http://www.investors.com/politics/e...amacare-subsidy-costs-will-jump-30-next-year/ Not Fake News: ObamaCare Subsidy Costs Will Jump 30% Next Year Health Reform: Cost overruns are endemic to government health programs, and ObamaCare is turning out to be no different. Not only are its Medicaid expansion costs exploding, skyrocketing premiums are now pushing insurance subsidy costs through the roof. A new study from the Center for Health and Economy finds that because of the double-digit premium increases across the country, federal spending on ObamaCare's insurance subsidies will shoot up by nearly $10 billion next year That's because the amount of the subsidy is directly tied to the cost of insurance in any given market. The Obama administration treats this as a cardinal virtue of ObamaCare, because the subsidies largely shield eligible enrollees from premium rate shocks. In fact, the administration has argued that higher premiums are a good thing, because they make more people eligible for those subsidies. But team Obama conveniently overlooks the fact that the money to pay these subsidies doesn't grow on trees.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...d56ea1c2bb7_story.html?utm_term=.c8459e49917a Aleppo’s fall is Obama’s failure Leon Wieseltier is the Isaiah Berlin senior fellow in culture and policy at the Brookings Institution. Contemplating the extermination of Aleppo and its people, I was reminded of a sentence that I read this summer. It appeared in an encomium to Elie Wiesel shortly after his death. It was a sterling sentence. It declared: “We must never be bystanders to injustice or indifferent to suffering.” That was Wiesel’s teaching, exactly. The problem with the sentence is that it was issued by the White House and attributed to President Obama. And so the sentence was not at all sterling. It was outrageously hypocritical. How dare Obama, and members of his administration, speak this way? After five years and more in which the United States’ inaction in Syria has transformed our country into nothing other than a bystander to the greatest atrocity of our time, they have forfeited the right to this language. Their angry and anguished utterances are merely the manipulation of the rhetoric of conscience on behalf of a policy without a trace of conscience. You cannot be cold-hearted and high-minded at the same time. Historians will record — they will not have to dig deeply or interpret wildly to conclude — that all through the excruciations of Aleppo, and more generally of Syria, the United States watched. As we watched, we made excuses, and occasionally we ornamented our excuses with eloquence. The president is enamored of his eloquence. But eloquence is precisely what the wrenching circumstances do not require of him. In circumstances of moral (and strategic) emergency, his responsibility is not to move us. It is to pick up the phone. “Elie did more than just bear witness,” Obama said in his eulogy, “he acted.” And he added: “Just imagine the peace and justice that would be possible in our world if more people lived a little more like Elie Wiesel.” Just imagine. If Obama wants credit for not getting us into another war, the credit is his. If he wants credit for not being guilty of “overreach,” the credit is his. If he wants credit for conceiving of every obstacle and impediment to American action in every corner of the globe, the credit is his. But it is a shameful and incontrovertible fact of our history that during the past eight years the values of rescue, assistance, protection, humanitarianism and democracy have been demoted in our foreign policy and in many instances banished altogether. The ruins of the finest traditions of American internationalism, of American leadership in a darkening world, may be found in the ruins of Aleppo. Our ostentatious passivity is a primary cause of that darkening. When they go low, we go home. The Obama legacy in foreign policy is vacuum-creation, which his addled America-First successor will happily ratify. Aleppo was not destroyed by the Syrian army. It was destroyed by a savage coalition led and protected by Russia. While they massacred innocent men, women and children, we anxiously pondered scenarios of “deconfliction.”
