The rise of Christie and fall of Obama

November 7th, 2013 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

Yahoo reports:

When President Obama first ran for the White House in 2008, it was with the promise to turn the page on the presidency of George W. Bush. But for all their political differences, it turns out the American public pretty much view the two men in the same light, according to new polling data.

In the first week of November in the fifth year of their presidencies, Obama and Bush have nearly identical approval numbers, according to the latest Gallup polling.

In fact, Bush comes out one point ahead, 40 percent to 39 percent, respectively.

The Gallup daily tracking poll for November 5th 2013 puts Obama’s approval at 39 percent, with 53 percent disapproving of his job performance.

By comparison, polling for the first week of November in 2005 had Bush’s approval at 40 percent, with 55 percent disapproving of his job performance.

The health reforms are turning into a major issue for Obama – not just the fact the central website is so defective, but that he promised no one would lose their current policies or plans – and many people are. It is emerging that the White House was informed that they were over-promising, but they did so anyway.

Meanwhile has been re-elected Governor of New Jersey in a landslide. It is important to note that New Jersey is a state that normally votes heavily Democrat, and has done so since 1992. Obama won it by 18%.

Christie appeals to non-Republicans but his actual policies are mainstream Republican – he is pro-life and anti gay marriage. Unions and others spent $35 million mainly trying to defeat him. The education unions alone spent $12 million against him. this is in a state of under nine million people.

The NY Times reports:

 In a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans by over 700,000, Mr. Christie won a majority of the votes of women and Hispanics and made impressive inroads among younger voters and blacks — groups that Republicans nationally have struggled to attract.

The governor prevailed despite holding positions contrary to those of many New Jersey voters on several key issues, including same-sex marriage, abortion rights and the minimum wage, and despite an economic recovery that has trailed the rest of the country.

He attracted a broad coalition by campaigning as a straight-talking, even swaggering, leader who could reach across the aisle to solve problems.

He is possibly the only Republican who can beat Hillary Clinton, and would be an absolute contrast to her. The exit poll numbers for him are fascinating.

  • Won female vote by 19% (and up against a female candidate)
  • Won the Hispanic vote by 6%
  • Got 21% of Black voters (most GOP people get 5% or so)
  • 32% of Democrats voted for him
  • Won Independents by 34%
  • Won low income households by 5%
  • Won moderates by 24%, conservatives by 73% and lose liberals by 36%

Christie’s biggest challenge will be willing the primary, not the general election.

Tags: ,

91 Responses to “The rise of Christie and fall of Obama”

  1. Harriet (4,969 comments) says:

    To use the words of LBJ:

    The American people have found that Obama has all the characteristics of a dog – except loyalty.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Manolo (13,755 comments) says:

    The enemy within: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/1/dhs-adviser-america-islamic-country/

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. infused (654 comments) says:

    The funny thing is, when Obama got voted in, a lot of my American friends said this would happen, and it has.

    He was useless.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. JC (955 comments) says:

    But he has a big black mark against him for his handling of the state economy, issues with his health, how his brash style will go down further South and West plus some ethical issues.. there’s a reason Mit Romney didn’t pick him for his running mate.. even though he wanted to.

    JC

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Daigotsu (456 comments) says:

    If I was a Yank politician I would be terrified of your endorsement DPF.

    Rudy Guiliani in 2008, Tim Pawlenty in 2012, and now Christie in 2016!

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Alan (1,087 comments) says:

    The modern republican party is a cult; it’s impossible for a viable candidate to emerge from a primary process dominated by religious fruit loops.

    Christie may well make a good president, but I doubt he’ll run. Reagan wouldn’t make it in the modern republican party.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. berend (1,708 comments) says:

    DPF: He is possibly the only Republican who can beat Hillary Clinton

    Yeah, just like John McCain and Mitt Romney…

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Ed Snack (1,872 comments) says:

    Alan, which is of course why the most moderate and RINO like candidate, Mitt Romney failed so spectacularly to win the nomination in 2012, oh wait…

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Rightandleft (663 comments) says:

    Christie winning in NJ as a Republican really doesn’t mean anything for his viability on the national stage, nor that voters in his own state would vote for him as President. Just look at Mitt Romney, who won the governorship of Massachusetts with comfortable numbers but lost the Massachusetts Republican primary in 2008 and came nowhere close to carrying the state in the 2012 election. Massachusetts has had many Republican governors but the state remains solidly Democratic in all national elections. New Jersey is very similar. People vote for the Republican to constrain the power of the Democratic machine that tends to run the rest of the state’s politics but the same people voting for Romney or Christie at state level would never want to see them in the White House.

    That said I’m not surprised Obamacare is a disaster. It’s based on Romneycare, which caused all sorts of problems when it was introduced in Massachusetts. It does nothing to bring down the runaway, exorbitant costs of healthcare in the US and instead just passes along more of that insane cost to the taxpayer without improving actual outcomes.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Manolo (13,755 comments) says:

    @Daigotsu: You’re wrong, mate. DPF is rooting for Hillary Clinton, a fellow progressive.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. jcuk (686 comments) says:

    American politics ia a can of worms with rabid rightwingers, nothing like the few idiots in NZ , incipid lefties trying to talk sense with them… and the public so completely ignorant of responsible government one can only feel sorry for them and the gigantic mess they continuie to muddle through … that they are the most powwerful nation in the world makes this extremely worrying.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Longknives (4,741 comments) says:

    You are dreaming….Nobody can beat the Democrats- The American leftist media make sure of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Kea (12,815 comments) says:

    Obama is not acting in the interests of Americans. The only country that seems to benefit from his policies is Israel.

    Trillions on war with Israels enemies, trillions on bail outs of Jewish owned financial institutions (Goldman Sachs), billions in aid to Israel, while back home the country collapses into poverty and ruin.

