debate he liked the term Obamacare) you will find reference to the Independent Payment Advisory Board aka IPAB. Beginning in 2014 (notice how all this is after the 2012 election......I wonder why that is?) the IPAB will consist of 15 UNELECTED bureaucrats whose recommendations for reducing Medicare cost be enacted by Congress by August 15 of each year..........hey we're getting to the good stuff now.............If Congress does not agree to ENACT these recommended changes to control medicare cost the IPAB proposals AUTOMATICALLY are transferred from recommendations into LAW.........without approval of CONGRESS or the signature of the PRESIDENT. This directly contradicts what the president was saying in Denver that the IPAB "cannot make decisions about what treatments are given"...........perhaps the president should follow the former speakers suggestion and actually read the AFCA..............nawwwwwwww why let the truth get in the way of the facts huh ? But it gets better sports fans.........Congress can ONLY repeal the IPAB during a..............7 month window in 2017...........this of course is after Obama is long gone from the White House..........how convenient and the details of Obamacare is in the back of everyone's mind including Congress.............and to repeal this law it must be passed it BOTH houses by a 3/5 majority or IT BECOMES LAW FOREVER AND WILL PRECLUDE CONGRESS FROM EVER ALTERING IPAB PROPOSALS................how is that for democracy.

    Who is the LIAR now Mr. President ?



  17. James Schmid
    James Schmid avatar
    1 posts
    10/8/2012 9:10 AM
    David McCallum said: If Congress does not agree to ENACT these recommended changes to control medicare cost the IPAB proposals AUTOMATICALLY are transferred from recommendations into LAW.........without approval of CONGRESS or the signature of the PRESIDENT.


    Congress can ONLY repeal the IPAB during a..............7 month window in 2017

    IT BECOMES LAW FOREVER AND WILL PRECLUDE CONGRESS FROM EVER ALTERING IPAB PROPOSALS................how is that for democracy.




    I'm not trying to argue that anyone is or is not a liar - I just want to point out a couple of things.

    The reason that social security and medicare are in the mess they are in is because they have undergone very little change, as the world changes rapidly around them. I, for one am glad to see that adjustments will be made on an annual basis, without requiring an act of congress. Economic, social, and demographic conditions are changing in our world rapidly, and it would be great if our programs could change with them.

    Check me if I'm wrong on this, but I'm pretty sure that unless the IPAB or whatever was adopted as an amendment to our constitution, congress can pretty much change an act of congress at any time with another act of congress it would not have to wait until 2017. And this becoming law forever? Come on man, thats just simply absurd.



  18. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    10/8/2012 9:10 AM
    It is Section 3403 in Obamacare and expressly forbids this board from rationing healthcare.
    Sec. 3403(C)(2)(a)(ii)

    http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf



  19. McCallum David K
    McCallum David K avatar
    10/8/2012 10:10 AM
    James no one is arguing both SS and medicare/medicaid need work.......but a board of 15 appointed individuals is not my idea of fair play......all for reform, just don;t ram it down our throats.



  20. McCallum David K
    McCallum David K avatar
    10/8/2012 10:10 AM
    Thanks Scott, the next time I have time to read through 974 pages of government legalease I will. Just don;t have tome today...........a video would have been better but 974 pages in a video would have been a 3 hour bore.



  21. Melvin Waldron
    Melvin Waldron avatar
    43 posts
    10/8/2012 10:10 AM
    As I understand the board, it is just to gather information on best management practices and will dispense that information out to providers. It is still up to the provider and patient to choose what works best in their situation.

    If the medical profession was being proactive like other industries have been (Georgia Superintendents water conservation plan comes to mind) maybe this part of the law wouldn't have been needed either.

    Mel

    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

  22. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    10/8/2012 11:10 AM
    David McCallum said: Thanks Scott, the next time I have time to read through 974 pages of government legalease I will. Just don;t have tome today...........a video would have been better but 974 pages in a video would have been a 3 hour bore.


    I pinpointed the paragraph for you.

    [youtube">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-U7_iNIgGjc[/youtube">



  23. Sandy Clark
    Sandy Clark avatar
    0 posts
    10/8/2012 11:10 AM
    Maybe if doctors and nurses were involved in putting a plan together it would make sense! This program is purely politically created and driven. The doctor and patient were secondary thoughts in the so-called affordable care plan. Personally, I don't want a board of non doctors reviewing anything that has to do with medical needs and requirements.



  24. Jon Gansen
    Jon Gansen avatar
    1 posts
    10/8/2012 6:10 PM
    Melvin Waldron, CGCS said: As I understand the board, it is just to gather information on best management practices and will dispense that information out to providers. It is still up to the provider and patient to choose what works best in their situation.

    If the medical profession was being proactive like other industries have been (Georgia Superintendents water conservation plan comes to mind) maybe this part of the law wouldn't have been needed either.

    Mel


    Best management practices is what type of care you are allowed . It will not be up to the provider and patient plain and simple but up to the panel...



  25. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    10/8/2012 6:10 PM
    Jon Gansen said: Best management practices is what type of care you are allowed . It will not be up to the provider and patient plain and simple but up to the panel...


    This is not true. The board will have nothing to do with individual cases.



  26. Jon Gansen
    Jon Gansen avatar
    1 posts
    10/8/2012 6:10 PM
    Scott Wahlin, CGCS said:
    Jon Gansen said: Best management practices is what type of care you are allowed . It will not be up to the provider and patient plain and simple but up to the panel...


    This is not true. The board will have nothing to do with individual cases.


    When they have control of the money it does. Read farther down where they can restrict payments. If they restrict payments how do the drugs and procedures get implemented and paid for?



  27. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    10/8/2012 7:10 PM
    Jon Gansen said: When they have control of the money it does. Read farther down where they can restrict payments. If they restrict payments how do the drugs and procedures get implemented and paid for?


    You need to read it. That board can have nothing to do with individual cases nor can they ration care in any way. Their job is to oversee the business practices from year-to-year. If they find something like Medicare Advantage that overcharges the system it is their job to suggest that this be addressed.

    Do you think our medical system is working now? Every year for decades the prices and expenses have skyrocketed. For many people it does not matter that their company provides health care because they still cannot afford the co-pays and deductibles. Our system is more expensive than most around the world and still inefficient at treating people. The right is not proposing anything except the status quo.



  28. Jon Gansen
    Jon Gansen avatar
    1 posts
    10/9/2012 7:10 AM
    [quote">Their job is to oversee the business practices from year-to-year.

    Money and how it is spent what procedures, practices, drugs. I did read it (as much as I could stand) They can restrict care thru money.

    Obamacare creates a board of unelected bureaucrats to implement ways to keep Medicare spending below a new cap. The board is limited mostly to changing provider payment rates, but reducing reimbursement will make it more difficult for providers to continue to care for Medicare patients. IPAB will also be empowered to contain costs by restricting access to certain treatments or services. Though the statute authorizes IPAB to "protect and improve Medicare beneficiaries' access to necessary and evidence-based items and services," this directive can be used to justify restricting access to care that the government does not consider necessary or evidence-based for most patients. Policy analyst from the Heritage Foundation.



  29. Melvin Waldron
    Melvin Waldron avatar
    43 posts
    10/9/2012 8:10 AM
    Jon Gansen said: [quote">Their job is to oversee the business practices from year-to-year.


    Money and how it is spent what procedures, practices, drugs. I did read it (as much as I could stand) They can restrict care thru money.

    Obamacare creates a board of unelected bureaucrats to implement ways to keep Medicare spending below a new cap. The board is limited mostly to changing provider payment rates, but reducing reimbursement will make it more difficult for providers to continue to care for Medicare patients. IPAB will also be empowered to contain costs by restricting access to certain treatments or services. Though the statute authorizes IPAB to "protect and improve Medicare beneficiaries' access to necessary and evidence-based items and services," this directive can be used to justify restricting access to care that the government does not consider necessary or evidence-based for most patients. Policy analyst from the Heritage Foundation.

    1. How does this sound different then what insurance companies already do?

    2. Sounds like something the Republicans would be all in favor of, resticting entitlements? You all talk about medicare going bankrupt, this is an attempt to save it. How would the voucher system be better? Hoping the insurance I buy with my voucher would do things any better? Explain to me how it will be better and then I would be willing to buy it.

    Mel

    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

  30. Sandy Clark
    Sandy Clark avatar
    0 posts
    10/9/2012 9:10 AM
    Mel, the thing to consider would be vouchers providing choices. With choices you would have competition. With competition, every company must get better. Look at areas where no competition is involved. Choices don't exist therefore no pressure to keep prices competitive exist. If the government made TV's and controlled the cable network, would we have better TV's coming out all the time or would we have one TV and one price for whatever shows the government chose to provide. Cable may not be as competitive as it should be but every place competition exists between cable companies, the product and the choices improve. The same would happen if insurance had to compete nationally. You would be the winner because of competition for both choice and price.



View or change your forums profile here.