Obamacare law was ‘funded’ and expected to save billions; not so for Medicare Part D

[RicO'Shea]

That report’s forecasts included a prediction that Part D’s general revenue outlays from 2013 through 2022 could total $852 billion but, the trustees wrote, "Medicare’s actual future costs are highly uncertain and are likely to exceed those shown by the current-law projections in this report."

As for the Obamacare law, the CBO said in a May 14, 2013, blog post that its most recent prediction of the act’s total budget impact was a July 24, 2012, estimate that repealing the law could raise the federal deficit by $109 billion ($111 billion in 2013 dollars) from 2013 through 2022.

But "projections of the effects of the ACA" are "highly uncertain," the CBO warned, with other factors including the law’s overall effect on the nation’s health systems and the Supreme Court decision allowing states to opt out of expanding Medicaid eligibility. The law had required states to widen Medicaid access.

Krugman gives a different measure in his late-2009 blog entry: "According to the Medicare trustees, Part D created a $9.4 trillion unfunded liability over the next 75 years." The trustees’ 2013 report updated that estimate to $9.2 trillion for 2013-2087.

A June 17, 2013, PolitiFact Virginia fact-check showed that January 2013 Government Accountability Office estimates of the Obamacare law’s cost over 75 years could result in two scenarios: It could raise the national debt $6.2 trillion if its cost containment measures were phased out, or it could save the government $13.3 trillion if it works as intended. A GAO analyst said the report did not say whether one outcome or the other is more likely.

Our ruling

The image shared on Facebook said, "Bush’s Medicare D was far more expensive than the Affordable Care Act, and, unlike the ACA, was never budgeted."

It’s a vague claim without context. Looking for a reasonable way to evaluate it, we found the Obamacare law was "funded" and Part D "unfunded" and that, using estimated 10-year costs at inception, the former was projected to save $148 billion and the latter to cost something under $501 billion (in 2013 dollars).

We rate the claim as Mostly True.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/st...re-law-was-funded-and-expected-save-billion/

Sent from my 0PCV1 using Tapatalk

 

[Obiwan]

That report’s forecasts included a prediction that Part D’s general revenue outlays from 2013 through 2022 could total $852 billion but, the trustees wrote, "Medicare’s actual future costs are highly uncertain and are likely to exceed those shown by the current-law projections in this report."

As for the Obamacare law, the CBO said in a May 14, 2013, blog post that its most recent prediction of the act’s total budget impact was a July 24, 2012, estimate that repealing the law could raise the federal deficit by $109 billion ($111 billion in 2013 dollars) from 2013 through 2022.

But "projections of the effects of the ACA" are "highly uncertain," the CBO warned, with other factors including the law’s overall effect on the nation’s health systems and the Supreme Court decision allowing states to opt out of expanding Medicaid eligibility. The law had required states to widen Medicaid access.

Krugman gives a different measure in his late-2009 blog entry: "According to the Medicare trustees, Part D created a $9.4 trillion unfunded liability over the next 75 years." The trustees’ 2013 report updated that estimate to $9.2 trillion for 2013-2087.

A June 17, 2013, PolitiFact Virginia fact-check showed that January 2013 Government Accountability Office estimates of the Obamacare law’s cost over 75 years could result in two scenarios: It could raise the national debt $6.2 trillion if its cost containment measures were phased out, or it could save the government $13.3 trillion if it works as intended. A GAO analyst said the report did not say whether one outcome or the other is more likely.

Our ruling

The image shared on Facebook said, "Bush’s Medicare D was far more expensive than the Affordable Care Act, and, unlike the ACA, was never budgeted."

It’s a vague claim without context. Looking for a reasonable way to evaluate it, we found the Obamacare law was "funded" and Part D "unfunded" and that, using estimated 10-year costs at inception, the former was projected to save $148 billion and the latter to cost something under $501 billion (in 2013 dollars).

We rate the claim as Mostly True.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2013/nov/18/facebook-posts/obamacare-law-was-funded-and-expected-save-billion/

Sent from my 0PCV1 using Tapatalk

So now you use a political hatchet site with no credibility as a source???

PolitiFart has no more credibility than Hillary' s outrageous lies.