    This is not an anti Israel or anti Jewish statement. It is simply an observation. I do not even blame Jewish interests, I blame Obama. Obama is suppose to serve Americans, not Israel. Like any other country, Israel tries to do the best for Israel. It is about time Obama did whats best for America.

    He is a piece of shit.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. unaha-closp (1,164 comments) says:

    He had a natural disaster occur in his state and wasn’t an idiot about it. He is the Bob Parker of American politics.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. gump (1,647 comments) says:

    @Kea

    Goldman Sachs is a publicly listed company. Anybody can buy shares in it through the NYSE.

    I’m amused that posters in this thread are condemning Obama for being a closet Muslim and a friend of Israel. You can’t even keep your prejudices consistent.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Kea (12,815 comments) says:

    gump, so what ? And I do not give a shit how he chooses to worship the abrahamic god.

    Tell me how his actions have benefited the people he is sworn to serve ?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. weizguy (118 comments) says:

    Christie does have cross-party appeal, but:
    – Wanted to set up a narrative that he could win well in a blue state, so outspent his opposition 6:1 (even when the democratic party had walked away from Buono), spent $24 million on a special election to avoid being on the same ballot as Cory Booker.
    – Will struggle to win a Republican primary when the republican base are in love with Ted Cruz and Rand (what’s that word again? Plagiarism?) Paul.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Fletch (6,384 comments) says:

    The Dems won in Virginia yesterday though, by a small margin :(

    http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/05/21322438-democrat-mcauliffe-narrowly-wins-virginia-governors-race?lite

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Fletch (6,384 comments) says:

    The funny thing is, when Obama got voted in, a lot of my American friends said this would happen, and it has.

    I remember that I was doing some study when Obama won the presidency.
    A lot of people in my class at the time were saying how good it was and they thought it strange when I didn’t agree.

    The thing is, I’d seen some of the articles about Obama’s background (what there was), the political leanings of his friends and family, who supported him etc, and I thought it was bad. Wish I felt better about saying “told you so”.

    People well and truly had the wool pulled over their eyes by this charlatan and his “hope and change” bullshit.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Harriet (4,969 comments) says:

    And soon we’ll be facing the worst of them all – Hillary – the old bag who has parlayed her ultimate victim status to jobs way beyond her abilities – and utterly failed at every one of them!

    Typical progressive female. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Scott Chris (6,135 comments) says:

    At least the guy has a sense of humour which is unusual in a republican:

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    The Primary process is just brutal.

    GOP – no doubt a couple of morons will run. The left will focus on it. thousands of memes created. candidates will damage the GOP cause they want to win.

    Dems – idiot socialists will turn up. they will get the usual free pass from the media.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Alan (1,087 comments) says:

    “Alan, which is of course why the most moderate and RINO like candidate, Mitt Romney failed so spectacularly to win the nomination in 2012, oh wait…”

    That you describe Romney as moderate makes my point for me so much better than I could myself. Thanks.

    Would they select Regan today?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    Its funny how some people are sooooooo far left, they think a weak as piss moderate is extreme right.

    I guess the piss weak moderate is a long way to the right of them…

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Samuel Smith (276 comments) says:

    You Right-wingers live in la la land if you think there is even the smallest chance Christie could beat Clinton.

    Do you even think a man that large will be alive in four years?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    Hillary will be 70. will she survive 4 years? McCain copped all sorts of shit for being 72 when he ran “he wont last 4 years”.

    I can see her giving other leaders her home made marmalade as gifts.

    Younger leaders seem to be the way of the world now. 48 – 55 type thing.

    No doubt hillary will get the free left wing pass… while crying about the right wing conspiracy and how she is getting bad press. the left will pretend shes right. who cares about honesty, its all about the end game.

    Fingers crossed she doesnt get shot next time she is dodging bullets.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. ChardonnayGuy (1,206 comments) says:

    Yes, what about the Republican primaries next time? If there’s another full field, the result will be months of horizontal hostility and adverse public impressions from the federal shutdown fiasco will only be magnified. I think Christie would make a formidable candidate, but the question is, would the Republican raving right factions let him win nomination?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Christie appeals to non-Republicans but his actual policies are mainstream Republican – he is pro-life and anti gay marriage.

    Obama was anti gay marriage before he “evolved” and Christie has recently dropped efforts to challenge a court ruling legalizing gay marriage in the state of New Jersey and has also signed bills outlawing gay conversion therapy for children. He believes people are boyn gay and that being homosexual is not a sin. That he doesn’t agree with gay marriage does not make him the equivalent of others in his party.

    But I think it’s about perception and character primarily. His actions during Hurricane Sandy showed a genuine interest in putting his constituents above partisan politics. He has not been shy about confronting conservatives in his party. He’s delivered balanced budgets while in office. If other conservatives could put on hold their plans for secession and/or revolution, they could learn something from Christie on how the game is played.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    American politics ia a can of worms with rabid rightwingers, nothing like the few idiots in NZ , incipid lefties trying to talk sense with them…

    Yea, because demanding that the US stop racking up debt at record rates is a crazy thing, continuing to do so is the sensible option.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    You Right-wingers live in la la land if you think there is even the smallest chance Christie could beat Clinton

    Honestly, I don’t think either will be a canditate.

    Clinton is (as noted above) too old, and has Benghazi hanging over her.

