President Trumps first 100 days;

stumbler · Mar 9, 2017

Doctors, hospitals and insurers oppose Republican health plan

Major associations representing physicians, hospitals, insurers and seniors all leveled sharp attacks against the House GOP’s plan to rewrite the Affordable Care Act on Wednesday, as some Republicans publicly questioned whether the measure can clear the House of Representatives.

While industry groups warned that the proposal could leave vulnerable Americans with fewer protections than they now have, GOP leaders pressed ahead, bringing legislation before two key committees that are expected to approve the bills by week’s end. They were also working in concert with the White House to win over conservatives, who have complained that the proposal preserves too much of the current law.

The flurry of activity — including an evening meeting between President Trump and leaders from five skeptical conservative groups — created new uncertainty about the viability of Republicans’ signature promise to repeal and replace Obamacare.

The day’s events also showed the uneasy predicament facing House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), the proposal’s chief booster, who described the plan Wednesday as a “conservative wish list” that would deliver on years of GOP campaign promises to change the nation’s health-care system.

“Right now I feel confident saying there aren’t 218 votes for this,” said Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), a member of the conservative Freedom Caucus, who was referring to the number of votes needed to pass the measure out of the House. Perry opposes the proposal.

The barrage of criticism shows how fraught the terrain of health-care policy is. It also reflects a backlash prompted at least partly by the breakneck speed with which House Republicans are trying to push through their proposal — with little upfront effort to work with interest groups or political factions.

“What we’re seeing now is that the political prospects for repealing the Affordable Care Act are as daunting as the effort to pass national health reform,” Larry Jacobs, a political science professor at the University of Minnesota’s Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs, said in an interview.

House Republican leaders have given little indication that they will make anything but marginal changes to their plan, which would eliminate the requirements that all Americans obtain coverage or pay a tax penalty and that businesses with at least 50 employees provide insurance. The American Health Care Act would replace income-based subsidies with refundable tax credits based on age and income, charge individuals a 30 percent surcharge if they buy a plan after allowing their coverage to lapse and phase out the law’s more generous Medicaid funding over time.

While conservatives complained that these changes don’t go far enough, they have sparked criticism not just from Democrats but from moderate Republicans, AARP, the American Medical Association and the American Hospital Association.

“We cannot support the AHCA as drafted because of the expected decline in health insurance coverage and the potential harm it would cause to vulnerable patient populations,” James L. Madara, chief executive of the American Medical Association and a doctor, wrote in a letter to committee leaders overseeing work on the bill.

Richard Pollack, CEO of the American Hospital Association, voiced similar fears, saying efforts to “restructure the Medicaid program” by shifting it from an entitlement program to one based on a per capita allocation “will have the effect of making significant reductions in a program that provides services for our most vulnerable populations and already pays providers significantly less than the cost of providing care.”

America’s Health Insurance Plans, the insurance industry’s largest trade association, sent a letter Wednesday saying that while it appreciated several of the proposed changes, the changes to Medicaid “could result in unnecessary disruptions in the coverage and care beneficiaries depend on.”

[Income separates the winners from losers in House GOP’s health plan]

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.) told reporters Wednesday that critics were exaggerating the proposal’s potential repercussions.

“It’s tough to do entitlement reform, it’s tough to make these changes, but I think at the end of day, seniors are going to be fine,” Walden said. “If you’re on Medicaid today, you’ll be on Medicaid tomorrow. States can intercede here and help out. So there’s more to this story.”

Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee moved to delay the bill’s consideration for 30 days, while those on Ways and Means moved to delay it for one week to allow for further hearings and to examine the CBO report. Both motions were voted down on a straight party-line vote, and the panels continued working into the evening.

Still, the most imminent threat GOP leaders must contend with comes from the far right. The speaker can lose only 21 Republican votes if the American Health Care Act is to pass, and opponents are promising to use that leverage to force changes to the bill.

Rep. Thomas Garrett (R-Va.), a freshman member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, said he was confident that his camp could help reshape the legislation. While Trump had endorsed it already, Garrett said, he would probably be willing to accept something else if it were changed in a way conservatives could support.