 

[RicO'Shea]

That report’s forecasts included a prediction that Part D’s general revenue outlays from 2013 through 2022 could total $852 billion but, the trustees wrote, "Medicare’s actual future costs are highly uncertain and are likely to exceed those shown by the current-law projections in this report."

As for the Obamacare law, the CBO said in a May 14, 2013, blog post that its most recent prediction of the act’s total budget impact was a July 24, 2012, estimate that repealing the law could raise the federal deficit by $109 billion ($111 billion in 2013 dollars) from 2013 through 2022.

But "projections of the effects of the ACA" are "highly uncertain," the CBO warned, with other factors including the law’s overall effect on the nation’s health systems and the Supreme Court decision allowing states to opt out of expanding Medicaid eligibility. The law had required states to widen Medicaid access.

Krugman gives a different measure in his late-2009 blog entry: "According to the Medicare trustees, Part D created a $9.4 trillion unfunded liability over the next 75 years." The trustees’ 2013 report updated that estimate to $9.2 trillion for 2013-2087.

A June 17, 2013, PolitiFact Virginia fact-check showed that January 2013 Government Accountability Office estimates of the Obamacare law’s cost over 75 years could result in two scenarios: It could raise the national debt $6.2 trillion if its cost containment measures were phased out, or it could save the government $13.3 trillion if it works as intended. A GAO analyst said the report did not say whether one outcome or the other is more likely.

Our ruling

The image shared on Facebook said, "Bush’s Medicare D was far more expensive than the Affordable Care Act, and, unlike the ACA, was never budgeted."

It’s a vague claim without context. Looking for a reasonable way to evaluate it, we found the Obamacare law was "funded" and Part D "unfunded" and that, using estimated 10-year costs at inception, the former was projected to save $148 billion and the latter to cost something under $501 billion (in 2013 dollars).

We rate the claim as Mostly True.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2013/nov/18/facebook-posts/obamacare-law-was-funded-and-expected-save-billion/

Sent from my 0PCV1 using Tapatalk

So now you use a political hatchet site with no credibility as a source???

PolitiFart has no more credibility than Hillary' s outrageous lies.

Politifact goes after liberals too, you swine. Right wingers are deathly afraid of Poltifact because you're not so confident in conservative politicians. Worse, what's stopping you from taking their facts and researching them on your own? It it knowhow or is it paranoia? The liberal site excuse is childish, you can't disprove them so you knock their credibility, which you know nothing about AND its what your handlers at Fox instruct you to do, they treat you as if you don't have a mind of your own.(And you don't.)

Sent from my 0PCV1 using Tapatalk

 

[Stephanie]

lol, Guess how it was FUNDED?

OFF your and businesses BACKS of course



what snakes Obama and the Democrat party are

 

[Obiwan]

That report’s forecasts included a prediction that Part D’s general revenue outlays from 2013 through 2022 could total $852 billion but, the trustees wrote, "Medicare’s actual future costs are highly uncertain and are likely to exceed those shown by the current-law projections in this report."

As for the Obamacare law, the CBO said in a May 14, 2013, blog post that its most recent prediction of the act’s total budget impact was a July 24, 2012, estimate that repealing the law could raise the federal deficit by $109 billion ($111 billion in 2013 dollars) from 2013 through 2022.

But "projections of the effects of the ACA" are "highly uncertain," the CBO warned, with other factors including the law’s overall effect on the nation’s health systems and the Supreme Court decision allowing states to opt out of expanding Medicaid eligibility. The law had required states to widen Medicaid access.

Krugman gives a different measure in his late-2009 blog entry: "According to the Medicare trustees, Part D created a $9.4 trillion unfunded liability over the next 75 years." The trustees’ 2013 report updated that estimate to $9.2 trillion for 2013-2087.

A June 17, 2013, PolitiFact Virginia fact-check showed that January 2013 Government Accountability Office estimates of the Obamacare law’s cost over 75 years could result in two scenarios: It could raise the national debt $6.2 trillion if its cost containment measures were phased out, or it could save the government $13.3 trillion if it works as intended. A GAO analyst said the report did not say whether one outcome or the other is more likely.

