Quick Thoughts about Hobby Lobby’s Opposition to Contraception

I’m deeply cynical about claims to religious freedom made by religious conservatives about things like contraception.  My opinion is that opposition to contraception is usually just a form of mysogyny.

However, there’s an important point I want to highlight:

We’ve already discussed one of his crucial points, namely that there is no contraception “mandate.” Hobby Lobby is not legally required to compensate its employees with health insurance at all.  The regulations imposed by the ACA are on insurance plans, not on the corporations per se.  What is erroneously described as a “mandate” simply means that if corporations choose to take advantage of the tax benefits for compensating employees in health insurance rather than wages, the insurance has to meet minimum coverage standards.  As is often the case with specious religious freedom arguments, the corporation wants it both ways, to get the tax benefits without providing the full benefits to employees.

  1. #1 by cav on March 25, 2014 - 5:34 pm

    ANOTHER WIN FOR brewski!!

    The man is simply un-stoppable!

  2. #2 by cav on March 26, 2014 - 10:05 am

    Now Glenden. Doesn’t it seem like a simple courtesy to delete my comment as well, as it really adds nothing to your post – in absence of the snark related directly to brewski’s offering (which honestly did have merit)? Leaving mine, standing alone, only makes me look derpy.

    I write: ‘does have merit’ because technically, given that there are two suits, both characterized as ‘Hobby Lobby’ by the press, it is the other (Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius), which seems to be the one we’ll suffer the weirdest, more devastating impacts from (if the ‘supremes’
    do what we fear they’ll do).

    Corporate ‘personhood’, our privacy, and whether any corporation can intercede in intimate, personal decision making, is what we’re talking here.

    In either case, decisions related to my (our) healthcare, are simply, and unequivocally NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS, and shouldn’t be any business of the freaks of the (not so) ‘supreme’ court either.

  3. #3 by Richard Warnick on March 26, 2014 - 10:47 am

    There is no employer mandate in the ACA. Small employers are completely free to dump their employees on “Obamacare.” Large employers can do that too, though they would have to pay a nominal fine. The Supreme Court ought to tell Hobby Lobby they have no case! Religious freedom isn’t the freedom to oppress others.

  4. #4 by brewski on March 26, 2014 - 2:24 pm

    So your position is that Hobby Lobby should dump its employee plan in its entirety?

    There is no oppression of anyone at all. Any employee is free to go buy their own plan if they don’t like their employer’s plan. Your definition of oppression is looney.

    • #5 by Richard Warnick on March 26, 2014 - 2:28 pm

      It makes more sense to drop company-sponsored insurance instead of spending a bundle to take a losing “religious oppression” case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

      • #6 by Richard Warnick on March 26, 2014 - 3:10 pm

        How much money are the Hobby Lobby bigs spending to screw over their employees with a bogus First Amendment complaint?

        • #7 by brewski on March 27, 2014 - 8:42 am

          No employees are getting screwed.

          • #8 by cav on March 27, 2014 - 9:55 am

            brewski, you got on me the other day about Hitler’s religion / religious sincerity…how are you feeling about the beliefs of the Plaintiffs / justices in these cases? More or less rational?

            Is the religion of the individual ‘supreme’ court justice more or less rational? How do any of them rationalize adopting responsibility for what others do as it pertains to starting, ending or precluding pregnancy?

            I don’t think they should be let anywhere near it.

          • #9 by brewski on March 27, 2014 - 10:08 am

            Anyone can get contraception any time they want it. If we have come to the place where not only contraception, but free contraception, and not only abortion, but free abortion are seen as constitutional rights, then we are doomed. The Democrats wrote a law which says that insurance companies must provide in any policy 20 different kinds of free contraception including 3 methods which are post-conception abortion. I don’t see anywhere in the constitution where it can be argued that the US government can compel private businesses (either private insurance companies or private employers) to provide free abortions. This is a constitutional question and not a religious or moral question. The point is that the constitution is written to place some limits on government power. That is how it is written. Congress shall make no law …….” So where is that limit? If Congress wants to provide free abortions and free contraception, then it can. It can budget for it and pay for it.