“This is a guy who said he wasn’t sure that NATO, in its classic role, is necessary — and then two months later we saw countries like Germany vow to increase their defense spending to 2 percent of GDP,” said Garrett. “Why’d they do that? Because Donald Trump wasn’t going to accept the status quo. They made a counteroffer. Right now, there’s an offer, and he’s saying he likes to get people to make counteroffers.”

Vice President Pence met with two House Freedom Caucus leaders Tuesday, and that same day Mulvaney — a former caucus member — spent more than an hour at a meeting of the group. Its members have been invited to visit the White House next Tuesday.

Wednesday night, Trump met with leaders from Americans for Prosperity, the Club for Growth, FreedomWorks, the Heritage Foundation and its political arm, Heritage Action, and the Tea Party Patriots.

But the hard reality for Republicans is that any changes made to appease House conservatives could threaten the bill’s support among moderates.

“My fear is that the bill will go backwards,” said Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-N.J.), a co-chairman of the centrist Tuesday Group who has gotten White House attention of his own: He met Tuesday with Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price. “If the bill starts going in the reverse direction in order to satisfy certain members of my party, then I’m going to have a problem. I think the federal government has a role to play here, and I’m not looking to just see the federal government undermine the health-care needs of the American people.”

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, a pivotal Republican moderate, said in an interview Wednesday with Yahoo News’ Katie Couric that the current House measure would “not be well received in the Senate” and stood no chance of passing as is. “I want us to slow down to take more time to be sure we get this right.”
Click to expand...

stumbler · Mar 9, 2017

Oh man I have been channel flipping and surfing the internet and the one common theme today is the GOP is just getting hammered on their healthcare plan from all sides. And their lies about their healthcare bill and the ACA are being exposed.

But to give you an example of how widespread the actual opposition is. There are two very different but very powerful groups expressing outrage. One is AARP. And the other is people who voted for Trump who are suddenly realizing they have been lied to.

ace's n 8's · Mar 10, 2017

xxxaddict76 said: ↑

I read the article.

You do realize 'anticipating' does not mean shit. There is no guarantee of anything.

President Obama had positive job growth over 7 years.

THANK YOU PRESIDENT OBAMA.
Click to expand...

Now this is some stupid comedy from you....Business is all about anticipation.

xxxaddict76 said: ↑

THANK YOU PRESIDENT OBAMA.

I seem to recall President Obama deported more illegals than any President in history. There was a net loss of illegal immigrants entering on the Mexican border.
Click to expand...

And some more ignorant hit from the bowels of the leftists.

For one to be deported, one needs to cross the border, really, that is true....

But, that's not how the Obama boys and girls desribed it, the numbers were high, sure, BUT, here's the pinch, the Obama numbers included those that 'attempted' to cross, but never were able to cross, so....if they never crossed, they were never deported.

Sanity_is_Relative · Mar 10, 2017

RandyKnight · Mar 10, 2017

One of Congress' fiercest drug-price critics just tried to get Trump
on his side at a big meeting

President Trump on Wednesday met with Reps. Elijah Cummings and Peter Welch, along with Johns Hopkins president Dr. Redonda Miller, to talk about drug pricing.

Coming out of the meeting, Cummings said Trump was "enthusiastic" about targeting drug prices.

It's a topic the president has brought up many times, most recently in a tweet on Tuesday.

And at a January news conference, Trump said drugmakers are "getting away with murder" and expressed an interest in negotiating drug prices, something the government isn't allowed to do for Medicare and Medicaid.

As part of the meeting, Cummings and Welch showed Trump and Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price a draft of a new bill, titled "The Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2017." Cummings said in a release that he had asked the president for feedback and support on the bill.

Here's a summary of the bill:

Allowing Medicare to Negotiate Lower Drug Prices

Under current law, the secretary of HHS is prohibited from negotiating lower drug prices on behalf of Medicare Part D beneficiaries. This is called the “non-interference clause.”

The bill would strike the non-interference clause and direct the Secretary to negotiate lower prices with drug manufacturers that participate in Medicare Part D.

The bill also would direct the Secretary to establish a formulary to leverage the purchasing power of the government on behalf of Part D plans.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has found that merely striking the non- interference clause would have only a “negligible” effect on Medicare spending, but that setting a formulary “could give the Secretary the ability to obtain significant discounts in negotiations with drug manufacturers.”

