stevenash

The fact that premiums more than doubled( instead of dropping by $2500) is not near as disturbing or a source for concern as 2005 locker room talk.

Well Tobie, is Englebert correct?

My guess is that , when you were growing up, kids didn't have political discussions and didn't have time to listen to adults who were having them. I had zero interest in politics for the first 25 years of my life and most people I know tell me the same thing.

Which Russians are doing that? How many of them are doing that?

good words. Then it is just a matter of whether one believes the replacement oil is clean or not. There are some who believe that only one brand of oil is acceptable and if it is not used, the engine will not run even if the oil is clean or at worst, considerably cleaner.

[Hidden Content]

If something wrong happened, I am sure Russia is behind it.

To begin with, I’d like to remind you all that Trump is still not my guy. That said, the absolute losing-of-minds I see on Facebook about his budget is beginning to make me crazy, so I would like to clear a few things up for you, especially since some of these “cuts,” and “slashes” to federal welfare programs have been proposed by both Democrats and Republicans over the years. More below. First, this is your friendly reminder that ALL presidential budgets are ALWAYS dead on arrival in Congress. I have fond memories of watching the Democrat-controlled Senate unanimously voting down Obama’s budget proposal. So you can probably stop freaking out; Trump’s budget will never become reality. But I would like to address this idea that Trump’s budget “cuts,” “slashes,” or “decimates” social welfare programs. This claim is, in fact, not the whole truth. What some people call “cuts,” nonpartisan number crunchers like the Congressional Budget Office call “savings.” Quite a difference in vernacular, isn’t it? Let me explain. Take Trump’s proposal to save $72 billion from the Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) program. He proposes a number of changes to this program which ESSENTIALLY has been untouched by Congress in a meaningful way in decades. SSDI is a safety-net program for individuals who cannot work. But the way the program defines work (that is, what jobs are in the workforce, etc) hasn’t been updated since the 1970’s. A few things, like the ability to work from home or running an Air B&B or driving for Uber, have changed since then, right? Right. So hopefully you can agree with me that this program AT THE VERY LEAST needs to be updated. Especially since it’s forecasted to be insolvent in the next five years. Yes – FIVE. So if you go to the Office of Budget and Management’s (OMB’s) website, take a look at the policy proposals document (linked below), and go to page 110, you can see what he’s proposed for SSDI. If you are dedicated to fact-checking, you can spend a lot of time googling to see that most of his proposed changes to SSDI are not new ideas. In fact, ***AT LEAST ONE OF THEM APPEARED IN OBAMA’S BUDGETS*** Yes, my friends, President Obama, proposed to “cut,” “slash,” and “decimate” benefits for disabled individuals who also draw unemployment. In order to be legally qualified for SSDI, you must be unable to work. But to be legally qualified for unemployment benefits, you must be searching for work. It doesn’t make sense that you can be drawing benefits from both programs, but under current law, a disabled individual can also be searching for work and drawing unemployment. If SSDI is for the most vulnerable people who can’t work, letting people who CAN work on the program is diverting dollars from people who need it to people who don’t. Getting rid of this overlap is not "cutting" benefits to people who need them. It's saving benefits for people who do to the tune of $5.7 billion over ten years. (Why has this simple reform not been enacted? That’s a different rant for another day, but feel free to ask) Now, all that being said, I don’t remember any apoplectic headlines or facebook posts when Obama’s budgets came out screaming that he was “cutting,” “slashing,” or “decimating” Social Security. So if you weren’t freaking out back then, perhaps you don’t need to freak out right now. www.whitehouse.gov WHITEHOUSE.GOV

Be patient Someone will tell us that this was some sophisticated strategy to ultimately take down the gang but can no longer be done because Hillary didn't gain the Obama office. In order to qualify for plagiarism regarding Big Girl, one would have to have used the "word" " Idoits"

[Hidden Content]

And yet he got credit for the next years about the economic weakness

I know both you and No look personally and I think you need to meet no look. When you get a chance, take a drive through Huntington and go 6 or 7 miles over the speed limit. When you get your ticket, ask for directions to No Looks house.

And they are so proud of their compassion.

WIll you ever reach a point when you believe you have given enough or are you willing to give, give, and give as long as your party tells you to?

If you will accept 2018 and 2020, why will you not accept 2012,2014, and 2016?( some call it 'sore loser") Best part of this is when all of you were so convinced Hillary would win, they started getting on Trump stating that the right thing to do would be to accept the outcome regardless of what it is. Very interesting.

Why do you pay less attention to Republicans than Democrats? Aren't you one of those supporters of mutual respect and tolerance?

He still does not understand that, if the government does not remain solvent, those who need help the most wont be able to get it. Greece and Venezuela are prime examples. He believes that the government is the "gift that keeps on giving" and doesn't grasp the concept that what the government has is nothing more than what it collects from a portion of the citizenry that supports then entire country.

So in order to avoid being guilty of stereotyping we should tolerate things such as what happened in London yesterday because someone might be offended if we don't?

I believe it's called following the rules of a system set up long ago. The Dems knew that the electoral college was, essentially, the only thing that mattered. Mr. Trump showed up the last few days of campaign in places like Michigan where the Dems so overconfidently believed they owned the vote. If Hillary had handled her tactics a little smarter, she might have won. ( But wait, isn't she the "smartest woman in the world"?) The electoral college has NO IMPACT on what happened in the house, the senate, the governorships. and the state legislatures. Best thing to do is accept the loss(losses) and move forward.

If his approach is wrong, he will be gone after 4 years and the Republican majorities in house, senate, state legislatures, and governorships will be gone in two. If that happens, you can rest assured I will not be blaming gerrymandering or the Russians.

I have been in many locker rooms and have heard that kind of talk spewed by hundreds of people many many times.

Nope, not at all. Even though he belches at the table, I believe what he serves is considerably better for us than his predecessor who provided perfect table etiquette but served meals containing botulism.

You just proved your lack of business acumen.

Interesting that everything Trump does, in your eyes, is ignorant but everything that Obama did, in your eyes, was "strategic", Here we go again, the veiled inference that "we" are smarter than you.

The left thinks that the Obama economy was magnificent. At the same time, food stamp enrollment was up 70% . Does any rational thinking person believe that these two circumstances occur simultaneously?