Our ruling

The image shared on Facebook said, "Bush’s Medicare D was far more expensive than the Affordable Care Act, and, unlike the ACA, was never budgeted."

It’s a vague claim without context. Looking for a reasonable way to evaluate it, we found the Obamacare law was "funded" and Part D "unfunded" and that, using estimated 10-year costs at inception, the former was projected to save $148 billion and the latter to cost something under $501 billion (in 2013 dollars).

We rate the claim as Mostly True.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2013/nov/18/facebook-posts/obamacare-law-was-funded-and-expected-save-billion/

Sent from my 0PCV1 using Tapatalk

So now you use a political hatchet site with no credibility as a source???

PolitiFart has no more credibility than Hillary' s outrageous lies.

Politifact goes after liberals too, you swine. Right wingers are deathly afraid of Poltifact because you're not so confident in conservative politicians. Worse, what's stopping you from taking their facts and researching them on your own? It it knowhow or is it paranoia? The liberal site excuse is childish, you can't disprove them so you knock their credibility, which you know nothing about AND its what your handlers at Fox instruct you to do, they treat you as if you don't have a mind of your own.(And you don't.)

Sent from my 0PCV1 using Tapatalk

And they even fuck that up....
American Journalism Review

 

[guno]

lol, Guess how it was FUNDED?

OFF your and businesses BACKS of course



what snakes Obama and the Democrat party are

@ Stephanie
You stated more then a few times you get medicaid , an unearned benefit not like medicare which was earned, how do the taxpayers pay for that?

 

[RicO'Shea]

That report’s forecasts included a prediction that Part D’s general revenue outlays from 2013 through 2022 could total $852 billion but, the trustees wrote, "Medicare’s actual future costs are highly uncertain and are likely to exceed those shown by the current-law projections in this report."

As for the Obamacare law, the CBO said in a May 14, 2013, blog post that its most recent prediction of the act’s total budget impact was a July 24, 2012, estimate that repealing the law could raise the federal deficit by $109 billion ($111 billion in 2013 dollars) from 2013 through 2022.

But "projections of the effects of the ACA" are "highly uncertain," the CBO warned, with other factors including the law’s overall effect on the nation’s health systems and the Supreme Court decision allowing states to opt out of expanding Medicaid eligibility. The law had required states to widen Medicaid access.

Krugman gives a different measure in his late-2009 blog entry: "According to the Medicare trustees, Part D created a $9.4 trillion unfunded liability over the next 75 years." The trustees’ 2013 report updated that estimate to $9.2 trillion for 2013-2087.

A June 17, 2013, PolitiFact Virginia fact-check showed that January 2013 Government Accountability Office estimates of the Obamacare law’s cost over 75 years could result in two scenarios: It could raise the national debt $6.2 trillion if its cost containment measures were phased out, or it could save the government $13.3 trillion if it works as intended. A GAO analyst said the report did not say whether one outcome or the other is more likely.

Our ruling

The image shared on Facebook said, "Bush’s Medicare D was far more expensive than the Affordable Care Act, and, unlike the ACA, was never budgeted."

It’s a vague claim without context. Looking for a reasonable way to evaluate it, we found the Obamacare law was "funded" and Part D "unfunded" and that, using estimated 10-year costs at inception, the former was projected to save $148 billion and the latter to cost something under $501 billion (in 2013 dollars).

We rate the claim as Mostly True.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2013/nov/18/facebook-posts/obamacare-law-was-funded-and-expected-save-billion/

Sent from my 0PCV1 using Tapatalk

So now you use a political hatchet site with no credibility as a source???

PolitiFart has no more credibility than Hillary' s outrageous lies.

Politifact goes after liberals too, you swine. Right wingers are deathly afraid of Poltifact because you're not so confident in conservative politicians. Worse, what's stopping you from taking their facts and researching them on your own? It it knowhow or is it paranoia? The liberal site excuse is childish, you can't disprove them so you knock their credibility, which you know nothing about AND its what your handlers at Fox instruct you to do, they treat you as if you don't have a mind of your own.(And you don't.)