The bill would allow Part D plans to use additional benefit design and formulary tools to secure steeper discounts or rebates for beneficiaries.

The bill would establish a fallback process if negotiations with drug manufacturers are unsuccessful.

The bill would preserve critical protections for patient access by including in any formulary certain categories and classes of drugs that are protected under current law.

The bill would also require the inclusion of at least one drug to treat each clinical condition, as identified by the Secretary, and would preserve patient appeals processes for accessing drugs that are not covered by the formulary.

Restoring Low-Income Beneficiary Rebates

The bill would restore required drug rebates for low-income beneficiaries that were lost when Medicare Part D was created in 2006.

CBO projects that restoring these rebates for brand-name drugs would save taxpayers $145 billion over ten years.

Before Part D came into effect, people who were eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid received their drug benefits through Medicaid. After Part D was created, these people began receiving their drug benefits through Medicare.

Drug manufacturers that participate in Medicaid are required to provide discounts in the form of rebates back to Medicaid, but there are no similar statutory rebates for Medicare.

As a result of shifting the drug benefits for these dual-eligible individuals from Medicaid to Medicare, the pharmaceutical industry received a huge windfall of billions of dollars in rebates it was no longer required to pay.

Click to expand...

xxxaddict76 · Mar 10, 2017

RandyKnight said: ↑

One of Congress' fiercest drug-price critics just tried to get Trump
on his side at a big meeting

President Trump on Wednesday met with Reps. Elijah Cummings and Peter Welch, along with Johns Hopkins president Dr. Redonda Miller, to talk about drug pricing.

Coming out of the meeting, Cummings said Trump was "enthusiastic" about targeting drug prices.

It's a topic the president has brought up many times, most recently in a tweet on Tuesday.

And at a January news conference, Trump said drugmakers are "getting away with murder" and expressed an interest in negotiating drug prices, something the government isn't allowed to do for Medicare and Medicaid.

As part of the meeting, Cummings and Welch showed Trump and Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price a draft of a new bill, titled "The Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2017." Cummings said in a release that he had asked the president for feedback and support on the bill.

Here's a summary of the bill:
Click to expand...

Tried to get Trump on his side? President Dipshit is the one who proposed negotiating prescription drug prices.

xxxaddict76 · Mar 10, 2017

Flynn is the true epitome of this administration. Hannity said it was the savage left that brought down Flynn. No, I would say it was Flynn himself.

White House: Trump unaware of Flynn's foreign agent work

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump was not aware that his former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, had worked to further the interests of the government of Turkey before appointing him, the White House said Thursday.

The comments came two days after Flynn and his firm, Flynn Intel Group Inc., filed paperwork with the Justice Department formally identifying him as a foreign agent and acknowledging that his work for a company owned by a Turkish businessman could have aided Turkey's government. Vice President Mike Pence on Thursday called the action "an affirmation of the president's decision to ask General Flynn to resign."

At the White House, asked whether Trump knew about Flynn's work before he appointed him as national security adviser, press secretary Sean Spicer said, "I don't believe that that was known."

Pence said in an interview later with Fox News that he also did not know about Flynn's paid work.
Flynn and his company filed the registration paperwork describing $530,000 worth of lobbying before Election Day on behalf of Inovo BV, a Dutch-based company owned by Turkish businessman Ekim Alptekin. In an interview with The Associated Press, Alptekin said Flynn did so after pressure from Justice Department officials.

The filing this week was the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency's first acknowledgement that his consulting business furthered the interests of a foreign government while he was working as a top adviser to Trump's presidential campaign.

Flynn's disclosure that his lobbying — from August through November— may have benefited Turkey's authoritarian government led by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan came as Flynn has drawn scrutiny from the FBI for his contacts with Russian officials. Trump fired Flynn last month for misleading Vice President Mike Pence and other administration officials about his contacts with Russia's ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Kislyak.

In paperwork filed with the Justice Department's Foreign Agent Registration Unit, Flynn and his firm acknowledged that his lobbying "could be construed to have principally benefited the Republic of Turkey." The lobbying contract ended after Trump's election in November, according to the paperwork.

A spokesman for Flynn, Price Floyd, said the general was not available for an interview Thursday. Floyd referred the AP to Flynn's filing in response to questions about why he and his firm had decided to register this week.

Flynn's attorney, Robert Kelner, declined to comment through a spokesman for his law firm, Covington & Burling. The Turkish Embassy also didn't respond to questions from the AP.

Spicer said he didn't know what Flynn had disclosed about his background and lobbying work during the White House's vetting of him for appointment as national security adviser.

Spicer said Flynn was free to do the lobbying work because it occurred while he was a private citizen.
"There's nothing nefarious about doing anything that's legal as long as the proper paperwork if filed," Spicer said. He declined to say whether Trump would have appointed Flynn if he had known about the lobbying.

After Flynn joined the Trump administration, he agreed not to lobby for five years after leaving government service and never to represent foreign governments. Flynn's newly disclosed lobbying would not have violated that pledge because it occurred before he joined the Trump administration in January, but the pledge precludes Flynn from ever doing the same type of work again in his lifetime.

Under the Foreign Agent Registration Act, U.S. citizens who lobby on behalf of foreign governments or political entities must disclose their work to the Justice Department. Willfully failing to register is a felony, though the Justice Department rarely files criminal charges in such cases. It routinely works with lobbying firms to get back in compliance with the law by registering and disclosing their work.

More than a month before Flynn was appointed as national security adviser, news accounts and Democratic senators had raised questions about potential conflicts of interest regarding Flynn's work for the Turkish company. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., criticized Flynn's work and late disclosure again Thursday as troubling.

"Gen. Flynn's behavior seems to be part of a larger pattern of poor judgment from members of this administration," she said.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said in a statement that Flynn should return any foreign money he received.

"This astonishing admission is more appalling evidence of foreign entanglements and conflicts of interest involving the Trump team," he said. He said a special prosecutor should be appointed to look into ties between Trump officials and foreign governments.

Alptekin told the AP that Justice Department officials had pushed for Flynn and his firm to register as foreign agents in recent weeks. He said the filing was a response to "political pressure" and he did not agree with Flynn's decision to file the registration documents with the Justice Department. He also said that he had asked for some of his money back because of his dissatisfaction with the company's performance.

"I disagree with the filing," he said in a phone call from Istanbul. "It would be different if I was working for the government of Turkey, but I am not taking directions from anyone in the government."

Flynn's consulting firm had previously disclosed to Congress that it worked for Inovo BV, a Dutch-based company owned by Alptekin. But neither Flynn nor his company had previously filed paperwork with the Justice Department, which requires more extensive disclosures about work that benefits foreign governments and political interests.

Flynn Intel and S.G.R. LLC Government Relations and Lobbying pressured congressional aides to investigate a cleric who Erdogan had accused of directing a botched coup last summer. The two firms orchestrated meetings with U.S. officials— including congressional staffers and Arkansas Lt. Gov. Tim Griffin, a Republican — as well as journalists. They also worked on research, informational materials and a video on the cleric, Fethullah Gulen.

Flynn met privately in September in New York with two senior Turkish government officials, including the government's ministers of foreign affairs and energy. Flynn's company did not name the officials, but the current Turkish energy minister is Berat Albayrak, who is Erdogan's son-in-law.

Alptekin told the AP he set up the meeting at a New York hotel between Flynn and the two officials while the officials were attending U.N. sessions and a separate conference Alptekin had arranged. Alptekin is a member of a Turkish economic relations board run by an appointee of Erdogan, who has accelerated a crackdown against the nation's weakening secularist faction since the failed coup last summer.

Erdogan has accused cleric Gulen of orchestrating the aborted coup and called for his extradition from the U.S., where he lives in a compound in Pennsylvania.

According to the filing, Flynn Intel's work involved collecting information about Gulen and pressuring U.S. officials to take action against the cleric.

White House: Trump unaware of Flynn's foreign agent work https://a.msn.com/r/2/AAo3bbH?m=en-us&ocid=News

stumbler · Mar 10, 2017

What Trump has accomplished in his first 50 days

President Trump has relied heavily on executive power to advance his agenda during an action-packed first 50 days in office.

Trump thus far has issued 16 executive orders, roughly on pace with President Obama, who signed 17 days at this point in his presidency. Trump has also approved more than a dozen additional memoranda, some containing key policy changes.

But unlike Trump, Obama already had two major legislative achievements under his belt at this point in his presidency: an $800 billion economic stimulus package and a law making it easier for women to sue for equal pay.

Trump is halfway through his first 100 days in office, the period of time typically used as a benchmark to judge the early success of presidents. But Republican leaders have sought to downplay expectations for that timeframe, instead emphasizing the first 200 days.

Many of Trump’s earliest actions have been geared toward what his chief strategist, Stephen Bannon, termed the “deconstruction of the administrative state.”

But the jury is still out on how much the president will be able to put his own stamp on the government while fulfilling the promises he made to voters.

Trump appears to be turning his full attention to Congress with a push this week to repeal and replace ObamaCare. It’s an attempt to jump-start work on his legislative agenda, with hopes that work on tax reform and an infrastructure package could follow this summer.

Perhaps more than anything, Trump’s first 50 days have been marked by controversy.

Multiple investigations into his associates’ alleged ties to Russia have proven to be a constant distraction from his governing agenda, leading to the dismissal of Michael Flynn as national security adviser, the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions from Russia-related inquiries into the presidential election and heightened tensions between Trump and the intelligence community.

Trump has often fueled the controversy himself.

Last weekend, he accused Obama of illegally wiretapping Trump Tower during the campaign. Trump used his first full day in office to launch into a feud with the media over the size of his inaugural crowd. Days later, he claimed to lawmakers that millions of illegal voters cost him the popular vote to Democrat Hillary Clinton.

Those controversies have overshadowed some of the real changes enacted by Trump during his first 50 days. Here’s a look at some of the biggest policy shifts.

Travel ban

Trump signed a flurry of executive actions during his first week in office, but none caused a bigger stir than his travel ban.

The measure temporarily blocked people from seven Muslim-majority nations from entering the U.S. and put the country’s refugee resettlement program on hold, while indefinitely barring Syrian refugees.

Trump handed down the directive in a surprise announcement on a Friday afternoon, setting off chaos at airports around the world as authorities struggled to implement the new policy. It resulted in hundreds of travelers being detained, which in turn sparked protests and legal challenges.

A federal judge in Washington handed Trump his first major defeat by blocking the policy nationwide, which was later upheld by an appeals court. Trump was defiant, launching a verbal attack on the judicial branch.

But the president eventually bowed to the courts. He issued a revised order on Monday aimed at moving past the legal problems that torpedoed the original ban.

For Trump, it was an early lesson that executive power has its limits.

Immigration enforcement

While the travel ban attracted the most attention of Trump’s actions, his new guidance on immigration enforcement has had the most wide-ranging effect.

The directives call for the aggressive enforcement of the nation’s immigration laws, which could result in millions of deportations if Trump puts the full weight of his administration behind them.

Trump has vastly expanded the number of immigrants targeted for deportations, called for the hiring of thousands of new immigration enforcement and border agents and enlisted local police to help round up people living in the country illegally. The administration is also planning to build new detention facilities, deport more immigrants without a court hearing and publicize crimes committed by undocumented immigrants.

Obama set a record by deporting around 3 million people during his presidency. The new Trump policies could target up to 8 million.

The new actions have emboldened immigration enforcement agents while striking fear into immigrant communities.

The change has already been felt, as many immigrants who may not have been considered priorities for removal under Obama have been arrested or ordered to leave: a mother of two U.S. citizen children in Arizona, a mother of four in Chicago and a well-liked manager of a Mexican restaurant in southern Illinois.

Regulatory rollback

The Trump administration’s actions have led to the repeal or delay of more than 90 federal regulations from the Obama era.

The regulations had affected everything from the financial and telecommunications industries to gun sales and the environment.

Trump signed directives freezing Obama regulations that had asserted federal control over small waterways and required financial advisers to work in the best interest of their clients.