http://ijr.com/wildfire/2016/12/751...-isis-wasnt-on-his-intelligence-radar-screen/ We Fact-Checked President Obama's Latest Claim That ISIS Wasn't On His 'Intelligence Radar Screen' We fact-checked Obama's latest claim. And it doesn't look good for the president.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/debt-under-obama-9000000000000 Debt Under Obama Up $9,000,000,000,000
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...trump/trump-43-million-americans-food-stamps/ Trump: 43 million Americans on food stamps We wanted to fact-check his statistic about Americans using the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, the program formerly known as food stamps. SNAP benefits provide vouchers for groceries for qualifying low-income Americans. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees SNAP, counted almost 43.6 million people in the program in April 2016, the most recent data available. So Trump is on point, numbers-wise.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...cans-not-labor-force-participation-rate-drops Record 94,708,000 Americans Not in Labor Force; Participation Rate Drops in May (CNSNews.com) - A record 94,708,000 Americans were not in the labor force in May -- 664,000 more than in April -- and the labor force participation rate dropped two-tenths of a point to 62.6 percent, near its 38-year low, the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics reported on Friday. When President Obama took office in January 2009, 80,529,000 Americans were not participating in the labor force; since then, 14,179,000 Americans have left the workforce -- some of them retiring and some just quitting because they can't find work. "By almost every economic measure, America is better off than when I came here at the beginning of my presidency," President Obama told the people of Elkhart, Indiana three days ago. "We cut unemployment in half, years before a lot of economists thought we would." The unemployment rate in May dropped to 4.7 percent, BLS reported, less than half of its Obama-era high of 10 percent in October 2009. But the labor force participation rate has deteriorated over Obama's two terms.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/us-iran-payments-wire-transfer-228324 U.S. wire payments to Iran undercut Obama The United States made at least two separate payments to the Iranian government via wire transfer within the last 14 months, a Treasury Department spokesman confirmed Saturday, contradicting explanations from President Barack Obama that such payments were impossible. Responding to questions at an Aug. 4 press conference about a $400 million payment delivered in cash to the Iranian government, Obama said, “[T]he reason that we had to give them cash is precisely because we are so strict in maintaining sanctions and we do not have a banking relationship with Iran that we couldn't send them a check and we could not wire the money.”
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ar-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/ Lie of the Year: 'If you like your health care plan, you can keep it' For all of these reasons, PolitiFact has named "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it," the Lie of the Year for 2013. Readers in a separate online poll overwhelmingly agreed with the choice.
Again...we froze their money...now we give it back and the bank pays the interest..some bank in Denver...it was to establish a transition in relationships that I think needs to happen...
We sent pallets of cash via plane to Iran as ransom for hostages. The president lied about it all. The reason for sending cash, the amount, and the ransom. This article proves sending the money as pallets of cash wasn't required to get money to Iran. The president lied.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/07/obama-paid-iran-another-1-3-billion-in-cash/ Obama Paid Iran Another $1.3 Billion In CASH The Obama administration paid Iran an additional $1.3 billion in cash after reports of a $400 million ransom payment. The White House consistently defends the payments, saying the U.S. has to pay Iran in cash because economic sanctions prohibit a financial relationship between the two countries. “The form of those principal and interest payments—made in non-U.S. currency, in cash—was necessitated by the effectiveness of U.S. and international sanctions regimes over the last several years in isolating Iran from the international financial system,” a U.S. Department of the Treasury spokeswoman told The Wall Street Journal. The circumstances of the original 400 million dollar cash payment have led some critics to allege the administration paid ransom to Iran. U.S. officials wouldn’t let a plane carrying $400 million take off for Iran until three U.S. prisoners departed Iran in January. The mechanics of the exchange all but confirm accusations that the $400 million was a ransom payment.
Ooooookay. But you deflect from the lies, the ransom, that we sent a plane load of cash when proper/honest wire transfer type methods were available.
I know you subscribe to this Denny but it's not what or why you think...you aren't seeing the whole picture...
I never disputed paying Iran money, owed or otherwise. Not that the deal negotiated was much good, which it wasn't.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ay-suffolk-poll-obama-voter-regrets/17238923/ Regrets? Obama's 2012 voters in key states have a few Just two years ago, President Obama was re-elected, the first Democrat since FDR to twice win a majority of the electorate. That was then. Now USA TODAY/Suffolk University polls in a half-dozen states with key Senate races underscore just how much times and political fortunes have changed for the president. In five of the six states, the percentage of likely voters who say they voted for Obama in 2012 has dipped from the actual results. Of those who say they did vote for him, as many as one in seven say they regret it.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/213441-poll-romney-bests-obama-falls-to-clinton Poll finds Romney would beat Obama if election were today If the 2012 presidential election were held today, a new poll finds that Republican nominee Mitt Romney would top President Obama in a popular vote.