Sent from my 0PCV1 using Tapatalk

And they even fuck that up....
American Journalism Review

I never claimed they were perfect, but they're much more accurate than any other source. That's why you have to research things on your own. But the worst thing anyone can do is to totally ignore a source just because someone tells you to. Like Fox does to their groupies, telling them not to trust a liberal source, that my friend is complete bullshit.

Sent from my 0PCV1 using Tapatalk

 

[Obiwan]

That report’s forecasts included a prediction that Part D’s general revenue outlays from 2013 through 2022 could total $852 billion but, the trustees wrote, "Medicare’s actual future costs are highly uncertain and are likely to exceed those shown by the current-law projections in this report."

As for the Obamacare law, the CBO said in a May 14, 2013, blog post that its most recent prediction of the act’s total budget impact was a July 24, 2012, estimate that repealing the law could raise the federal deficit by $109 billion ($111 billion in 2013 dollars) from 2013 through 2022.

But "projections of the effects of the ACA" are "highly uncertain," the CBO warned, with other factors including the law’s overall effect on the nation’s health systems and the Supreme Court decision allowing states to opt out of expanding Medicaid eligibility. The law had required states to widen Medicaid access.

Krugman gives a different measure in his late-2009 blog entry: "According to the Medicare trustees, Part D created a $9.4 trillion unfunded liability over the next 75 years." The trustees’ 2013 report updated that estimate to $9.2 trillion for 2013-2087.

A June 17, 2013, PolitiFact Virginia fact-check showed that January 2013 Government Accountability Office estimates of the Obamacare law’s cost over 75 years could result in two scenarios: It could raise the national debt $6.2 trillion if its cost containment measures were phased out, or it could save the government $13.3 trillion if it works as intended. A GAO analyst said the report did not say whether one outcome or the other is more likely.

Our ruling

The image shared on Facebook said, "Bush’s Medicare D was far more expensive than the Affordable Care Act, and, unlike the ACA, was never budgeted."

It’s a vague claim without context. Looking for a reasonable way to evaluate it, we found the Obamacare law was "funded" and Part D "unfunded" and that, using estimated 10-year costs at inception, the former was projected to save $148 billion and the latter to cost something under $501 billion (in 2013 dollars).

We rate the claim as Mostly True.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2013/nov/18/facebook-posts/obamacare-law-was-funded-and-expected-save-billion/

Sent from my 0PCV1 using Tapatalk

So now you use a political hatchet site with no credibility as a source???

PolitiFart has no more credibility than Hillary' s outrageous lies.

Politifact goes after liberals too, you swine. Right wingers are deathly afraid of Poltifact because you're not so confident in conservative politicians. Worse, what's stopping you from taking their facts and researching them on your own? It it knowhow or is it paranoia? The liberal site excuse is childish, you can't disprove them so you knock their credibility, which you know nothing about AND its what your handlers at Fox instruct you to do, they treat you as if you don't have a mind of your own.(And you don't.)

Sent from my 0PCV1 using Tapatalk

And they even fuck that up....
American Journalism Review

I never claimed they were perfect, but they're much more accurate than any other source. That's why you have to research things on your own. But the worst thing anyone can do is to totally ignore a source just because someone tells you to. Like Fox does to their groupies, telling them not to trust a liberal source, that my friend is complete bullshit.

Sent from my 0PCV1 using Tapatalk

So you expect us to trust the propaganda department for the Democrat Party???

RFLMAO !!!!

Come back with a credible source or concede that you have NOTHING

 

[RicO'Shea]

That report’s forecasts included a prediction that Part D’s general revenue outlays from 2013 through 2022 could total $852 billion but, the trustees wrote, "Medicare’s actual future costs are highly uncertain and are likely to exceed those shown by the current-law projections in this report."

As for the Obamacare law, the CBO said in a May 14, 2013, blog post that its most recent prediction of the act’s total budget impact was a July 24, 2012, estimate that repealing the law could raise the federal deficit by $109 billion ($111 billion in 2013 dollars) from 2013 through 2022.

But "projections of the effects of the ACA" are "highly uncertain," the CBO warned, with other factors including the law’s overall effect on the nation’s health systems and the Supreme Court decision allowing states to opt out of expanding Medicaid eligibility. The law had required states to widen Medicaid access.

Krugman gives a different measure in his late-2009 blog entry: "According to the Medicare trustees, Part D created a $9.4 trillion unfunded liability over the next 75 years." The trustees’ 2013 report updated that estimate to $9.2 trillion for 2013-2087.

A June 17, 2013, PolitiFact Virginia fact-check showed that January 2013 Government Accountability Office estimates of the Obamacare law’s cost over 75 years could result in two scenarios: It could raise the national debt $6.2 trillion if its cost containment measures were phased out, or it could save the government $13.3 trillion if it works as intended. A GAO analyst said the report did not say whether one outcome or the other is more likely.

Our ruling

The image shared on Facebook said, "Bush’s Medicare D was far more expensive than the Affordable Care Act, and, unlike the ACA, was never budgeted."

It’s a vague claim without context. Looking for a reasonable way to evaluate it, we found the Obamacare law was "funded" and Part D "unfunded" and that, using estimated 10-year costs at inception, the former was projected to save $148 billion and the latter to cost something under $501 billion (in 2013 dollars).

We rate the claim as Mostly True.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2013/nov/18/facebook-posts/obamacare-law-was-funded-and-expected-save-billion/

Sent from my 0PCV1 using Tapatalk

So now you use a political hatchet site with no credibility as a source???

PolitiFart has no more credibility than Hillary' s outrageous lies.

Politifact goes after liberals too, you swine. Right wingers are deathly afraid of Poltifact because you're not so confident in conservative politicians. Worse, what's stopping you from taking their facts and researching them on your own? It it knowhow or is it paranoia? The liberal site excuse is childish, you can't disprove them so you knock their credibility, which you know nothing about AND its what your handlers at Fox instruct you to do, they treat you as if you don't have a mind of your own.(And you don't.)

Sent from my 0PCV1 using Tapatalk

And they even fuck that up....
American Journalism Review

I never claimed they were perfect, but they're much more accurate than any other source. That's why you have to research things on your own. But the worst thing anyone can do is to totally ignore a source just because someone tells you to. Like Fox does to their groupies, telling them not to trust a liberal source, that my friend is complete bullshit.

Sent from my 0PCV1 using Tapatalk

So you expect us to trust the propaganda department for the Democrat Party???

RFLMAO !!!!

Come back with a credible source or concede that you have NOTHING

No, I expect you to do your own fucking research. Research everyone's facts, including the "facts" Fox shoves up your gullible ass. I research everything I read or hear on Fox, I don't have the attitude that since its Fox it must be a bowl of fuck.

Sent from my 0PCV1 using Tapatalk

 

[Obiwan]

So now you use a political hatchet site with no credibility as a source???

PolitiFart has no more credibility than Hillary' s outrageous lies.

Politifact goes after liberals too, you swine. Right wingers are deathly afraid of Poltifact because you're not so confident in conservative politicians. Worse, what's stopping you from taking their facts and researching them on your own? It it knowhow or is it paranoia? The liberal site excuse is childish, you can't disprove them so you knock their credibility, which you know nothing about AND its what your handlers at Fox instruct you to do, they treat you as if you don't have a mind of your own.(And you don't.)

Sent from my 0PCV1 using Tapatalk

And they even fuck that up....
American Journalism Review

I never claimed they were perfect, but they're much more accurate than any other source. That's why you have to research things on your own. But the worst thing anyone can do is to totally ignore a source just because someone tells you to. Like Fox does to their groupies, telling them not to trust a liberal source, that my friend is complete bullshit.

Sent from my 0PCV1 using Tapatalk

So you expect us to trust the propaganda department for the Democrat Party???

RFLMAO !!!!

Come back with a credible source or concede that you have NOTHING

No, I expect you to do your own fucking research. Research everyone's facts, including the "facts" Fox shoves up your gullible ass. I research everything I read or hear on Fox, I don't have the attitude that since its Fox it must be a bowl of fuck.

Sent from my 0PCV1 using Tapatalk

Then post shit from a propaganda site that nobody buys, and let everybody point out what a tool you are... or find a link to a credible source!!! If it's actually true, you should be able to do that.

If you can't find it on a credible site, it's obviously bullshit.

 

[Obiwan]

So now you use a political hatchet site with no credibility as a source???

PolitiFart has no more credibility than Hillary' s outrageous lies.

Politifact goes after liberals too, you swine. Right wingers are deathly afraid of Poltifact because you're not so confident in conservative politicians. Worse, what's stopping you from taking their facts and researching them on your own? It it knowhow or is it paranoia? The liberal site excuse is childish, you can't disprove them so you knock their credibility, which you know nothing about AND its what your handlers at Fox instruct you to do, they treat you as if you don't have a mind of your own.(And you don't.)

Sent from my 0PCV1 using Tapatalk

And they even fuck that up....
American Journalism Review

I never claimed they were perfect, but they're much more accurate than any other source. That's why you have to research things on your own. But the worst thing anyone can do is to totally ignore a source just because someone tells you to. Like Fox does to their groupies, telling them not to trust a liberal source, that my friend is complete bullshit.

Sent from my 0PCV1 using Tapatalk

So you expect us to trust the propaganda department for the Democrat Party???

RFLMAO !!!!

Come back with a credible source or concede that you have NOTHING

No, I expect you to do your own fucking research. Research everyone's facts, including the "facts" Fox shoves up your gullible ass. I research everything I read or hear on Fox, I don't have the attitude that since its Fox it must be a bowl of fuck.

Sent from my 0PCV1 using Tapatalk

And no, I don't let punks post bullshit and do their research for them. If you are too lazy or stupid to find credible links, you lose... period.

 

[RicO'Shea]

Politifact goes after liberals too, you swine. Right wingers are deathly afraid of Poltifact because you're not so confident in conservative politicians. Worse, what's stopping you from taking their facts and researching them on your own? It it knowhow or is it paranoia? The liberal site excuse is childish, you can't disprove them so you knock their credibility, which you know nothing about AND its what your handlers at Fox instruct you to do, they treat you as if you don't have a mind of your own.(And you don't.)

Sent from my 0PCV1 using Tapatalk

And they even fuck that up....
American Journalism Review

I never claimed they were perfect, but they're much more accurate than any other source. That's why you have to research things on your own. But the worst thing anyone can do is to totally ignore a source just because someone tells you to. Like Fox does to their groupies, telling them not to trust a liberal source, that my friend is complete bullshit.

Sent from my 0PCV1 using Tapatalk

So you expect us to trust the propaganda department for the Democrat Party???

RFLMAO !!!!

Come back with a credible source or concede that you have NOTHING

No, I expect you to do your own fucking research. Research everyone's facts, including the "facts" Fox shoves up your gullible ass. I research everything I read or hear on Fox, I don't have the attitude that since its Fox it must be a bowl of fuck.

Sent from my 0PCV1 using Tapatalk

And no, I don't let punks post bullshit and do their research for them. If you are too lazy or stupid to find credible links, you lose... period.

You don't know what research is, Lmao. It consists of being honest with yourself first and not letting any source telling you to NOT trust another source. You Fox punks are being controlled like dogs on a leash.

Sent from my 0PCV1 using Tapatalk

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Crazy how people that have not saved $2,500 a year but lost their doctors and their plans still think somehow they got a better deal with obiecare. How stupid does a person have to be?

 

[Obiwan]

And they even fuck that up....
American Journalism Review

I never claimed they were perfect, but they're much more accurate than any other source. That's why you have to research things on your own. But the worst thing anyone can do is to totally ignore a source just because someone tells you to. Like Fox does to their groupies, telling them not to trust a liberal source, that my friend is complete bullshit.

Sent from my 0PCV1 using Tapatalk

So you expect us to trust the propaganda department for the Democrat Party???

RFLMAO !!!!

Come back with a credible source or concede that you have NOTHING

No, I expect you to do your own fucking research. Research everyone's facts, including the "facts" Fox shoves up your gullible ass. I research everything I read or hear on Fox, I don't have the attitude that since its Fox it must be a bowl of fuck.

Sent from my 0PCV1 using Tapatalk

And no, I don't let punks post bullshit and do their research for them. If you are too lazy or stupid to find credible links, you lose... period.

You don't know what research is, Lmao. It consists of being honest with yourself first and not letting any source telling you to NOT trust another source. You Fox punks are being controlled like dogs on a leash.

Sent from my 0PCV1 using Tapatalk

I know exactly what research is, and it involves using credible sources, not propaganda sites. Learn to do it or have your trash dismissed, since you apparently can't find a credible source.

And quit demanding that everybody do your job for you. If you won't do it, you lose.

 

[RicO'Shea]

I never claimed they were perfect, but they're much more accurate than any other source. That's why you have to research things on your own. But the worst thing anyone can do is to totally ignore a source just because someone tells you to. Like Fox does to their groupies, telling them not to trust a liberal source, that my friend is complete bullshit.

Sent from my 0PCV1 using Tapatalk

So you expect us to trust the propaganda department for the Democrat Party???

RFLMAO !!!!

Come back with a credible source or concede that you have NOTHING

No, I expect you to do your own fucking research. Research everyone's facts, including the "facts" Fox shoves up your gullible ass. I research everything I read or hear on Fox, I don't have the attitude that since its Fox it must be a bowl of fuck.

Sent from my 0PCV1 using Tapatalk

And no, I don't let punks post bullshit and do their research for them. If you are too lazy or stupid to find credible links, you lose... period.

You don't know what research is, Lmao. It consists of being honest with yourself first and not letting any source telling you to NOT trust another source. You Fox punks are being controlled like dogs on a leash.

Sent from my 0PCV1 using Tapatalk

I know exactly what research is, and it involves using credible sources, not propaganda sites. Learn to do it or have your trash dismissed, since you apparently can't find a credible source.

And quit demanding that everybody do your job for you. If you won't do it, you lose.

Lol, I'm trying to get you right wing MRSA sacks off your Fox news dedication. If you really did research you would know that Fox is by far the most slanted news source there is. No other source tells any of their viewers to NOT trust another, and that says a lot. I wouldn't depend on any rightist to do my research for me, I take pride in my approach to research so your little dig at me is fucking hilarious. I know how we got so far into debt, and I know those who watch Fox do not know. So don't act like you do any research, I can tell you don't because you're clueless.

Sent from my 0PCV1 using Tapatalk

 

[Obiwan]

So you expect us to trust the propaganda department for the Democrat Party???

RFLMAO !!!!

Come back with a credible source or concede that you have NOTHING

No, I expect you to do your own fucking research. Research everyone's facts, including the "facts" Fox shoves up your gullible ass. I research everything I read or hear on Fox, I don't have the attitude that since its Fox it must be a bowl of fuck.

Sent from my 0PCV1 using Tapatalk

And no, I don't let punks post bullshit and do their research for them. If you are too lazy or stupid to find credible links, you lose... period.

You don't know what research is, Lmao. It consists of being honest with yourself first and not letting any source telling you to NOT trust another source. You Fox punks are being controlled like dogs on a leash.

Sent from my 0PCV1 using Tapatalk

I know exactly what research is, and it involves using credible sources, not propaganda sites. Learn to do it or have your trash dismissed, since you apparently can't find a credible source.

And quit demanding that everybody do your job for you. If you won't do it, you lose.

Lol, I'm trying to get you right wing MRSA sacks off your Fox news dedication. If you really did research you would know that Fox is by far the most slanted news source there is. No other source tells any of their viewers to NOT trust another, and that says a lot. I wouldn't depend on any rightist to do my research for me, I take pride in my approach to research so your little dig at me is fucking hilarious. I know how we got so far into debt, and I know those who watch Fox do not know. So don't act like you do any research, I can tell you don't because you're clueless.

Sent from my 0PCV1 using Tapatalk

I always use other news sources, so I'm definitely not clueless....

So again, if you can only find what you want on a propaganda site like MediaDon'tMatter, it's definitely propaganda and will be dismissed as such. If you expect anyone to accept the information, USE A CREDIBLE SOURCE!!!!!!

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, I expect you to do your own fucking research. Research everyone's facts, including the "facts" Fox shoves up your gullible ass. I research everything I read or hear on Fox, I don't have the attitude that since its Fox it must be a bowl of fuck.