    Christie is a side-show attraction.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Kea (12,815 comments) says:

    The problem for American voters is lack of choice. They have Obama or they have some extremist christian to choose from. It is a real dilema. The Republicans need to get the religion out of their politics if they ever want to hold office. They are free to have their personal faith, same as anyone else. But seeking guidence from imaginary beings is no way to run a country.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. kiwi in america (2,449 comments) says:

    The irony of Obamacare is that only 3 weeks ago the Republicans were being roasted for shutting down the federal government over attempting to use the continuing resolution (the funding mechanism in the absence of the Senate passing a budget) to defund Obamacare and here we are, once that distraction was out of the way, with the same law more rapidly sinking Obama’s second term and likely the Dems with him in 2014. The website issues are but the start of the problems the Dems are having – sticker shock from the exchanges and the negative drum roll of millions of policy cancellations due to the Obamacare requirements and narrow grandfathering provisions add to the consequences of Obama’s “you can keep your policy” lies.

    I like Governor Christie – he’s got balls and stands up to the liberal media and has faced down many vested interests in NJ such as the teacher unions. As has been said, his problem will be the GOP primary where tea party activism has more clout. Christie has some baggage that was the main reason why the Romney campaign rejected him as Veep nominee and that was before the hug fest with Obama after Hurricane Sandy that still has some of the GOP activist base steaming. Christie’s issues are not of a magnitude that would prevent statewide office (clearly after his handy re-election) but there are questions hanging over his time as a lobbyist (the Romney campaign could never get a clear lock on who he acted for), there was an SEC investigation into his brother, the lobbyist organization that he was a senior leader in had Bernie Maddoff as President for a while and there are rumours about unpaid taxes on home help. These will get microscopic scrutiny if he runs in 2016.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    scrubone (2,816) Says:
    November 7th, 2013 at 11:06 am

    Yea, because demanding that the US stop racking up debt at record rates is a crazy thing, continuing to do so is the sensible option.

    Yes it is crazy. In the national economy your income is someone else’s spending. You cannot simply expect to avoid debt or a plummeting economy by cutting government expenditure because that expenditure is not simply spending but is income for someone else and without that income you reduce their productivity and the tax they can pay to the government which further reduces revenues and requires more cuts to expenditure and so on and so forth.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    “They have Obama or they have some extremist christian”

    Obama cant stand again.

    Not sure McCain or Romney could be called EXTREME christians.

    Dime hasnt kept up with US politics lately. Will the Benghazi thing resonate with voters? probably only getting coverage on fox?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    kiwi in america (2,134) Says:
    November 7th, 2013 at 11:18 am

    The website issues are but the start of the problems…

    The website issues are the entire problem. Regardless of Obama’s misleading the public the fact is all the public needs is access to the exchanges so they can get better insurance that is subsidized for those who need assistance. Launching a broken website is great for the Republicans but it is not a winning long term strategy. Neither is the fact that Obama lied. Long term it will be judged on what it delivers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Kea (12,815 comments) says:

    Weihana, just imagine Obama looks more like his mum than his dad, and you will see things more clearly. You have a habit of defending coffee coloured folk who like to kill people.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    Not sure McCain or Romney could be called EXTREME christians.

    I think you’re confusing “being called” and “actually have some remote basis for calling”.

    Almost all the people called “extreme” are pretty orthodox (small o!) Christians. It’s just that if you actually say “I believe this” that gives people an excuse to call you names.

    I recall one candidate who was viciously attacked for introducing his children to a stillborn child. This was evidence of him being “crazy”. But when you looked at what he’d *actually* done, it was exactly what the experts recommend.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Ed Snack (1,872 comments) says:

    Weihana, that’s the narrative that the big spenders want you to believe in. In practice a drastic series of cuts has a short term impact, certainly, but medium and longer term the impact is positive because most government spending comes with negative multipliers so in fact all the extra spending creates less extra activity than if that spending was done in the private sector. Not many coutries have the political balls to attempt drastic cuts as most voters are now sucking on the public tit so hard that the old “kick the can down the road, so I can get 1. re-elected and 2. make my pile and secure my wealthy retirement before the bills come in” attitude usually rules. Hey when nations even simply try to slow the rate of increase the largely leftist mass media leads the charge with accusations of “slash and burn”.

    But a few places have tried it, and the evidence (as always with economics) is much argued over, but generally I would opine that such states have recovered quicker and more successfully than those who stuck with the “stimulus” methods. Stimulus is great for cronies and those with “connections”, but lousy for everyone else in general.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    The website issues are the entire problem. Regardless of Obama’s misleading the public the fact is all the public needs is access to the exchanges so they can get better insurance that is subsidized for those who need assistance.

    Wow.

    Obama made a clear promise, and repeated it again and again. He lied – outright. In fact, the Dems explicitly voted down an amendment that would have implemented Obama’s promise.

    The exchanges failing are just a symptom of the problem. When you did into *why* they failed, you find that the project was doomed from the start.

    As for the “better coverage”, many people are actually finding that their coverage (that they *liked*) is being replaced with coverage that is much more expensive, and covers things that they do *not* need (like a single man having to pay for maternity coverage).

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/who-is-chris-christie,34475/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=Default:1:Default

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Kea (12,815 comments) says:

    It is really pretty incredible that we so willing accept the leaders of the most powerful military in the world seeking guidence from an imaginary being of Middle Eastern superstition. The fact it is normalised does not make it any less bizzare, it makes it more bizzare.

    The Republicans have some good ideas, but promoting religion is not one of them. They should leave that to the Churches and get on with creating a prosperous society.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    In the national economy your income is someone else’s spending. You cannot simply expect to avoid debt or a plummeting economy by cutting government expenditure because that expenditure is not simply spending but is income for someone else and without that income you reduce their productivity and the tax they can pay to the government which further reduces revenues and requires more cuts to expenditure and so on and so forth.

    We’re all aware of the “stimulus” argument.

    Are you are that it doesn’t work?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    It is really pretty incredible that we so willing accept the leaders of the most powerful military in the world seeking guidence from an imaginary being of Middle Eastern superstition. The fact it is normalised does not make it any less bizzare, it makes it more bizzare.

    Well, you’re the expert on bizzare, that’s for sure.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. gump (1,647 comments) says:

    @ChardonnyGuy

    “I think Christie would make a formidable candidate, but the question is, would the Republican raving right factions let him win nomination?”

    ————————

    The won’t let him win the nomination. Which is a shame because:

    1. He supports access to abortion in the case of rape, incest, and threats to the mother’s life.
    2. He supports a regulated market for medical marijuana.
    3. He supports the enforcement of laws to regulate and control gun ownership.
    4. He doesn’t believe that illegal immigration is – by itself – a crime.

    In other words, he won’t win the nomination because he is a pragmatic and sensible man.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    “4. He doesn’t believe that illegal immigration is – by itself – a crime.”

    is a crime.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Kea (12,815 comments) says:

    4. He doesn’t believe that illegal immigration is – by itself – a crime.

    In other words, he won’t win the nomination because he is a pragmatic and sensible man.

    Yet gump was telling me yesterday that crimes are …. crimes… and should be acted upon by the authorities !

    I am confused, but not as confused as gump ~

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. kiwi in america (2,449 comments) says:

    Weihana
    If the healthcare.gov website had worked then the fundamental flawed actuarial equation behind Obamacare would be laid bare much quicker than it is right now because right now, so few can get through the flawed website to enroll. In order to pay for coverage of the uninsured and to enable coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions, someone has to pay. Those ‘someones’ are: the young and healthy who mostly don’t insure who will be fined if they don’t buy insurance. When the young and healthy do go to buy, they are turning away due to sticker shock. The under 30’s are finding cover post Obamacare roughly double the pre-Obamacare premiums. It is clear from the various analyses done of those who have made it through the hours of problems in the enrolment process that they are mostly the poor (who qualify for Medicaid and will pay no premiums into the system to subsidize the newly insured) or the sick who will be a net drain on insurers.

    Obamacare comes with a list of mandated coverages that must be in every policy and these mandates push up the price. So for a married couple in their 60’s with grown up kids they must now buy utterly useless maternity care. For someone young who only wants a cheap catastrophe-only policy they must buy the family doctor, dental, depression, and other bells and whistles cover that they don’t need or want. Similarly the healthy who don’t smoke or drink and eat healthily and whose current insurers reflect that lower risk with lower premiums are being forced into vastly more expensive and less generous cover because of the mandates http://www.propublica.org/article/loyal-obama-supporters-canceled-by-obamacare
    Others are finding that not only are their new plans more expensive and loaded with higher deductibles and co-pays but they do not cover doctors and specialists that their old plan covered. For some people this could be a life or death change (read Edie Sundby’s story in her own words
    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304527504579171710423780446)

    The whole fiscal equation of Obamacare is premised on the young being forced by the individual mandate to buy insurance when previously they self insured and the healthy being forced by the very narrow grandfathering provisions to leave their current plans for more expensive but less extensive plans. If these groups don’t play ball then the so-called death spiral might kick in with insurers having to raise premiums because a higher percentage of new enrollees are the sick and the poor.

    Obama promised that you could keep your plan and your doctor, that your premiums would go down and that the whole Obamacare would lower health care costs. Every promise was a lie and a calculated lie that his administration knew when he made them that they were lies. Wait until the employers mandate kicks in in October 2014 when millions of employers, faced with a massive increase in healthcare costs, decide to kick their employees off their employer plans, give them the subsidy in cash and leave them to the mercy of the exchanges that are currently wreaking havoc in the individual market.

    So the poorly functioning website is literally only the beginning of the nightmare.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. gump (1,647 comments) says:

    @dime, @Kea

    It isn’t a crime. But why should I explain that to you when Chris Christie can speak for himself:

    —————————–

    U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie surprised many at a Dover church public forum when he said sneaking into the United States is not a criminal act.

    “Being in this country without proper documentation is not a crime,” Christie told more than 60 residents and town officials. “The whole phrase of ‘illegal immigrant’ connotes that the person, by just being here, is committing a crime.”

    Being undocumented may be a civil wrong, but it’s not a criminal act, Christie said.

    “Don’t let people make you believe that that’s a crime that the U.S. Attorney’s Office should be doing something about,” he added of entering the country illegally. “It is not.”

    http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/04/immigrants_and_their_advocates.html

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. coge (190 comments) says:

    I think Christie is a smart politician, & he’s been playing the long game. He could do very well in the primaries.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    scrubone (2,820) Says:
    November 7th, 2013 at 11:56 am

    He lied – outright.

    Which I accepted. You repeat it as if I’ve questioned whether he lied.

    When you did into *why* they failed, you find that the project was doomed from the start.

    Which, fundamentally, has little to do with the law itself. Several states have exchanges that function much better than Healthcare.gov

    As for the “better coverage”, many people are actually finding that their coverage (that they *liked*) is being replaced with coverage that is much more expensive, and covers things that they do *not* need (like a single man having to pay for maternity coverage).

    Typical “me, me, me” attitude. Yes they should pay for maternity coverage because it’s the only way to make it affordable. Health care is a social good, just like education, just like superannuation etc. So yes, the young subsidize the old, the men help out the women who give birth to the next generation etc. This is how life works.

    If you don’t like it Ayn Rand told you the solution years ago… :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    Being in any country without paperwork is a crime imho.

    even the shit holes.

    i know the left would love to have open immigration everywhere. it would achieve their goal of making everyone poor and total control.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    kiwi in america (2,135) Says:
    November 7th, 2013 at 12:18 pm

    In order to pay for coverage of the uninsured and to enable coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions, someone has to pay. Those ‘someones’ are: the young and healthy who mostly don’t insure who will be fined if they don’t buy insurance. When the young and healthy do go to buy, they are turning away due to sticker shock.

