Tweet
Originally posted by Kung Wu
View Post
-
Wowza! I forgot about all of that! $2,500 per family per year? I haven't seen it. In my circle, we call that a big fat lie. In KC's world, that $2,500 per family per year is hope and change. But he hasn't lied or made mistakes, has he, KC?
There are three rules that I live by: never get less than twelve hours sleep; never play cards with a guy who has the same first name as a city; and never get involved with a woman with a tattoo of a dagger on her body. Now you stick to that, and everything else is cream cheese. -
Give it time.Originally posted by MoValley John View PostI have come here to chew bubblegum and kickass ... and I'm all out of bubblegum.Comment
-
Until what?Comment
-
Friend of mines son who is Doctor in the USAF(cur in Afghanistan) says it will take up to 2020 to see the full effects. He believes once they are fully implemented people will be impressed. I also heard one of the Doctors who consulted on it say just about the same thing on one of the news networks.I have come here to chew bubblegum and kickass ... and I'm all out of bubblegum.Comment
-
According to a Forbes contributor that used the same math as Obama, the "typical" family of four will be over 7, 000+ in the hole through 2022. Instead of having a 2500 x 9 drop in premiums. So expect premiums to increase by 700/yr. I believe that is a very conservative calculation.Kung Wu say, man who read woman like book, prefer braille!Comment
-
Well your friend's son, who like you must be a Rachel Maddow water carrying bleeding heart lib, has no idea what he's talking about, unless of course he ultimately wants a single payer system, just like you. In that case, 2020 might just be right. This debacle is already spiraling out of control, and it's not close to being fully implemented.Originally posted by kcshocker11 View Post
Nevertheless, I thank him for his service.Comment
-
lolI have come here to chew bubblegum and kickass ... and I'm all out of bubblegum.Comment
-
Speaking of laughable, how's the country doing 5 years into your guy's leadership? Economy good? Price of gas good? Lots of people working? Welfare expanding or contracting? How are we doing as a country, with your guy in charge?Originally posted by kcshocker11 View PostComment
-
Not bad considering what he took over and having to face a House determined to to make him look bad. Oh by the way, just think if your right you'll be able to use the ACA against Hillary when she runs for her second term.Originally posted by WuDrWu View PostI have come here to chew bubblegum and kickass ... and I'm all out of bubblegum.Comment
-
Once again, blame Bush. Laughable!!!!! I myself, didn't like Bush at all, but then again, I judge president's on THEIR own actions, nothing else. That said, Bush had an entire Congress determined to make him look bad.Originally posted by kcshocker11 View Post
Try to get Obama's phallus out of your mouth for just a second, you might like the fresh air... Then again, maybe you like a constant mouth full of Obama. You really do sound this pathetic.There are three rules that I live by: never get less than twelve hours sleep; never play cards with a guy who has the same first name as a city; and never get involved with a woman with a tattoo of a dagger on her body. Now you stick to that, and everything else is cream cheese.Comment
-
I have come here to chew bubblegum and kickass ... and I'm all out of bubblegum.Comment
-
lol, you mean the Democratic house and Senate he had for 2 years to ram anything through he wanted? Yeah, they wanted to make him look bad. You're a complete joke.Originally posted by kcshocker11 View PostComment
-
HA! His first accomplishment is a 97.5% success rate in first year in the White House getting his bills through congress. That's like saying he pooped during his first 12 months. Frankly, how did he miss 2.5%? That's seems like a failure to me.Originally posted by kcshocker11 View PostComment
-
see list above Doc , its no joke.Originally posted by WuDrWu View Post
Oh heres why 97.5 is impressive from the Topeka Cap Journal
Last edited by kcshocker11; October 22, 2013, 12:25 AM.I have come here to chew bubblegum and kickass ... and I'm all out of bubblegum.Comment
-
Actually Obama had total control for only 4 months (58 Ds and 2 Is that caucus with the Ds in the Senate) not 2 years. The Rs threatened to filibuster everything so it took 60 votes to control the Senate (pretty much still does). During the early part of his first term, Al Franken wasn't seated as it took several months to determine who won that election. Also Senators Byrd and Kennedy were not voting due to illness. So the Ds were always 1 to 3 votes short of the 60 they needed until October 2009. They did not get the 60th vote until Kirk was seated in Mass. to temporarily replace Kennedy until a special election could be held. That lasted just 4 months until Scott Brown won a big upset victory in the Massachusetts special election. That totally ended the Ds 60 vote margin during Obama's first term.Comment
Comment