Sent from my 0PCV1 using Tapatalk

And no, I don't let punks post bullshit and do their research for them. If you are too lazy or stupid to find credible links, you lose... period.

You don't know what research is, Lmao. It consists of being honest with yourself first and not letting any source telling you to NOT trust another source. You Fox punks are being controlled like dogs on a leash.

Sent from my 0PCV1 using Tapatalk

I know exactly what research is, and it involves using credible sources, not propaganda sites. Learn to do it or have your trash dismissed, since you apparently can't find a credible source.

And quit demanding that everybody do your job for you. If you won't do it, you lose.

Lol, I'm trying to get you right wing MRSA sacks off your Fox news dedication. If you really did research you would know that Fox is by far the most slanted news source there is. No other source tells any of their viewers to NOT trust another, and that says a lot. I wouldn't depend on any rightist to do my research for me, I take pride in my approach to research so your little dig at me is fucking hilarious. I know how we got so far into debt, and I know those who watch Fox do not know. So don't act like you do any research, I can tell you don't because you're clueless.

Sent from my 0PCV1 using Tapatalk

I always use other news sources, so I'm definitely not clueless....

So again, if you can only find what you want on a propaganda site like MediaDon'tMatter, it's definitely propaganda and will be dismissed as such. If you expect anyone to accept the information, USE A CREDIBLE SOURCE!!!!!!

List 10 sources you will concede are credible.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I never claimed they were perfect, but they're much more accurate than any other source. That's why you have to research things on your own. But the worst thing anyone can do is to totally ignore a source just because someone tells you to. Like Fox does to their groupies, telling them not to trust a liberal source, that my friend is complete bullshit.

Sent from my 0PCV1 using Tapatalk

So you expect us to trust the propaganda department for the Democrat Party???

RFLMAO !!!!

Come back with a credible source or concede that you have NOTHING

No, I expect you to do your own fucking research. Research everyone's facts, including the "facts" Fox shoves up your gullible ass. I research everything I read or hear on Fox, I don't have the attitude that since its Fox it must be a bowl of fuck.

Sent from my 0PCV1 using Tapatalk

And no, I don't let punks post bullshit and do their research for them. If you are too lazy or stupid to find credible links, you lose... period.

You don't know what research is, Lmao. It consists of being honest with yourself first and not letting any source telling you to NOT trust another source. You Fox punks are being controlled like dogs on a leash.

Sent from my 0PCV1 using Tapatalk

I know exactly what research is, and it involves using credible sources, not propaganda sites. Learn to do it or have your trash dismissed, since you apparently can't find a credible source.

And quit demanding that everybody do your job for you. If you won't do it, you lose.

Wrong. Research involves collecting facts, and facts are facts no matter what their source.

If mediamatters OR the devil himself tells you 1 + 1 is 2, do you stop believing it?

 

[bedowin62]

YAWN; another moronic straw man:
1. the Left had four years in charge of both chambers of congress and two of those years with the White House as well.
did they ever even try to de-fund or repeal Medicare D?
2. obama's own lying words are all we have to go by that the ACA will save money
3. and it isnt funded. most of the fines for not having insurance are not enforced or unenforceable
a. the tax on medical devices was eliminated bi-partisanly
b. the employer mandate STILL isnt fully implemented
c. the SUBSIDY to states for expanding Medicaid GOES AWAY after a few years.

 

[RicO'Shea]

YAWN; another moronic straw man:
1. the Left had four years in charge of both chambers of congress and two of those years with the White House as well.
did they ever even try to de-fund or repeal Medicare D?
2. obama's own lying words are all we have to go by that the ACA will save money
3. and it isnt funded. most of the fines for not having insurance are not enforced or unenforceable
a. the tax on medical devices was eliminated bi-partisanly
b. the employer mandate STILL isnt fully implemented
c. the SUBSIDY to states for expanding Medicaid GOES AWAY after a few years.

They only had two years, the Republicans took the house in 2010. I'm not happy about their inability to get shit done, but then again they had no idea the Republicans would become the party of no. But Obamacare was made law then, so President Obama's landmark achievement was accomplished then.

Sent from my 0PCV1 using Tapatalk