    I agree, someone has to pay and they will pay. You have your black hat on and are convinced it won’t work. I think a single payer system would be much better than this convoluted business, but I’m optimistic Obamacare will work largely as intended although overall I think the effect on reducing overall costs won’t be that great. Time will tell.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    scrubone (2,820) Says:
    November 7th, 2013 at 11:58 am

    We’re all aware of the “stimulus” argument.

    Are you are that it doesn’t work?

    No, because it does work.

    http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/05-25-Impact_of_ARRA.pdf


    CBO estimates that ARRA’s policies had the following effects in the first quarter of calendar year 2012 compared with what would have occurred otherwise:

    * They raised real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) by between 0.1 percent and 1.0 percent

    * They lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.1 percentage points and 0.8 percentage points

    * They increased the number of people employed by between 0.2 million and 1.5 million, and

    * They increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 0.3 million to 1.9 million. (Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally larger than increases in the number of employed workers.)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    dime (7,642) Says:
    November 7th, 2013 at 12:41 pm

    i know the left would love to have open immigration everywhere.

    That seems more a libertarian ideal than a leftist one.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. kiwi in america (2,449 comments) says:

    Weihana
    You summed up liberal thinking on Obamacare – hope. The whole thing was premised on a lie and the hope that people will happily pay more for an inferior product when they were promised they could keep what they had and pay less. Obamacare was the first large legislative change to be forced through Congress with not a single vote from the opposition. Even Roosevelt managed some bipartisan consensus and votes for his reforms.

    Single payer will never happen. The liberal dream of a government directed change of 1/6th of the US economy is crashing and burning. Proposing that the department that built a non functioning website for $100 million to run the WHOLE health care show? Aint ever happening in liberals wildest dreams.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. iMP (2,384 comments) says:

    Hillary is looking tired, and Benghazi will haunt her. Too early to call Christie, but he has a deft political touch and is probably the breath of anti-Washinton air most Americans want. he’s also strong and ‘one of us.’ He was definately born in America.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    kiwi in america (2,136) Says:
    November 7th, 2013 at 12:58 pm

    …the hope that people will happily pay…

    Incorrect. It is irrelevant whether people “happily pay”. It is relevant that they *pay*. That is what the individual mandate is for, with those on lower incomes also receiving subsidies.

    …an inferior product when they were promised they could keep what they had and pay less…

    Some will pay more, some will pay less. Whether the overall quality of healthcare improves or deteriorates remains to be seen. At this point it is nothing more than a Republican talking point.

    Single payer will never happen.

    Except it does happen. Medicare is single payer. It also happens in many other countries too and it works.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115457/obamacare-victim-florida-happy-she-can-get-real-coverage

    If you’ve followed the stories of insurance cancellations related to Obamacare, you may have heard about Dianne Barrette. She’s the 57-year-old Florida realtor who was paying $54 a month for a Blue Cross insurance plan. The plan won’t be available after December. And while FloridaBlue offered her a new plan, the company told her the premium would be $591 a month. Barrette, who makes $30,000 a year and could not pay for such a plan, was flabbergasted. Jan Crawford of CBS News made her the key source for a story about plan cancellations. An appearance on Fox News followed, as did multiple cameos in press releases from Obamacare critics. For at least a few days, she was the poster child for the Obamacare cancellation story.

    But Barrette’s situation defies quick and easy description. It’s true that she can’t keep her current policy—and that most policies available to her for next year have higher premiums. But those plans also offer real coverage, and her current plan does not. Some people might resent government effectively prohibiting her current plan. Barrette doesn’t appear to be one of them. Based on conversations we’ve had over the past few days, she wants more comprehensive insurance and, within reason, she’s willing to pay more for it.

    The policy Barrette has today is called the Go Blue Plan 91. It is not what most people would consider real insurance. Its coverage of doctor visits and tests, such as MRI scans, consists of paying $50 and then letting Barrette pay the remaining balance. Drug coverage works more or less in the same way, only the plan pays $15 per prescription—which is enough to cover generics, but not many name-brands. And hospitalization? The plan pays nothing at all. As Wemple put it, “it’s a pray-that-you-don’t-really-get-sick ‘plan.'” Barrette doesn’t really disagree—but this plan, she says, was all she could afford. “Most everyone I talked to said they were paying thousands more to get hospital coverage,” she told me, “so I took my chances with what I have now.”

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. tvb (4,418 comments) says:

    Christie’s numbers were not so hot when being considered for President which makes your analysis quite fallacious.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. All_on_Red (1,582 comments) says:

    OMG Weihana is a Keynesian.
    The “stimulus” did not work. Never has and never will. Demand does not follow supply.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. stephieboy (3,034 comments) says:

    I think Christie will be far to liberal for the Tea bagger and extreme right rump of the Republicans let alone the rabid right here.There are those who are still utterly devastated by the 14th November and still licking their wounds.Obama’s main problem is that there are still those around who,both in the US, here and elsewhere , can’t stand the thought of a Black family in the White House. !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. All_on_Red (1,582 comments) says:

    Christie has no show. Just like Hillary Clinton.
    I’m picking Marc Rubio and Ted Cruz. But frankly the Republican Party is a mess and they need to cull out the old guard at the top. Politics in the US between the Dems and Repubs is now more about “winning” than actually doing any good.
    That attitude has to change and the only way is for the old established beltway mob to be gone.
    The Republicans should embrace the ‘tea party” and bring them inside the tent.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Kleva Kiwi (289 comments) says:

    @ Weihana

    You just dont get it. Obvious by your continual defence blinded by your ideology.

    Obama care is removing the choice available to Americans, forcing people to pay for services they do not want or need. Its trying to force a one size fits all onto everybody. That goes against the core foundations of America.

    Stripping people of the rights to freedom of choice is not beneficial to anyone. It is now forcing the hard working American to pay MORE for their healthcare, and reducing their well being. The end result will be more citizens with less wealth, middle and lower class workers being pushed out of the comfortable zone and into the red because of legislation forcing them to subsidize other people. This is not fair and is the complete opposite to what Obama told the America public. Its also not the answer to more affordable healthcare in America. All that will and is happening is premiums will go up for less services. Grossly inefficient.

    The America public will remember this.

    All your rebuttal is simply “your” opinion. You are offering nothing factual and simply putting forward your rose tinted view of the world. You need to learn that the end result does not justify the means.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. All_on_Red (1,582 comments) says:

    Stephie
    The US’s problem is that blacks in the US are so racist they voted for an incompetent President solely on the basis of him being black.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    “can’t stand the thought of a Black family in the White House. !”

    funny how its always an idiot lefty that brings up the colour of obama’s skin.

    then again, we know how racist the left are

    “you mean a black boy get in to university on merit?? my god! are you on drugs! lower the entry requirements! those black boys arent smart enough to meet our white standards!”

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    All_on_Red (618) Says:
    November 7th, 2013 at 2:08 pm

    OMG Weihana is a Keynesian.

    In the short-run for stabilization, yes.

    The “stimulus” did not work. Never has and never will.

    The CBO report indicates otherwise.

    Demand does not follow supply.

    The classical view is that supply creates its own demand. The Keynsian view is that in the short run economic output is strongly determined by aggregate demand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. stephieboy (3,034 comments) says:

    All_on_Red (620) Says:
    November 7th, 2013 at 2:17 pm

    You arte saying no whites voted for Obama whatsoever.???
    Are you a Birther by chance.?

    dime (7,643) Says:
    November 7th, 2013 at 2:27 pm

    Where is the evidence that Obama failed to attend or graduate from Columbia University .? i.e apart from the usual Tea Bagger , survivalists rabid right blogs that you seem to loiter about on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. All_on_Red (1,582 comments) says:

    stephie
    96% of blacks voted for Obama.
    No I’m not a “birther”. Pretty poor try for a leftie smear. Are you new at this? Unlike you I aint stuck to my ideology and have to follow what the tribe says. If I see incompetence I call it. Left or right.

    Weihana,
    The graph is bullshit. Look at other sources. OECD perhaps.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. stephieboy (3,034 comments) says:

    The view that Obama didn’t attend Columbia University is palpably false ,

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/columbia.asp

    90% of blacks voted for Obama.??
    So what.!?
    No more remarkable than the highly likely scenario of 90% of Tea baggers ( like you . ? ) would of voted for Sarah Palin if she won the 2012 nomination.
    Again the question, no Whites whatsoever voted for Obama.?
    Correct.?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. All_on_Red (1,582 comments) says:

    Here you go Weihana.
    Learn about the “Austrian” school.
    http://catallaxyfiles.com/2013/11/07/an-austrian-course-on-keynesian-economics/
    Also
    http://catallaxyfiles.com/2012/07/30/why-do-economists-claim-the-stimulus-worked/

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. All_on_Red (1,582 comments) says:

    “90% of blacks voted for Obama.??
    So what.!?”

    They are either stupid or racist. Somehow I don’t think all of them are stupid. Got to laugh at Obamas approval and popularity being lower than Bush though.
    People are waking up.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Kleva Kiwi (231) Says:
    November 7th, 2013 at 2:16 pm

    Obama care is removing the choice available to Americans, forcing people to pay for services they do not want or need. Its trying to force a one size fits all onto everybody. That goes against the core foundations of America.

    It is distributing the burden, yes. That’s how it becomes affordable. If it “goes against the core foundations of America” then get rid of Medicare. Good luck with that election platform! :)

    Stripping people of the rights to freedom of choice…

    Oh so it’s about freedom of choice.. So no selective service… no war on drugs… no taxation. Or in other words, you provide nothing but meaningless rhetoric.

    …middle and lower class workers being pushed out of the comfortable zone and into the red because of legislation forcing them to subsidize other people.

    There are plenty of generous subsidies available for those on lower incomes and Medicaid is expanded in states that don’t have asshole Republicans running them. Many cancelled policies provide poor coverage and as the story of Dianne Barrette shows, many people are being misled by their insurance companies and Republicans who are more concerned about using them as political pawns than actually providing them with helpful information.

    Its also not the answer to more affordable healthcare in America.

    Partly agree.

    All that will and is happening is premiums will go up for less services. Grossly inefficient.

    Premiums are going up because the coverage is increased and the burden is shared amongst more people. This is more efficient than the current system where people go bankrupt because their insurance coverage is limited or they forego treatment until emergency treatment is required. What do you think happens in bankruptcy? That cost is passed on to others. What do you think happens when they get emergency care they can’t pay for? That cost is passed on to others. Why don’t Republicans address these issues? Because they have ZERO answers.

    All your rebuttal is simply “your” opinion. You are offering nothing factual and simply putting forward your rose tinted view of the world.

    I have never suggested that it is anything more than my opinion that this system will work. One cannot have evidence until it is actually tried. That is the point as conservatives try to write it off with anecdotes that often tell less than half the full story.

    You need to learn that the end result does not justify the means.

    On the one hand you say it’s grossly inefficient. Premiums go up and health care is reduced. Now you suggest there might be an “end result” worth crowing about but that it doesn’t justify the means. You seem confused.

    You just dont get it. Obvious by your continual defence blinded by your ideology.

    I think I get it. Ultimately, all you have is “foundations of America” and “freedom” and other vacuous buzz words popular in the conservative bubble.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    All_on_Red (623) Says:
    November 7th, 2013 at 2:56 pm

    Here you go Weihana.
    Learn about the “Austrian” school.


    Now some argue that the stimulus was too small, but why weren’t those 92 percent of economists saying so at the time?

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/how-did-we-know-the-stimulus-was-too-small/?_r=0


    Those of us who say that the stimulus was too small are often accused of after-the-fact rationalization: you said this would work, but now that it hasn’t, you’re just saying it wasn’t big enough. The quick answer to that accusation is that people like me said that the stimulus was too small in advance.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    stephieboy – my comment was directed at the left in general. the racist left who believe in affirmative action.

    the racist left who are always the first to bring up the colour of obamas skin.

    no one cares hes black. get over it.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    All_on_Red (623) Says:
    November 7th, 2013 at 2:59 pm

    “90% of blacks voted for Obama.??
    So what.!?”

    They are either stupid or racist.

    lol. What an idiotic point of view, though not surprising. Blacks are overwhelmingly Democrat because of their support for civil rights and the Republican strategy of winning over white racists from the Democratic party through the civil rights era. It’s hard to see how rejecting a party that currys favour with racists is indicative of racism on their part.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. stephieboy (3,034 comments) says:

    and dimey lad you like Ron Paul believe that the individual employer has the absolute right to choose to discriminate against anyone even it is based on race .?
    Yes.?
    No one cares if he’s black.?
    Well you could of fooled me.!
    BTW an excellant critique of the Austrian School Cult where Somalia serves as a useful example of the logical out come of their idiotic economic and social ideology in action,

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Austrian_school

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Kea (12,815 comments) says:

    Republican strategy of winning over white racists from the Democratic party

    Democratic startegy of winning over black racists from the Republican party.

    Fixed it for you Weihana :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. All_on_Red (1,582 comments) says:

    oh dear, Rational Wiki and Paul Krugman!!
    Hilarious

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    All_on_Red (624) Says:
    November 7th, 2013 at 4:03 pm

    oh dear, Rational Wiki and Paul Krugman!!
    Hilarious

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman


    Paul Robin Krugman (born February 28, 1953) is an American economist, Professor of Economics and International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, Centenary Professor at the London School of Economics, and an op-ed columnist for The New York Times.[4][5] In 2008, Krugman won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his contributions to New Trade Theory and New Economic Geography. According to the prize Committee, the prize was given for Krugman’s work explaining the patterns of international trade and the geographic concentration of wealth, by examining the effects of economies of scale and of consumer preferences for diverse goods and services.[6]

    Krugman is known in academia for his work on international economics (including trade theory, economic geography, and international finance),[7][8] liquidity traps, and currency crises. Krugman is ranked among the most influential academic thinkers in the US.[9]

    As of 2008, Krugman has written 20 books and has published over 200 scholarly articles in professional journals and edited volumes.[10] He has also written more than 750 columns on economic and political issues for The New York Times, Fortune and Slate.

    …and you’ve found a blog post. Surely we are the ones who should be acting smug. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. kiwi in america (2,449 comments) says:

    Weihana
    Obamacare is predicated on the young and healthy paying a lot more than they are currently paying to subsidize the sick and uninsured. You neglected to mention that these demographic groups can just choose to not opt for the Obamacare authorized plans and pay the penalty. Many simply won’t pay as you hope they will. For most of the young, based on the quotes the few that made it through healthcare.gov have gotten, it makes better economic sense to pay the penalty especially since the penalty is not a levyable tax but merely an offset against refunds (i.e. you won’t be sent a bill and the IRS can’t chase you for non payment). The other point you miss is the electoral toxicity to Democrats of this mass increase in premiums and cancellations of cover on the middle class swing voters who decide elections who were promised by Obama that they could keep their plan and their doctor and their premiums would drop. Vulnerable Senate Democrats are already trying to distance themselves from Obamacare.

    My comment about single payer was directed at the wet dream of Democrats, to have the single payer model cover the entire US health care system. That will never happen and using Medicare and Medicaid as the picture children for single payer systems (or the Indian Health Service and the Veterans Administration – both Federal government agencies with long reputations for poor quality healthcare) is a fools errand. The UK NHS and the Canadian system are also poor examples of single payer systems as both are rife with rationing problems as any resident in US towns on the Canadian border will tell you of the myriads of clinics set up to treat Canadians who cannot get timely care from their single payer system. There are various market driven alternatives to Obamacare that would drive down costs and improve service that were completely ignored in the partisan rush to pass Obamacare.

    Oh and your CBO study on the so-called benefits of the stimulus – completely contradicted by this Stanford University study http://www.stanford.edu/~johntayl/Cogan%20Taylor%20multiplicand%2010-25.pdf that found that the stimulus had zero effect on GDP growth and employment. Stanford is hardly a bastion of right wing activism.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. nickb (3,687 comments) says:

    Great posts on here kia. What part of USA you in?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    kiwi in america (2,137) Says:
    November 7th, 2013 at 6:22 pm

    You neglected to mention that these demographic groups can just choose to not opt for the Obamacare authorized plans and pay the penalty. Many simply won’t pay as you hope they will. For most of the young, based on the quotes the few that made it through healthcare.gov have gotten, it makes better economic sense to pay the penalty especially since the penalty is not a levyable tax but merely an offset against refunds (i.e. you won’t be sent a bill and the IRS can’t chase you for non payment)

    Ridiculous. The IRS can chase those who do not pay. They cannot prosecute someone criminally but neither can private creditors. They cannot file a Federal Liens (which would give their lien priority over other liens) but they can file a lien which would collect the penalty (plus interest etc.) if, say, you sold your house. So good luck with fighting the IRS. Great strategy. lol

    http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/23/the-power-of-the-individual-mandate/?_r=0

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    kiwi in america (2,137) Says:
    November 7th, 2013 at 6:22 pm

    The UK NHS and the Canadian system are also poor examples of single payer systems as both are rife with rationing problems as any resident in US towns on the Canadian border will tell you…

    Again with the anecdotes. What further proof does one require?