          • #10 by Larry Bergan on March 27, 2014 - 8:15 pm

            I guess it’s only fair that brewski is running the place, since he seems to have been squelched at the beginning, but I hate this tiered system anyway.

            Listen to me brewski! If congress provides free contraception, abortions will be unnecessary. In fact, I think that has already been proven. Abortions have gone WAY down in the last few years. That’s good isn’t it?

          • #11 by Larry Bergan on March 27, 2014 - 8:29 pm

            Well, I’ll be damned. I had to use the “reply” button on brewski’s comment to get my comment at the bottom of this thread, and that comment is on the first tier.

            The blog seems to be broken.

          • #12 by Larry Bergan on March 27, 2014 - 8:47 pm

            As I reply to myself, to see if I could get on the first tier of this blog – which, apparently, I was able to do – I have to say:

            Did we have to fall backwards or spring forwards already?

            Damn!

            If anybody has a better explanation of why the tiers are broken, I’m ready.

          • #13 by Larry Bergan on March 27, 2014 - 10:00 pm

            Maybe Richard has something to say about the order of the “chain of events” on this thread.

            If I persevere, I might be able to find where the reply is.

          • #14 by Larry Bergan on March 27, 2014 - 10:27 pm

            Sorry Glenden, I didn’t want to turn your thread into a forum against tiers, but I’ve never seen anything like this.

          • #15 by Larry Bergan on March 27, 2014 - 10:51 pm

            brewski:

            As-per your comment at 10:13 on March 27th.

            You haven’t been dealing with “lefty’s” or anything else. You don’t have a name. You’re a liar.

            A pretty good one at times, but you’re a liar.

  5. #16 by cav on March 26, 2014 - 7:05 pm

    I can’t be held liable; I did not act, the corporation did. On what basis did the corporation act? My own religious beliefs.

  6. #17 by Larry Bergan on March 26, 2014 - 9:11 pm

    My only hobby for the last two days has been to get my toilet working without hiring a plumber. I wanted to use my original toilet to save money, and it was a huge failure, so I had to do it twice.

    Plumbers earn their money, except for that Joe guy.

    Hobby Lobby is probably just trying to be patriotic or something. Personally these prudes just make me sick, because we all know they’re out to increase their bottom lines, by bashing others. Does this strategy actually work?

  7. #18 by Richard Warnick on March 27, 2014 - 10:14 am

    Now you’re sounding like Rush Limbaugh. “Free” health care is not on the table, much less “free” contraception. But Viagra is covered by insurance, why not birth control?

    • #19 by brewski on March 27, 2014 - 2:59 pm

      No one is saying birth control should not be. So your question is meaningless.

    • #20 by Larry Bergan on March 27, 2014 - 8:24 pm

      Richard:

      When you don’t use the tiered system of commenting, you have to address the person you’re talking to at the beginning of your comment.

      It’s not hard.

  8. #21 by brewski on March 27, 2014 - 10:34 am

    “The Affordable Care Act is the federal health care reform bill that Congress passed and President Obama signed into law in 2010. Under this law, private health insurance plans are beginning to offer birth control and some other preventive services without co-pays or deductibles. ”

    http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/politics-policy-issues/affordable-care-act-39966.htm

    • #22 by Richard Warnick on March 27, 2014 - 1:06 pm

      Again, not “free.” You pay monthly premiums. Limbaugh is independently wealthy, so I can understand he might not know how insurance works. But those of us in the 99 Percent know!

      • #23 by brewski on March 27, 2014 - 1:34 pm

        I have no idea what Rush has to do with anything.

        Your employer makes most of your monthly premium payment and it is free to you at the point of service.

        “without co-pays or deductibles”

    • #24 by Richard Warnick on March 27, 2014 - 3:29 pm

      Limbaugh originated the “free” contraception meme. Did you miss the whole Sandra Fluke flap? As any libertarian can tell you, TANSTAAFL. There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. Or free contraception.

  9. #25 by Larry Bergan on March 27, 2014 - 2:24 pm

    Richard:
    Well, there you go with the Viagra thing.

    Getting Viagra paid for through insurance was legislation passed at lightening speed. What was it? A week!

    I’m not kidding. I think it was a week.

    Women have to fight for decades/centuries to get what they want. In the great words of Rosanne Barr; (paraphrasing), ‘Some people say I act too much like a man. Well they can just suck my dick!’

    As a man,I was laughing so hard, I almost fell off the couch.

    I can’t take Viagra, because I can’t afford it and wouldn’t take it if you paid me. It’s the natural thing to do.

  10. #26 by Larry Bergan on March 27, 2014 - 2:26 pm

    I can’t figure out why I can’t get comment #14 to show up at the bottom of the thread.

    I was responding to Richard, but I hate the tiered comments, because I think it prevents people who are trying to read all of the comments from commenting based on reading all of the the previous comments.

    Sorry KOS.

    In other words, why does brewski get the last word here, even though he doesn’t have a name, and I commented AFTER him.

  11. #27 by cav on March 27, 2014 - 5:00 pm

    I cant decide if you want comment #12 or comment #14 to show up in an ever changing comment numeration scheme.

    Whatever. I’ll regret hitting the submit comment button just now…

  12. #28 by Larry Bergan on March 27, 2014 - 5:04 pm

    Does March 27th am, come later then March 27th pm?

    That is the question.

    AND I’ll admit that I changed #12 to #14, as an administrator, because I don’t like looking like an idiot who couldn’t tell the difference after it changed.

    brewski still gets the last word. :(

    We’re going to need some new rules here!

    • #29 by cav on March 27, 2014 - 5:13 pm

      How I came in a #16 is more mysterious to me than where the WMD all disappeared to.

      I went to the bottom of the thread -as instructed!

    • #30 by Richard Warnick on March 28, 2014 - 8:53 am

      Brewski almost always gets the last word. But that’s only after the thread has devolved into complete nonsense and/or ad hominem attacks. BTW has Glenn disappeared again?

  13. #32 by cav on March 27, 2014 - 5:15 pm

    What’s this…numeration fail?11

    It appears nesting is the NEW thread tail!

  14. #33 by Larry Bergan on March 27, 2014 - 5:49 pm

    Just seems to me that when I’m the last to comment, and don’t nest, I should come in last.

  15. #34 by Larry Bergan on March 27, 2014 - 8:30 pm

    Let’s try this.

    I was just testing to see if when I commented without addressing brewski after my 8:15 one, that my comment would end up at the bottom.

    Apparently not!

    At least I could FIX my toilet by making a couple of trips to Lowes.

  16. #35 by Larry Bergan on March 27, 2014 - 9:55 pm

    brewski:

    Let’s see where THIS comment ends up.

    I’m with you about not deleting ANY comment which doesn’t pretend to be somebody they’re not.

    What are your thoughts about the tiered system. Do you think it causes confusion to people who want to know what everybody is saying before they comment.

    Whatever you think, you have to admit that THIS thread is fucked up!

    • #36 by Larry Bergan on March 27, 2014 - 10:25 pm

      brewski:

      If you expect anybody to see your comment, you’re going to have to reply to yourself at the end of this thread.

      At least until somebody fixes it. I have no idea how.

  17. #37 by Richard Warnick on March 29, 2014 - 9:35 pm

    Amanda Marcotte: Conservatives Have Figured Out A Disturbingly Effective Strategy: Tell Lots And Lots of Lies

    The rollout of manufactured conservative outrage about insurance plans being required to cover contraception—something, may I remind you, most already did—has been a demonstration that the right wing noise machine has perfected the art of bullshit, after decades of honing their craft. Conservative leaders have learned they can train their followers to believe anything, with One Simple Trick: Lie faster than the debunkers can debunk. With the contraception mandate, there’s been a dizzying amount of lies that have been pouring out of the right, and this is no accident. Conservative leaders have learned that if you drown your opposition in lies, they are doomed. Even if they debunk one lie, audiences who are eager to buy into the anti-contraception line will simply cling to another. If you debunk that lie, conservatives just switch to another or switch back.

    …The right has figured out, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that lying is a more effective political strategy than telling the truth. When the right first started to put out feelers to see if they could convince a substantial subset of Americans that there was something sleazy and evil about insurance coverage of contraception—something that had literally been non-controversial for decades—I had my doubts that they would be able to pull it off. And let’s be clear, they didn’t convince most Americans. But they convinced enough Americans that they were able to take it to the Supreme Court, where they very likely convinced five judges (who were, to be fair, already hard-baked misogynists, so didn’t need much convincing). All with one simple formula: Lie, a lot. Drown your opponents in lies. It works so well it’s kind of amazing.

    • #38 by brewski on March 30, 2014 - 10:09 am

      Everything in that post is a lie. Progressives manufacture lies. They are pathological liars and incapable of ever telling the truth. What is wrong with you people?

      • #39 by Richard Warnick on March 30, 2014 - 11:36 am

        Makes it hard to have a substantive policy discussion when the right is clinging to an alternate reality promoted by talk radio, winger blogs, and Faux News Channel.

        • #40 by brewski on March 30, 2014 - 2:12 pm

          No alternate reality. Just objective facts and not spin and feelings. No radio, no Faux News, just facts.

        • #41 by Richard Warnick on March 30, 2014 - 4:38 pm

          OK, so what did Amanda Marcotte say that you think was a lie?

          • #42 by brewski on March 30, 2014 - 4:48 pm

            There is no “manufactured conservative outrage about insurance plans being required to cover contraception”

            1. The Hobby Lobby case is only about abortion inducing drugs, not contraception.

            2. Others’ objections relate to mandating that it be covered with no copay or deductible, unlike say insulin or blood pressure medicine or other life-saving drugs. So how is contraception more important than everything else?

            3. “most already did” Most does not mean “all”. If the nuns or Jesuit priests choose not to include it in their plan then it seems a bit of a stretch for the State to force them to do so.

            She is both dishonest and stupid and only surpassed by those who read her and then re-post her.

          • #43 by Richard Warnick on March 30, 2014 - 10:28 pm

            1. There is nothing in this case that has anything to do with abortion. Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (emphasis added):

            Issue: Whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq., which provides that the government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless that burden is the least restrictive means to further a compelling governmental interest, allows a for-profit corporation to deny its employees the health coverage of contraceptives to which the employees are otherwise entitled by federal law, based on the religious objections of the corporation’s owners.

            2. The contraception mandate in the ACA helps the 30 percent of all U.S. women in need of contraceptive services who are currently uninsured, thus lowering the overall cost of health care.

            Providing women the contraceptive services they want and need saves taxpayer money that would otherwise go to Medicaid-funded births. According to the Guttmacher Institute, “nationally, every $1.00 invested in helping women avoid pregnancies they did not want to have saved $5.68 in Medicaid expenditures that otherwise would have been needed.”

            3. It’s extremely hypocritical to suddenly raise a pretended moral objection to an insurance provision that’s been there all along without any controversy. For example, Georgetown University employee health plans covered contraception at the time they attempted to deny the same coverage to students on “religious” grounds.

            Got any more alternate universe logic to throw at this? ;-)

          • #44 by brewski on March 30, 2014 - 11:58 pm

            Half truths are dangerous.

            1. The only contraception that Hobby Lobby opposes are the very few which are post-conception, which is basically abortion. Hobby Lobby does not object to all the other contraception methods.

            2. The logic for no-copay and no-deductible contraception could be made for thousands of other medicines. Replacing your quote with just about any other word still makes identical sense “Providing diabetics the insulin they need saves taxpayer money that would otherwise go to Medicaid-funded comas.”

            3. Tell that to the nuns:
            http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/01/24/265797473/high-court-grants-nuns-temporary-exemption-from-birth-control-mandate

          • #45 by Richard Warnick on March 31, 2014 - 1:40 am

            1. Totally not abortion. If you believe in science, that is.

            2. Also consider the equity issue. Viagra is covered by insurance.

            3. Religion encourages hypocrisy. What else can I say?

  18. #46 by brewski on March 31, 2014 - 7:39 am

    1. Anything post-conception is abortion. If you believe in the English language, that is.

    2. Nonresponsive to my example. Try again.

    3. Hypocritical? You mean like fake progressives without solar panels? Like that hypocritical?

  19. #47 by Richard Warnick on March 31, 2014 - 8:19 am

    1. You’re kidding, right? Contraception by definition is not “post-conception.”

    2. OK, I get it. You want more expensive health care and skyrocketing insurance premiums.

    3. Turns out the owners of Hobby Lobby have a far-right political agenda – surprised?

    • #48 by brewski on March 31, 2014 - 8:44 am

      some forms of “contraception” are. That is why Hobby Lobby is only objecting to 3 out of 20 methods. Not the 17 other methods. Please educate yourself.

      2. Nonresponsive to my example. I take it as your concession.

      3. Who cares? None of your business.

      • #49 by Richard Warnick on March 31, 2014 - 10:49 am

        This is how Willard (“Mitt”) Romney got himself into the awkward position of signing on to ban birth control when he ran for President. Not what I would call a sure-fire vote-getter.

        Emergency contraception, known as the morning-after pill, prevents a pregnancy. Has nothing to do with abortion.

        Part of the reason people get confused about emergency contraception and abortion is because lots of people are confused about the basic biology of pregnancy: specifically, that it doesn’t necessarily happen instantaneously and that sperm can live in the body for several days, during which time a woman can ovulate and an egg can potentially be fertilized and implant. Regular use of hormonal contraception prevents ovulation and the chance for fertilization; emergency contraception essentially works the same way except that it’s taken after sex, by which point ovulation may have already happened. But according to recent studies, there is no evidence that taking emergency contraception after ovulation and fertilization will stop the egg from implanting.

        The Hobby Lobby case is total bullshit.

        • #50 by brewski on March 31, 2014 - 11:10 am

          Tell it to the judge.

          • #51 by Richard Warnick on March 31, 2014 - 11:15 am

            You mean the right-wing Supreme Court majority? Even they are not likely to let Hobby Lobby win this case. That would set a crazy precedent for corporate “personhood.”

          • #52 by brewski on March 31, 2014 - 11:18 am

            Right wing? Ha!

          • #53 by brewski on March 31, 2014 - 11:21 am

            So then you agree that corporations have no constitutional rights? So then you agree that the ACLU, Inc. has no right to free speech, and the Teamsters, Inc. have not right to assembly. And the police can conduct any unreasonable search and seizure of any corporate owned premises. And the army can quarter soldiers on the property of any corporation without their consent.

            Your conclusion.

          • #54 by Richard Warnick on March 31, 2014 - 11:55 am

            Some wise person, I can’t remember who, said, “I’ll believe a corporation is a person the day they execute one in Texas.”

            My opinion is that a corporation cannot believe in God, therefore corporations have no religion!

          • #55 by brewski on March 31, 2014 - 1:51 pm

            Thank you for not addressing my point and your own logic.

  20. #56 by brewski on March 31, 2014 - 9:21 am

    So let me flow chart this for you:
    Richard Warnick refers to ==> Media Matters. Media Matters refers to ==> Salon. Salon says that an employee ==> (Jon Cargill) gave money to ==> Christian Charitable Foundation. Then CCF gave money to ==> Alliance Defending Freedom and the Center for Arizona Policy, then those organizations supported ==> SB 1062 which was vetoed. So in other words, an employee gave money to an organization which gave money to a different organization for something which didn’t happen, and you and Media Matters are all deranged about it. Got it.

  21. #57 by cav on April 1, 2014 - 6:18 pm

    Hobby Lobby’s Hypocrisy: The Company’s Retirement Plan Invests in Contraception Manufacturers

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/hobby-lobby-retirement-plan-invested-emergency-contraception-and-abortion-drug-makers

    • #58 by brewski on April 1, 2014 - 8:23 pm

      Just like union pension plans invested in Wal Mart.

  22. #59 by cav on April 2, 2014 - 3:00 pm

    Richer than the richest rich can be…so rich.

  23. #60 by Larry Bergan on April 2, 2014 - 7:04 pm

    When these big corporate owners come out and declare their right-wing-talking-point preferences, I guess they’re just trying to stimulate a debate between their employees so a democratic solution can be implemented.

    I’m getting really sick of this coercion technique being used against American workers.

    Stick to running your business and keep your damn fingers out of our political system.

    • #61 by brewski on April 3, 2014 - 6:37 am

      tell the unions to keep their damn fingers out of our political system.

      • #62 by Richard Warnick on April 4, 2014 - 8:52 am

        Unions and income

        This graph illustrates the problem. As unions disappear, so do middle-class wages.

  24. #64 by cav on April 3, 2014 - 9:15 am

    Whether rich or unionized, if left to the pols exclusively (which is unrealistic) we’d be in an even more hellacious a fix than we already are.

    May I remind each and all about the ‘greater good’? (As if THAT was what mattered).

  25. #65 by Larry Bergan on April 3, 2014 - 7:57 pm

    You can’t walk around Washington without bumping into a pro-union congressman, can you brewski? :)

    In 1954 you would have found it hard to find a Republican who wasn’t a strong advocate of unions, because it was in the Republican platform. What happened?

    • #66 by brewski on April 3, 2014 - 10:02 pm

      Unions became destructive, that’s what happened.

      WEST BRANCH, Mich. – The Michigan Education Association is going to arbitration to try to force the West Branch-Rose City school district to pay a former teacher who was convicted of molesting a student a $10,000 severance buyout.

      Neil Erickson coverThe father of the victim is outraged, calling the union’s efforts on behalf of the sex criminal “ludicrous” and saying any school money due to the teacher should go to his son, who is “out there trying to make it in this world all messed up.”

      Neal Erickson, a former math teacher at Rose City Middle School, was convicted this summer of raping a young student over three years, from 2006 to 2009, and sentenced to 15-30 years in prison.

    • #67 by brewski on April 4, 2014 - 10:00 am

      Virginia Democrat Representative James P. Moran

      “I think the American people should know that the members of Congress are underpaid… And a lot of members can’t even afford to live decently when they’re at their jobs in Washington.”

      • #68 by Richard Warnick on April 4, 2014 - 10:27 am

        Congressional pay has been frozen for three years. But middle-class wages have been frozen ever since Reagan instituted trickle-down economics.

        • #69 by brewski on April 4, 2014 - 10:40 am

          I’ve never heard Reagan say anything related to trickle down economics. Can you provide me a quote? Tip O’Neil must be a really evil person.

          • #70 by Richard Warnick on April 4, 2014 - 11:36 am

            Investopedia explains ‘Reaganomics’ (emphasis added)

            The term was used by supporters and detractors of Reagan’s policies alike. Reaganomics was partially based on the principles of supply-side economics and the trickle-down theory. These theories hold the view that decreases in taxes, especially for corporations, is the best way to stimulate economic growth: the idea is that if the expenses of corporations are reduced, the savings will “trickle down” to the rest of the economy, spurring growth.

            Prior to becoming Reagan’s Vice President, George H. Bush coined the term “voodoo economics” as a proposed synonym for Reaganomics.

            President Reagan’s economic program was laid out in “A Program for Economic Recovery,” made available to the public and submitted to Congress in February 1981. This program relied on something called “supply-side economics.” David Stockman explained it (emphasis added):

            …the supply-side theory was not a new economic theory at all but only new language and argument to conceal a hoary old Republican doctrine: give the tax cuts to the top brackets, the wealthiest individuals and largest enterprises, and let the good effects “trickle down” through the economy to reach everyone else. Yes, Stockman conceded, when one stripped away the new rhetoric emphasizing across-the-board cuts, the supply-side theory was really new clothes for the unpopular doctrine of the old Republican orthodoxy. “It’s kind of hard to sell ‘trickle down,'” he explained, “so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really ‘trickle down.’ Supply-side is ‘trickle-down’ theory.

          • #71 by brewski on April 4, 2014 - 12:03 pm

            You really want to compare Reagan’s growth rates to any since? Really?

          • #72 by Richard Warnick on April 4, 2014 - 12:24 pm

            Flat wages graph

            What growth? Take a look at this graph. Middle-class wages have been flat since Reagan. Which is what I said.

          • #73 by brewski on April 4, 2014 - 3:06 pm

            We should definitely see if we can convince the Chinese to kill themselves by the millions again, and then we should tell women to stay home. Then we should draft a few million young men to keep them out of the production and nonsupervisory employment market.

            Labor market conditions matter.

  26. #74 by brewski on April 4, 2014 - 5:12 pm

    growth in private sector jobs Jan 2009 to March 2014 = 4.2%

    same period in Reagan presidency = 10.0%

    • #75 by Richard Warnick on April 5, 2014 - 10:42 am

      Maybe the comparison would make sense if Reagan was the next President after Herbert Hoover. But he wasn’t, and it doesn’t.

      • #76 by brewski on April 5, 2014 - 11:18 am

        very weak. try again. you’re desperation is showing.

        • #77 by Richard Warnick on April 5, 2014 - 5:21 pm

          Forbes: Obama vs Reagan Recovery: Right Comparison Wrong Conclusion

          Economic growth and job creation have very little to do with whether a Republican or a Democrat is in the White House, but a lot to do with the context, the conditions and circumstances while in office.

          • #78 by brewski on April 5, 2014 - 5:27 pm

            So if “Economic growth and job creation have very little to do with whether a Republican or a Democrat is in the White House” then why is Obama and every Democrat running around taking credit for every single minimum wage part time job that has been created in the last 5 years? Are they all lying?

          • #79 by Richard Warnick on April 5, 2014 - 5:34 pm

            The administration in the White House gets the blame for a bad economy, so it’s understandable they try to spin the news in a positive direction. The economy was horrible while Bush was in office, but he incredibly claimed there wasn’t a recession.

            I’m the first to point out that the recovery from Bush’s Great Recession has been anemic at best. When the Obama administration talks about job growth, they never admit that high-paying jobs have been replaced with a smaller number of low-wage jobs.

          • #80 by brewski on April 5, 2014 - 7:26 pm

            So Obama can take the credit and you defend it. But if I compare his record to anyone else’s all of a sudden it isn’t fair?

            Got it.

          • #81 by Richard Warnick on April 5, 2014 - 9:13 pm

            I don’t think there is very much to take credit for. Americans need jobs and better wages, but Washington politicians for some unknown reason seem obsessed with deficit spending. Representative government is broken.

  27. #82 by Larry Bergan on April 5, 2014 - 10:05 pm

    brewski:

    I don’t know what teachers unions have to do with rape; I really don’t, but there were a few teachers I wouldn’t have minded being “raped” by.

    Without the social stigma, of course.

(will not be published)


%d bloggers like this: