Obama has won

[estesbob]

Why do you say this? I don’t think it’s any secret that a lot of large corporations have laid off workers in the last four years in order to keep profits up…something they have an obligation to shareholders to do. They did that because their revenues were down, and the only way to make up for it is to cut costs where possible.

For smaller businesses, it’s different. They are just plain scared. I know a lot of small business people and over the last four years they have heard a lot of threatening things from this administration. Some have been carried out. Some were abandoned. But for certain, their costs are going to go up, and soon. Obamacare is absolutely going to cost them more for health insurance. Obama’s promise to make utility rates go up is a threat to the cost of doing business. All of them fear rises in interest rates which they think government overspending is going to make inevitable. So they’re afraid to borrow. Most businesses anymore can’t cut any further, and it’s just absurd to think they have been doing it in order to make Obama look bad. They do it to maintain a livelihood for themselves and their families.

It’s no great secret that big business is hand in glove with government when it comes to regulations. Many government regulators rely on businesses to do that for them because they don’t understand the businesses the way the business people do. Do big businesses collude with government in order to implement regulations that will force small businesses out? Maybe so, maybe not, but small businesses think it’s so. Long ago I was in a small business of a different sort than the one I’m in now, and I remember finally realizing that baffling and onerous new regulations requiring me to do this or that were actually aimed at requiring me to do things the big businesses of a similar sort were already doing. And this administration is every bit as much in bed with big business as any other has been.

And small businesses are the “jobs” of the people who own them. They have to “buy” their very jobs daily, and have to watch costs very closely. Why would someone threaten retribution against them for being cautious about preserving their own jobs? Don’t all employees do the same thing, but in a different way? And their businesses are their retirement programs as well. Small business people don’t have guaranteed retirement pensions. They rely on their businesses for that.

How do you want to hold them “accountable”? Shoot them? Tax them some more as punishment? What?

I eliminated my employees health insurance and will hire only part timers from how on. many, many of my clients are doing the same.

 

[Schmoo]

WHO is not a credible source.

Scandinavia was mentioned. Scandinavia is Norway, Denmark and Sweden. Norway and Denmark have marginally lower rates than the US, and Sweden marginally higher. Essentially, the rates are the same. So, you were wrong. Admit it, and stop embarrassing yourself.

Yeah, the wiki provides the source from WHO. You can check their site to see if the numbers match up (hint: they do). Again, what are you even talking about? Do you have a legitimate complaint? Do you have a legitimate source that says these numbers are wrong? What you have is nothing since this is a myth.

 

[Schmoo]

LOL… yes… post results please

Want to see me do it?

 

[Persuader]

I could go to this very page on Wikipedia and increase the suicide rates for the Scandinavian regions to 25% each without any real proof. Someone may change it back but then someone else could change it again. It is unreliable and in many cases the claims are unverifiable.

Do it then. The wiki has shown itself fairly accurate when reviewed scientifically. Not much worse than regular encyclopedia, and quite a bit more extensive on a lot of subjects.

“Several studies have been done to assess the reliability of Wikipedia. A notable early study in the journal Nature said that in 2005, Wikipedia scientific articles came close to the level of accuracy in Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of “serious errors”.[2] The study by Nature was disputed by Encyclopædia Britannica,[3] and later Nature replied to this refutation with both a formal response and a point-by-point rebuttal of Britannica’s main objections.[4] Between 2008 and 2010, articles in medical and scientific fields such as pathology,[5] toxicology,[6] oncology[7] and pharmaceuticals[8] comparing Wikipedia to professional and peer-reviewed sources found that Wikipedia’s depth and coverage were of a high standard.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

At any rate according to the Wikipedia entry you cited they suicide rates are higher than America, granted not by leaps and bounds but higher. Also you need to factor the proportion of the population of each country to America. Obviously 13% of 300 million is not as many as 14% of a population of 4,700,000, the population of Norway.

Ehh. It’s not 13 or 14% of the population taking their own lives. That would be catastrophic. And obviously, 13% of 300 million is a lot more than 14% of 5 million (which is the population of Norway). I don’t really understand your thinking here.

In any case, you measure suicide rates per 100 000. According to the wiki entry, the US (2009 final analysis from CDC. Don’t know why WHO do not update with the new numbers, but you should notice that stats from 2010 and 2011 has been compiled by some of these countries without being updated on the WHO website. Obviously, updating these numbers is not a priority.) has a marginally higher rate than Norway and Denmark (2009 numbers taken from WHO), and a marginally lower rate than Sweden. That’s it.

 

[Cider]

I eliminated my employees health insurance and will hire only part timers from how on. many, many of my clients are doing the same.

I love your sig line.

 

[Persuader]

WHO is not a credible source.

No? How about the official reports from the respective countries? That’s where WHO gets their numbers.

If it’s not credible, where do you reckon one could find credible stats on suicide rates?

 

[OU812]

A sad day for abortion rights, but overall universal healthcare for all.

What?

I must have been in a coma the last few years, but when has Obama - or anyone on the federal level - said they will be giving us universal health care?

 

[mary_bobo]

I eliminated my employees health insurance and will hire only part timers from how on. many, many of my clients are doing the same.

I think quite a few business owners will do the same. Too bad more people do not understand how business and economics work. Maybe the country would not be in the situation in which it finds itself now.

 

[Schmoo]

Less ppl will be hired… esp full time… you can bank on that. If I owned a business… I’d make sure at the very least to keep the staff under 49. And more ppl would be part time.

This is hardly news. This is what a lot of coporations have been doing over the past 4 years, laying off or refusing to hire and working their present staff 60-70 hour weeks in the hopes of keeping the economy in the tank and returning to the Bush/Cheney corporate gravy train days. It didn’t work, and it won’t work again. It is too bad that innocent people had to suffer for those tactics, and those responsible will be held accountable for it, you can bank on that.

 

[Schmoo]

Agreed and I place full blame on the Catholics that voted for obama.

There are two things for sure about yesterdays election:

1. Abortion will remain legal in all states for at least another generation
2. Homosexual marriage will become legal throughput the country.

Make no mistake-Catholics are to blame for this. We could have stopped this, we didnt.

 

[SwizzleStick]

Leadership? What leadership? All he did was play golf, go on vacation, shove Obamacare down our throat, take away our religious liberties, and push the abortion envelope even further, forcing people to pay for them.

You forgot a biggie, but I’ll help you out. He also spent an awful lot of money.

 

[Schmoo]

I don’t trust WHO… since i’m pretty sure its attached to the UN. And so since I have never searched for that I wouldn’t know.

No? How about the official reports from the respective countries? That’s where WHO gets their numbers.

If it’s not credible, where do you reckon one could find credible stats on suicide rates?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Fox News is own and directed by Murdoch of World News Corp. They do not provide in any way, shape or form balance or accurate news.

Most of the links on here link to extreme right wing ideology groups supported by SuperPac and big corporate interests.

Everyone talks about debt but NO one and I mean NO one that I have seen question or objected on how or why he was going to increase military spending to $2 trillion dollars <…crickets…>, keep the Bush tax cuts in place, reduce the tax rate on the wealthy unless it was to gut regulatory agencies and entitlement programs for the 99% of Americans. As Pres. Obama stated, the numbers don’t add up.

He stated he was going actually pledge to balance the budget in 8 years and increase job growth by 12 million jobs in the first 4 years. How? He never said how this was going to be accomplished. You can’t make sweeping statements and never tell the voters how you were going to accomplish your agenda.

What is interesting if you go back to his campaign policies at the beginning of his campaign for presidency using the Way Back Portal, his policies kept shifting sometimes in opposite directions.
Unbelievable.