    Every system has “rationing problems”. There is infinite demand and a finite supply. Whether insurance companies price care out of your reach or a government creates a waiting list, that limited supply will be rationed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    kiwi in america (2,137) Says:
    November 7th, 2013 at 6:22 pm

    Oh and your CBO study on the so-called benefits of the stimulus – completely contradicted by this Stanford University study http://www.stanford.edu/~johntayl/Cogan%20Taylor%20multiplicand%2010-25.pdf that found that the stimulus had zero effect on GDP growth and employment. Stanford is hardly a bastion of right wing activism.

    My CBO study? I’m not sure it belongs to “me” rather it belongs to the congressional agency tasked to undertake such bipartisan research. :)

    Now I can accept that experts can have differing opinions on the question of how stimulus will effect the economy. But have you heard of the Hoover Institution?

    http://www.hoover.org/fellows/10298
    http://www.hoover.org/fellows/10089

    Do you automatically assume that every institution of higher learning that isn’t a bible college is necessarily some sort of liberal club from which conservatives are excluded?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. kiwi in america (2,449 comments) says:

    Weihana
    Your hope that fear of the IRS’s ability to enforce the penalty will motivate people to avoid the penalty and thus opt for the costlier Obamacare approved policy is mis-founded as this Washington Post article shows http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/13/readers-ask-we-answer-what-happens-if-you-dont-pay-obamacares-tax-penalty/

    The key expert the WaPo reporter asked was the former IRS Health Care counsel in the IRS’s Office of Chief Counsel. The Obamacare law specifically excluded normal IRS collection tactics because Section 1501 of the Affordable Care Act reads, “Such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure”. Her money quote “The IRS remains very clearly limited in its ability to collect the penalty”.

    This study also debunks the success of the stimulus. http://web.econ.ohio-state.edu/dupor/arra10_may11.pdf
    The Obama administrations claims of 4 million jobs saved or created is not even substantiated in the studies that liberals cite as proof of its success. It was just under a trillion dollars spent to prop up state sector jobs and was used by cities and states to protect unionized jobs. The so-called shovel ready jobs were not shovel ready and all the infrastructure jobs that did eventuate did was bring forward employment that would’ve eventually occurred anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. kiwi in america (2,449 comments) says:

    nickb
    I live in Arizona

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Manolo (13,755 comments) says:

    Lying through his teeth: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/07/white-house-website-at-odds-with-latest-obama-statement/

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Manolo (13,755 comments) says:

    Time is now promoting him: http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2156865,00.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    kiwi in america (2,141) Says:
    November 8th, 2013 at 6:56 am

    The key expert the WaPo reporter asked was the former IRS Health Care counsel in the IRS’s Office of Chief Counsel. The Obamacare law specifically excluded normal IRS collection tactics because Section 1501 of the Affordable Care Act reads, “Such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure”. Her money quote “The IRS remains very clearly limited in its ability to collect the penalty”.

    You seem to have ignored the point I made which was that they still have the same civil remedies as anyone else.

    The IRS has both statutory and common law powers to collect a debt. It’s statutory rights are the rights ordinary people don’t have. That is, the IRS can garnish wages, impose criminal penalties, and file a notice of federal tax lien (which gives it priority over competing liens).

    The PPACA restricts the IRS from filing a notice of lien. But in accordance with § 301.6321-1 the lien arises automatically when the tax is demanded and while the PPACA prevents the IRS from filing notice, it does not prevent the lien from arising. When the lien arises it is secret, and notice must be filed in order for the lien to be used against certain other creditors. But even without the notice the lien exists and attaches to property.

    Additionally the IRS is not prevented from going to court to recover the debt (as anyone else could) though that cost would likely be significant compared to the debt.

    http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2010/03/the-irs-administrative.html

    So they are restricted, but they are not powerless.

    Moreover, even if we assume you were right, do you really believe that your average person (who isn’t an ideologue) is going to risk not paying the IRS a debt? American tax laws are notoriously complex and indeed the expert you cite characterizes avoiding tax refunds as “The needle you would have to thread”.

    Do you seriously think most people are going to go to all that effort while still running the risk that they do not fully understand all the complexities of tax law and so could end up having to pay that debt with interest? I very much doubt your average person wants to have a debt to the IRS hanging over their heads regardless of how many pundits assure them “don’t worry about it”. They would rather avoid the IRS entirely.

    Ironically I think this is a case where the conservatives are right, and it has been people like Senator Coburn (R-OK) who have pointed out that people can still be harassed by the IRS for failing to pay the penalty.

    http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=fd932516-3dc2-486f-a4de-81687c7c6915

    Remember when Obama said you can keep your plan… period… ?? This is another small lie because they didn’t want the public to have the perception that the IRS would harass people for nonpayment. Obama said the individual mandate is not a tax. Well it is a tax.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. stephieboy (3,034 comments) says:

    Manolo (11,119) Says:
    November 8th, 2013 at 7:56 am
    Lying through his teeth: ??

    Of course, from the paragon of objectivity and fairness when it comes to Obama.
    Just loved it when Fox ended up with scrambled egg on their faces as the November Presidential election unfolded when the were baying and drooling for the inevitable Romney win.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. stephieboy (3,034 comments) says:

    Manolo (11,119) Says:
    November 8th, 2013 at 7:56 am
    Lying through his teeth: ??

    Of course, from the paragon of objectivity and fairness when it comes to Obama.
    Just loved it when Fox ended up with scrambled egg on their faces as the November Presidential election unfolded when the were baying and drooling for the inevitable Romney win.

    The enemy within: ??? The Washington Times.? Paranoid Drivel.!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote