The only thing Obama is succeeding at is increasing the number people on the welfare roles. But then again, that's his goal, isn't it? Big government, high taxes, majority of population dependent on government, sharing the wealth.........Cloward and Pivan.

Lots of "facts" there. No links. Why?

Over 200 promises kept from last elections campaign.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-kept/

And David Victory is looking for links to common knowledge. Figures, doesn't it?

Dave,
Government is no more involved in Health Care than they were before.
More people paying for insurance does keep the rest of our costs down.
More people paying for insurance lowers the overall costs.
You have to to be extremely naive to not comprehend that.

And you, Mike Healey, have to be extremely naive to believe that your words reflect the reality of what is going to happen with government-run medicine in America.

Then whas was Obama talking about when he declared such a large savings per family?

If Barack Obama knew how destructive and Anti American the Republicans were going to be he might have lowered his goals slightly.

Mike Healey, Democrats complaining about Republicans being "destructive and Anti-American" is like germs loudly denouncing antibiotics....

Correct. Thats the biggest problem with obycare. It does nothing to addrfess the real problem and that is rising healthcare costs.
Unfortunatly the peoplke trying to " fix" healthcare didnt know what was wrong with it or what they were trying to fix.

What a ridiculous post. 9/11 wouldn't have happened if GWB was not President. I am hearing that more frequently from the left. What BS. When you start saying things like this you have officially become a cult member and no longer part of either political party. What flavor kool-aid you drinking.

The more I learn the more I am convinced 911 was the result of willful ignorance on the part of the Bush junta. Not saying they did it or they allowed it to happen just that, despite warnings and alarm bells, they just stood around and twiddled their collective thumbs. We will never know for certain but I would take the winner of the 2000 Presidential election over the loser i.e.; Gore over Bush.

Right, I am sure that the radical fundamentalist Islamic terrorists would have not attacked the US if Al Gore was president. They would have been so fearful of Al who was the VP when they first attacked the WTC in the early 1990's...

I don't think they would not have attacked, the question is what would have changed if the White House wasn't actively dismissing that intelligence that terrorist were in America and ready to strike? Of course its a useless argument, Bush was given the White House by the SCOTUS and spent the next eight months clearing brush at his ranch.

@Seamus; Follow closely Seamus, I never stated al Qaeda would not have tried to attack on 911 my point is that Mr Gore and his cabinet would not have ignored repeated warnings that al Qaeda was planning a major attack. Mr Gore would not have been taking a month long vacation after only six months, his National Security Advisor would have done a better job than the box of rocks Mr Bush had in the position. Mr Gore and his people would have done something instead of sitting on their hands and acting surprised when terrorists struck. I can only dream about how much better off America and the world would be had Mr Bush never been selected by the SCOTUS. One of the most fateful days in American history. It didn't have to be like this.
And yes, I believe they would have been a bit more apprehensive under Mr Gore since it was under Mr Gore and Mr Clinton that the people who carried out the WTC attacks in 1994 were tracked down, captured, tried in a civilian court, found guilty and sentenced to long terms of imprisonment. All that is much more than I can say for Mr Bush's spectacular mishandling of 911 and its aftermath.

Oedipus- the events you describe are exactly the same events that happened in the last few weeks with the Obama administration ignoring intelligence and the resultant attack and death of an American ambassador and 3 other American heros in Libya.

You are also of the ilk that criticise the Bush administration for not acting on intelligence before 9/11 but acting on intelligence about Iraq. Can you imaging the uproar by Progressives if President Bush did go into Afghanastan, before 9/11, to get Bin Laden and claimed he was a threat to the US. You would all say that he was trumping up the charges, that Bin Laden was too small to hurt us. Hell, President Obama said during the last presidential campaign that North Korea, Iran and Cuba were too small to hurt us.

Clinton tough on terrorists. Didn't he grant clemenct to 15 FALN terrorists? YES HE DID!!!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120277819085260827.html

SalemVoter wrote "Oedipus- the events you describe are exactly the same events that happened in the last few weeks with the Obama administration ignoring intelligence and the resultant attack and death of an American ambassador and 3 other American heros in Libya."

@SalemVoter; Really!?!?! Really?!?!?! You equate an unforeseen attack on the Libyan Embassy by a mob 8000 miles away resulting in 4 American deaths to the coordinated hijacking of four planes and the destruction of one American icon and the attempted destruction of two others on 911?!?! Attacks which Mr Bush and his minions were repeatedly warned about by intelligence?!?!?! Exactly the same events huh? Can I assume you now would like us to perform a full scale invasion of Libya? By the way I have not heard of any intel preceding the attack in Libya please provide me with some documentation, thanks.

SalemVoter wrote "You are also of the ilk that criticise the Bush administration for not acting on intelligence before 9/11 but acting on intelligence about Iraq."

Mr Bush didn't act on intelligence about 911 which showed his dereliction to duty and he didn't act on intelligence concerning Iraq either because there was none. The Iraq intelligence was a fairy tale made up by some chickenhawk neocon to justify an attack on a previously sought target. See the letter from PNAC to Mr Clinton in 1999 signed by half of Mr Bush's advisors on Iraq.

SalemVoter wrote; "Can you imaging the uproar by Progressives if President Bush did go into Afghanastan, before 9/11, to get Bin Laden and claimed he was a threat to the US. You would all say that he was trumping up the charges, that Bin Laden was too small to hurt us."

There was no need to go anywhere to stop 911. Haven't you heard? The terrorists were already in America and Mr Bush received credible intel on multiple occasions that bin Laden's people were planning something spectacular.

Oh, I also forgot to mention that Mr Clinton tracked down, captured, brought to trial in a civilian court, convicted and executed the right wing Americam terrorist Timothy McVeigh. Yeah, he was tough on terrorists.

Oedipus- Is that all you have? You still believe the Obama administration trying to say (i.e lying) it was a mob attack in Libya due to a movie and not a planned attack by Al Queda. Even members of the administration are saying it was a planned attack, yet, the President keeps bringing up the movie.
Libyan security officials say they warned the US 3 days before the attack. Does that mean we need a full scale invasion of Libya? No. But I would expect security to be beefed up, especially since it was the anniversary of 9/11.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/libya-we-gave-us-threeday-warning-of-benghazi-attack-8145242.html

The Senate foreign relations committeee saw the same intelligence as the President before our entry into Iraq and the Senate and Congress voted to authorized the use of military force. Sen Hillary Clinton and Sen John Kerry gave speeches on the floor calling for action.
Finally, you say president Clinton brought Timothy McVeigh to justice but you failed to say anything about Clinton granting clemency to 15 FALN terrorists, to help his wifes Senate campaign in NY or that Bin Laden was offered to be turned over twice, to the US, during the Clinton administration, but he refused.

@ SalemVoter, Is that all I have? Well no, but it is all I need in this discussion, I just don't want to make your head explode yet. I will give you that it seems there was some intel concerning some type of action being planned there as well as pretty much every Arab speaking country in the world. But until we get some feet on the ground in Bhengazi nobody can say for certain what happened.

Y'know you reminded me of an incident under St Ronald of Reagan. In late Sept of 1983 the State Dept under Casper Weinberger intercepted some correspondence from Tehran to Damascus which contained intel on a "spectacular action" p[lanned on the Marine Barracks in Beirut. As you may or may not know, on Sunday morning October 23, 1983 Hezbollah terrorists backed by Syria and Iran attacked the Marine BLT Command in Beirut, an attack in which 241 Marines, soldiers and sailors were murdered. The part you reminded me about was that the Commanding Officer of the MAU, Colonel Geraghty didn't receive the intel from State until after the attack. You can check this out in Col Geraghty's book "Peacekeepers At War".
After the attack St Ronald tucked his tail, pulled all the Marines out of Beirut and scurried home in disgrace. This attack and the alack of a response from St Ronald is what convinced OBL that America did not have the stomach for war. Thanks Ronnie!

Oedipus- Ronald Reagan is not president anymore.
Bush 1 is not president anymore
Clinton is not president anymore
Bush 2 is not president anymore.
Barack Obama is the president now.
Barack Obama is responsible for the security of the US and our consulates and embassies abroad.
Leaders learn from the events and mistakes that occured in the past. Leaders take action to try and prevent these things from happening again. President Obama missed intelligence briefings and did not implement a plan or contingency plan. If he did implement a plan it was a colossal failure, and then he tried to cover up his failure by lying to the American people and blame it on a mob uprising due to a movie. Its shameful.

SalemVoter; I can certainly understand your reluctance to talk about the failures of St Ronald, Bush I and Bush the Lesser and wanting to keep them out of the conversation, OK so....
You say President Obama missed intelligence briefings he was supposed to attend that would have alerted him to the possibility that the Embassy in Benghazi would be attacked on 911? Before I reply could you provide me with a credible source on that info please? Thanks.

Oedipus, are you serious? Many sources have reported on the President missing intelligence briefings. Maybe not MSNBC or NYT, because they don't report on anything that looks the least favorable to the President. One place to start is the White House schedule. You will argue that this President chooses to read his intelligence briefing everyday instead of a face to face meeting. Fair enough. But, at the end of the day, the President is responsible. And he failed to protect American interests in Libya.

According to the public schedule of the president, the last time the Obama attended his daily intelligence meeting was Sept. 5 — a week before Islamist radicals stormed our embassy in Cairo and terrorists killed our ambassador to Tripoli. The president was scheduled to hold the intelligence meeting at 10:50 a.m. Wednesday, the day after the attacks, but it was canceled so that he could comfort grieving employees at the State Department — as well he should. But instead of rescheduling the intelligence briefing for later in the day, Obama apparently chose to skip it altogether and attend a Las Vegas fundraiser for his re-election campaign.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-obama-alone-this-president-does-not-need-intel-briefers/2012/09/13/c11e1a52-fda5-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_story.html

You're beyond being simply delusional. You're crazy!

The math comes from the Kaiser Foundation: http://ehbs.kff.org/.

TEA Party - Free Markets, limited Government, and force politicians live within our means. I'll also add in having both Federal & State govts staying within their Constitutional bounds. If that is what "ilk" means to you, I embrace it. Let govt do a FEW things but do them exceedingly well (as opposed to what it is doing now, do lots of what it shouldn't, costing more than it should in doing so, and doing a lot of it poorly). Else, Govt will overrun what used to be considered Society and truly become a Hobbesian Leviathan (as Progressive desire).

The data is from the Kaiser Foundation, the spin come from our local right wing blog as they try to saturate New Hampshire's political bandwidth with mindless garbage.

Instead of complaining, why aren't you shopping around for a better rate?

Better yet, cancel your insurance. When you get sick, the ambulance will come and pick you up, and take you to the ER. http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/mitt-romney-dont-have-health-care-call-ambulance-and-hope-best

Pretty telling when that's all you've got left to say, NF.

It'll all be over soon...

Ask your insurance company why they increased your rates---dont ask the government??

Sometimes!

And, btw, that is GraniteGrok - one word. Do you not like the 'Grok, Jan? After all, we offer a diversity of thought not found in the MainStream Media!

Actually it's more like Granite (not) Grok.

And no, the site is full of direct lies and should carry a warning sign, no several signs.

Direct Lies? Heh! Go ahead - prove it. I'm waiting, arms akimbo. This ought to be more hilarious than a Biden speech!

Just for you, Jan!

Words of Wisdom – even for Jan Schmidt
http://granitegrok.com/blog/2012/09/words-of-wisdom-even-for-jan-schmidt

Life is tough when free speech is granted to the Groksters, now isn't it Jan?

The federal tax credit, according to the actual wording of the Law, is only available if a STATE sponsors the Exchange - not if the Feds have to set it up.

And let's consider the lunacy of letting an almost-6-figure-income family getting a tax credit?? This is insanity.

And Jan dear? A lot of the states are NOT expanding their Medicaid coverage due to the ballooning state-borne costs that the Law would entail after the Federal $$ runs out.

And let's be clear - the Feds WILL run out of $$ after a few more Democrat sponsored $ Trillion / deficits. Then what happens, Jan? THere aren't enough "rich" people to pay the bill!

Math cares not a whit what ideology you are; it just is.

That's right, Jan - let's show how a Progressive Government, once again, taxes the snot out of some just to give the shiny objects to others. As Obama said in 1998, he wishes to grow a majority leading to power - through Redistribution.

Thanks for reminding us of that, Jan!

Nuts, all of you on the new-right.... Your taxes have gone down under President Obama. NH's "leadership" is responsible for our not setting up the required plans... You want to blame someone? Look to the right.

Oh yes, the "required" plans. All from a centralized seizing of control of the States. You're in favor of that, right - consolidation of power outside of the State, Jan? What's wrong with letting NH decide what is best for NH - and not DC?

Oh wait, another Progressive did that already - State Senator Jeanne Shaheen with her SB 711. It effectively collapsed the healthcare marketplace here in NH from over a dozen providers to effectively 2 - nice going Govt control!

How about this, Jan - why don';t we just let PEOPLE pick what they need and from the vendor they want and increase both Economic and Choice Freedom??

Oh wait - that means the ultimate in decentralization, doesn't it. Progressivism doesn't all for that, given that its main tenet is that ordinary folks are incapable of making the "good" choices for themselves, right Jan?

Progressives - we'll decide for you. TEA Party - we want you to be able to decide for yourself.

Choose wisely which philosophy you will vote for in November.

Their all nuts over at the GROK? As long as I have read I never arrived at that conclusion, Jan. Here is what I do know...I JUST LOVE LIBERALS!!! LOVE EM! Were it not for liberals we'd never know what counseling, Prozac or Jerry Springer were all about. Its what Liberals bring to America....Rubbers in schools (ah! Balloons for the kids! how clever) Conservatives on the other hand, brought us family values, Ronald Reagan, and Stalwarts for the second amendment and everything that is still good and decent in America. I have to tell you, Jan...If I had to live my life over, I'd live over a saloon.

2) Republicans held it hostage? My, how one's sense of history declines over, well, a couple of years. Obama had outright, filibuster proof Democrat majorities in both the House and Senate. Republicans, from a mathematical standpoint, could only sit and kvetch - they had no power what so ever (like Gov. Lynch the last two years except he could only measure his office for new drapes - but couldn't buy them).

To make a claim like that ignore actual history.

3) How convenient - instead of standing tall setting the dates immediate, the democrats showed political cowardice for what they had done. For they KNEW what the financial effects would be. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that loading in millions of new patients, telling people "look at all of this FREE stuff we are giving you", and the IPAB, costs are only going to skyrocket for premiums or taxes (or both).

TANSTAAFL - There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch (even as Democrats try to PR it away).

1) And I can tell that you're one of those millions that have never signed the front of a paycheck, either. Yes, Watts, they ARE paying it - with less wages. When an employer hires someone, they consider not the hourly wage / yearly salary but the entire cost - of which the premium that the employer pays on your behalf never makes it into YOUR wallet. Trust me - you pay it in less digits that will never appear on the front of your paycheck.

I also question your presumption of $2500 / year in premiums - that is only $208 / month. I'm willing to bet that a LOT of GraniteGrok and Patch readers easily pay that amount - or more.

The "majority" lie needs to be put to rest Skip, it lasted all of I believe a month between Kennedy's death and Franken's final approval.

Can't you win points in a discussion using the truth?

Jan, are you saying that the Democrats did NOT have a majority in the US House and a filibuster-proof majority in the US Senate?

C'mon, Jan - I expect more from you, an upstanding example of the "Reality Based" Democrat community!

"Obama had outright, filibuster proof Democrat majorities in both the House and Senate."

YO SKIPPY! You are right about the memory thing. Hate to break it to ya that it is your memory that is failing, not Watts'. The Senate did not have a filibuster proof majority on 12/24/09, the date the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed. The makeup of the Senate at that time was 59D 40R 1I. Not a Dem majority as you stated and it doesn't matter which way Mr Sanders voted, he is not a Democrat he is an Independent and you are wrong. Also, it might interest you to know that there is no such thing as a filibuster proof majority in the House since there are no filibusters in the House Skippy. You post a lot of gibberish for a guy who doesn't know much about how the legislative process works. I doubt you have ever read the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act at all, I'll wager you just regurgitate talking points you hear or read on radio, TV, internet and other spurious sources.
Watts is correct that the law today looks nothing like the legislation that Rep Rangel originally introduced. After passing the House the bill was amended many many times by both Republicans and Democrats in the Senate before returning to the House for approval of the amendments and then being sent to the President for his signature.

"Millions of people have never paid $2500 in "premiums" per year"
Really. For a family, health insurance costs about $2000 per month. If your employer pays 75% (typical benefit), the family pays $500 per month or $6,000 per year...

Dems had filibuster proof majority for over FIVE months!
Al Franken sworn in on July 7, 2009
Ted Kennedy died on August 24 2009
Kennedy replacement sworn in on Sept 24, 2009
Scott Brown sworn in on January 19, 2010.
Dems ruined the majority THEMSELVES by messing with the election laws in Massachusetts during the John Kerry presidential campaign. Resulting in a victory by Scott Brown (R) over Martha Coakley (D) and loss of the supermajority in the US Senate.

During the 5 months of the super mahjority there was legislation already pending but the poor leadership exhibited by President Obama, Harry Reid and Nanci Pelosi prevented anything being accomplished during the FIVE months of the super majority.

24 days = 5 months?
Perfect GOP math.

@SalemVoter, at no time during the 111th Congress did Democrats have a filibuster proof majority unless you know something the Senate does not?
"Party Breakdown
In the 111th Congress, the current party alignments are 261 Democrats in the House of Representatives (including five Delegates and the Resident Commissioner) and 180 Republicans. The Senate has 57 Democrats; two Independents, who caucus with the Democrats, and 41 Republicans."
If you examine the Wikipedia breakdown the number of Democrats and Republicans in the Senate fluctuated over the course of the Congress' two year existence but at no time did Dems ever have a filibuster proof (60) or super majority. http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%260BL%29PL%3B%3D%0A
Another source in case you don't believe info straight from the Senate...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress

Lieberman and Sanders are independent in name only and caucus with Democrats.
Dems had the super majority and poor leadership

About those filibuster-proof majorities the Democrats had---including the so-called "independent" and "socialist" who always voted with the Democrats---this from today's Wall Street Journal editorial page: "One of the tragedies of the Obama Administration is the historic political accident that it had 60 Senate Democratic votes in 2009. The ability to break a filibuster without Republican votes empowered the left to think it could pass anything, and so it steamrolled ahead with ObamaCare, which needed every one of those 60 votes to pass."

He's paid to do what he does. Regressives (they're not "progress"ive at all) always have paid help. Paid by tax money of course....

I'm from new hampshire and visiting at Fort Bragg, NC. We were chillin at their patch site and watts is there saying the same sort of stuff. Just being informative and am not into the conversation thing.

I only post to states where I...

A) own a residence or
B) operate a business

With the exception that I recently posted a couple of times in WI, where I don't do either. But why I should feel compelled to explain this to the small minded people like yourself or News Flash (who also tried to make a point of it), is really ridiculous. This is the internet. It is global. Unless the article was about putting up a new stop sign at a local intersection, how would I be any less qualified if I didn't own a house in NH? It makes absolutely no difference if I decide to post to a WI thread, if the topic is a national issue.

C Barry - please say "THANK YOU!" for your service to the appropriate folks (being at Fort Bragg, SOMEbody deserves it).

-Skip
(Double Blue Star Dad)

Tim Condom is from France.

"Tim Condom is from France."

High brow, Mike Healy - it advances...well, something

Double Blue Star Dad? What is that supposed to be? The question is: Did Skippy ever serve? If yes, hey thanks for your service. If no, thanks to your kids for their service and quit trying to glom onto their hard work.
A Combat Marine Veteran

Dumpy

@ Dumpy

Howard Stern is actually voting for Obama. http://www.inquisitr.com/339151/howard-stern-hates-mitt-romney-likens-gop-candidate-to-a-bank-robber/

Like just about everyone else.

Obama 2012.

I WISH I was a "professional" - that would mean getting, you know, an actual paycheck from somebody.....sigh....I toil in the mines for no wages at all (merely the fun)

I'd rather drink the tea than the Kool-Aid, Mike...O-O-O-H Y-E-E-A-H!

NF doesn't understand a lot about how this Patch thing works, goes he?

By the way, what is a "Grok" is that a euphemism for a head? If so that would make Granite Grok into Rock Head, right?

"Grok" means to understand:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=grok

Thanks Seamus, sorry I didn't know what "grok" was but I don't speak Martian and as far as I am concerned anyone who names their blog or news site after a made up Martian word from a science fiction book is a little bit goofy, nerdy and strange and not really playing with a full deck.

How is that Kool-Aid, MIke?

Unfortunately Tim, if you follow Skippy's "links" you will find that they do not lead anywhere that backs up his "facts". The first link leads to a CNSNews website, CNSNews is run by Brent Bozell a longtime radical right wing conservative Bozo and agitator. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Brent_Bozell_III The second link leads to a CBO PDF which does show 30 million remaining uninsured due to the recent SCOTUS decision wiping out major parts of the Bill. The third link leads to a Patch article.
Am I better off today than I was four years ago? In every sense of the word, absolutely and without a doubt. The sun is shining again, the birds are singing and the country is once again becoming a shining city on the hill!
Hey Tim, were you aware that America now exports more oil than it imports? Yep, true story, for the first time since 1949 no less. Good job Mr O! Now if we could just get the oil companies to curb their greed a little....
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-29/u-s-was-net-oil-product-exporter-in-2011.html

Another Granite Grok contributor saturating the Political Bandwidth in New Hampshire with spin.

Hey Flashy,
I would love to post something, but you have already cut and pasted everything on the internet. Do you always refer to your self in plural?

"You are a coward with nothing to post" said the person hiding behind an alias and posting other peoples thoughts as their own. You are a card.

President Barack Obama didn't say costs would go down for everybody.

Rick, "the capitalist system" is not responsible for increasing insurance premiums, any more than it is responsible for the price of General Motors cars going up, or the Solyndra debacle, or the increase in gas and food prices. It all happens to have to do with government interference in the economy, large and small, from controlling the value of money, to "picking and choosing" winners, to over-regulation, to "favors" granted to certain companies, to tax-code provisions dedicated to helping one industry or another...they all result in screwed-up incentives. Nowhere is this more obvious and ubiquitous than in the provision of medical care in America.

Right Tim,
If only the free market was unregulated in a market that everyone has to participate in...... surely prices would from through the floor?

"Wow" indeed! And LOL! I have to smile at these transparent attempts to manipulate voter opinion. Romney will carry New Hampshire. You heard it right here, and on the sainted GraniteGrok.com web site. But still..."15 points! Wow!" LOL.

I love your confidence Tim.
Lets hope that all Republicans have that same casual dismissal of reality.
Why even vote if your a Republican, it would just be piling on.......

Hey, the joke's on *me*, Mike! In just a few weeks we'll see if I'm totally deluded by my fundamentally optimistic nature...or a veritable wise man, seer, and political sage. Stand by! :---)

As people who don't use data or reality to form their opinions, you are one of the best Tim.

A person is elected leader of the free world and then reelected and PC calls that failure.

How about this; I have two words that define failure...Proud Conservative.

If your measure of success is the ability to get elected, and then re-elected---a dubious metric, to be sure---then Obama is a fantastic success. The problem is that he is a failure in every way that is important to our continued well-being as a society.

@Tim Condon

"...If your measure of success is the ability to get elected, and then re-elected---a dubious metric..."

Do you realize just how embarrassingly ridiculous that you sound? Let us all know once you become elected to be the president of the united states. Until then, you remain the laughable little conservative troll, which we all know is a far stretch from a successful run for the president of the united states.

@Watts: LOL, I am chastised! Obviously Obama is neither "unqualified" nor a "failure" as President. After all, he was elected, and then re-elected! Thus, he MUST be "qualified" to be President, and a "success" as President...or he wouldn't have been elected and then re-elected!. Do you see any possible problem with your logical structure there? As a laughable little conservative troll, I'm just asking. So does Thomas Sowell at http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/thomas-sowell-obama-is-takinus-g-forward-to-the-past/question-3401953/