Obama made a lot of promises he didn’t keep. Do you blame him for that? You accept Obama’s statement that Romney couldn’t cut taxes and keep it revenue neutral with changes in the code, but you don’t believe Romney when he says he could. Who, I wonder, knows more about taxes? A man who has had to deal with them to keep his companies solvent, or a man who has had no experience with them at all? But if both do or neither does, why is one automatically wrong and the other right? Did Obama ever explain why he was going to do nothing at all about entitlements which everybody from the CBO to the chief actuary for Medicare says are unsustainable? No, he did not. He never even said he was going to think about those things, and perhaps he won’t, for all we know.

Shifting policies? I remember one promise about immediately shutting down Guantanamo. And, of all the shifts, Obama didn’t even want Obamacare, his single largest achievement. He wanted single payer, but didn’t fight for it. When Reid and Pelosi couldn’t get enough Democrats in the senate to go along with it, he didn’t go down to capitol hill and give them what for, he shifted and accepted a bill of an entirely different sort that even Pelosi and Reid hadn’t read, let alone Obama himself.

But it doesn’t matter now anyway. Romney lost and Obama won. So, Obamacare will kick in, in periodic jolts. He will cut the defense budget. He will not back down on the HHS mandate unless the Supreme Court orders it. He will continue to promote abortion and homosexual marriage. He will make some kind of arms control deal with the Russians that he didn’t want to tell us about. He will absolutely shut down the coal industry as he promised. So why would any liberal have the least remnant of resentment against Romney, when all of those Obama policies will continue, and Romney can do nothing whatever to prevent it?

I do think some give Fox News a bad rap. The actual news is “flat”, just fact reporting. Granted, they have a lot of opinion people with their own separate programs as well, and perhaps that’s what you’re thinking about. But their opinion people admit to it, which the main stream media people don’t.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Jesus was a socialist in principle you know, he healed everyone, not men of wealth…or who could afford it, he also said the pursue of wealth was evil and rich people would have a hard time getting into heaven…just saying

Your point is…?

 

[Ridgerunner]

What?

I must have been in a coma the last few years, but when has Obama - or anyone on the federal level - said they will be giving us universal health care?

They didn’t. They only suggested it. Obama himself admitted that 20 million wouldn’t be covered under Obamacare. The CBO says 30 million. Not universal.

 

[Mickey]

Make no mistake-Catholics are to blame for this. We could have stopped this, we didnt.

Don’t be so hard on yourself…there’s plenty of blame to go around. All Christians should have worked together to stop this…Catholic, Orthodox, and protestant.

 

[SwizzleStick]

There are two things for sure about yesterdays election:

1. Abortion will remain legal in all states for at least another generation
2. Homosexual marriage will become legal throughput the country.

Make no mistake-Catholics are to blame for this. We could have stopped this, we didnt.
Schmoo;9990109:

Agreed and I place full blame on the Catholics that voted for obama.

:sad_yes:

 

[Ridgerunner]

I eliminated my employees health insurance and will hire only part timers from how on. many, many of my clients are doing the same.

Obamacare will fail in time, and was intended to fail so they can pass socialized medicine like Obama wanted in the beginning and very high taxes to pay for it. We’re all walking into the full-bore socialized medicine trap and the heck of it is, we know it but have no other alternative but to aid in the failure of Obamacare.

Clever. I’ll give them that.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Catholics are indeed to blame, as is nominating CC Republicans. It never works.

Things are so awful, that I am beginning to think that it will take a direct intervention of our Lord to fix.

 

[Mickey]

Obama made a lot of promises he didn’t keep. Do you blame him for that? You accept Obama’s statement that Romney couldn’t cut taxes and keep it revenue neutral with changes in the code, but you don’t believe Romney when he says he could.

A strange phenomenon…just like 2008.

Obama says something and it is accepted as absolute truth…with no supporting evidence. But the GOP says something and it is disregarded immediately as a lie.

I understand that the main stream media has a lot to do with this…but there is also a strange essence of some type of large scale…hypnosis (for lack of a better word).