How much has Obamacare saved the American people?

[PostmodernProphet]

I'll be happy to move on to your question, but first I'd like you to answer mine. Now that you know you were wrong about the 80s having explosive economic growth, has it altered any of your political opinions?

ranks right up there with every other decade in the last fifty years except for the dismal showing that Obama had.......

[PostmodernProphet]

Yes, the 80s had huge economic volatility, with both very strong and very weak years. The net result was economic growth that was the second-worst of any 20th-century decade.

the worst being the Obama presidency.......

[PostmodernProphet]

No clue what you're trying to say.

okay.......you are talking about health care costs......did your assessment of costs include the cost of taxpayers subsidizing health care expenses.......

[PostmodernProphet]

You are, indeed. But you have a choice about whether you want to remain a coward. You can always answer the questions:

What was the deficit when Bush left office? What was it when Obama left office? Was that an improvement or not?

around $9.7 T........around $19.7T.......no, it was twice as bad......

[Oneuli]

And let's be clear no one is arguing these decades don't count, that's a strawman

I'd call it a "rhetorical flourish," but that's fine. The semantics aren't important. The point I'm making is that time and again the conservatives look at the data, realize they don't like what is suggests and then they go searching for a way to put an asterisk beside it, so they can go on believing what they've always believed. For any one instance, you could argue they're right or wrong to put that asterisk on it and to do their little mental adjustments. But the high frequency with which they must play the same game, always in the same direction, should tell you something. It's not like sometimes they come along and say "well, as mediocre as the Reagan-era economic growth was, it really would have been even worse if you discount for the fact there was a massive decrease in interest rates by the Fed on his watch, an unprecedented peace-time explosion of deficit stimulus, and the Baby Boomers were just entering their peak productivity years." No, that kind of asterisk never comes up. Instead, it's always about pushing in a particular direction. By comparison, I can simply present the data plainly and fairly, as I did with the rankings of decades, without any asterisks, and let the facts make their own argument.

[PostmodernProphet]

Then I'd recommend reading more carefully. Very honestly, the question of how much Obamacare saved the American people is different from the question of whether Obama was an economic success overall.

not really.....the answer is the same.......he was a disaster.......

[Oneuli]

Perhaps you should try to read more carefully. With practice you may improve.

The problem was in the writing. However, if you think you know what the point was, feel free to translate it into English for me.

[Lightbringer]

The problem was in the writing. However, if you think you know what the point was, feel free to translate it into English for me.

1. Stop stealing my stuff.
2. You haven't actually explained your position on this. How did Obamacare save American money?

[PostmodernProphet]

you lying huzzy, no ones premiums went down, PERIOD

to be fair......when the taxpayers were paying 90% of it, the 10% share that some people paid went down.......

[Oneuli]

PP said Bush and Obama. Let's add Reagan. How does that make Obama look better in any slight way?

The point wasn't to make Obama look better. The point was to correct the lie. I realize that from a conservative perspective, a "fact" is "whatever one needs to say to support the conservative dogma." But for me, facts matter. If we're to understand economic history, we cannot allow howlingly ignorant statements like his stand unchallenged.

[PostmodernProphet]

You lost track of the argument, dumb dumb.

actually, that's how he won the argument.......despite your dissembling........

[Oneuli]

you wouldnt know a real world fact even if it jumped and bit you in the aura.

Why is it, then, that I keep finding one error after another here, by the conservatives, and pointing them out? For example, why is it that I'm the one who knew debt more than doubled on Reagan's watch? Apparently I'm quite aware of real world facts. You should give it a try sometime.

[PostmodernProphet]

The point wasn't to make Obama look better. The point was to correct the lie. I realize that from a conservative perspective, a "fact" is "whatever one needs to say to support the conservative dogma." But for me, facts matter. If we're to understand economic history, we cannot allow howlingly ignorant statements like his stand unchallenged.

you lie to make Obama look better.......the best you can say about him was that he wasn't as fucking worthless in his eighth year as he was in his first year........

[PostmodernProphet]

Why is it, then, that I keep finding one error after another here, by the conservatives, and pointing them out? For example, why is it that I'm the one who knew debt more than doubled on Reagan's watch? Apparently I'm quite aware of real world facts. You should give it a try sometime.

you don't.....you whine and twist and try to deflect when we point out your errors......

[Truth Detector]

Incorrect. Presumably you're citing the FY 2008 figure. As you probably should know, it was FY 2009 when Bush left office. As I pointed out, we were at about a $1.2 trillion deficit in January 2009.

Budget years begin October 1 and end on September 30 of the following year. Bush had nothing to do with the 2009 fiscal budget that amounted to a 1.417 trillion dollar deficit.

The 800 pound gorilla in 2009 was the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. That trillion dollar pork laden waste of tax payer money was all the Democrats. Trying to hang that around Bush's neck is dishonest, stupid and only something a moron like you would attempt to argue.

Stop being a dishonest dumbfuck, if that is even possible.