Under the new administration, the Federal Communications Commission will only ask companies like Verizon and AT&T to take “reasonable measures” to protect their customers’ sensitive personal information. The Social Security Administration, meanwhile, is no longer required to submit information to the national gun background check system that helped sellers identify people with mental illnesses.

Taken together, the actions are a fulfillment of Republicans’ and industry groups’ longstanding desire for less government intrusion. But Democrats and consumer advocates argue they could have a devastating impact.

Budget cuts

Trump’s first budget is expected to call for dramatic cuts to the federal government.

His preliminary budget plan reportedly calls for a 37 percent cut to the State Department, as well as multibillion cuts at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Interior Department and other agencies.

The cuts could hit climate-change research, conservation funding, foreign aid, support for public housing and the size of the federal workforce.

Trump is planning to use the money for a massive military buildup, aides say.

But one plan being considered would even slash budgets for airport security and the Coast Guard to help pay for Trump’s planned wall along the Mexican border.

Presidential budget blueprints are typically nothing more than a starting point for Congress, and GOP critics say the president’s plan doesn’t tackle the main driver of the national debt: entitlement programs.

But Trump is telegraphing that he wants to take a hatchet to the federal government, which could lead to controversy in the months ahead.
Click to expand...

RandyKnight · Mar 10, 2017

New Oil Find in Alaska....

1.2 Billion in reserves...

120,000 barrels a day once in drilling....

stumbler · Mar 10, 2017

RandyKnight said: ↑

New Oil Find in Alaska....

1.2 Billion in reserves...

120,000 barrels a day once in drilling....
Click to expand...

And tell me RandyKnight what did Trump have to do with that?

RandyKnight · Mar 10, 2017

stumbler said: ↑

And tell me RandyKnight what did Trump have to do with that?
Click to expand...

It happened in the first 100 days...simple
and trump will not stop it from being drilled...

stumbler · Mar 10, 2017

RandyKnight said: ↑

It happened in the first 100 days...simple
and trump will not stop it from being drilled...
Click to expand...

No you are just lying RandyKnight and revealing woeful ignorance about drilling. First, the leases that even let them begin were issued at least a year ago and they could have been sitting them for the past 8 years. In fact drilling in this area of the North Slope started in 2008. And nobody has ever stopped drilling on the North Slope which goes back to the 1950's. And so much for "America First." A Spanish company will be making the big bucks on this one.

So damn RandyKnight you really belittle yourself when you make up stupid lies just to support Trump. And what kind of credible businessman would do something that stupid?

xxxaddict76 · Mar 10, 2017

stumbler said: ↑

No you are just lying RandyKnight and revealing woeful ignorance about drilling. First, the leases that even let them begin were issued at least a year ago and they could have been sitting them for the past 8 years. In fact drilling in this area of the North Slope started in 2008. And nobody has ever stopped drilling on the North Slope which goes back to the 1950's. And so much for "America First." A Spanish company will be making the big bucks on this one.

So damn RandyKnight you really belittle yourself when you make up stupid lies just to support Trump. And what kind of credible businessman would do something that stupid?
Click to expand...

I agree.

xxxaddict76 · Mar 10, 2017

RandyKnight said: ↑

New Oil Find in Alaska....

1.2 Billion in reserves...

120,000 barrels a day once in drilling....
Click to expand...

Alaska North Slope in 2016. The location is 300 miles from the Alaskan Artic.

This oil will be significantly more challenging to access than the oil in recently discovered fields in Texas but less challenging to access than the oil in Shell’s recently abandoned project in Alaska’s Chukchi Sea in the Arctic. The oil in Smith Bay is located in shallow waters near land which makes it easier to reach than that in the Chukchi Sea. Caelus says the company plans to bring in barges and sink them in the water near Smith Bay to build platforms. The project would also include a new 150 mile pipeline to connect Smith Bay with the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline System in Prudhoe Bay. Even though Alaska’s pipeline regulations are considerably more friendly to energy companies than elsewhere in the U.S., it could still take between five and ten years before any oil is produced. And when it comes to opposition to pipelines and Arctic drilling, all possible delays are on the table.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenr...discovery-what-you-need-to-know/#4401ecfd47ef

Oil companies have spent the last several years drilling wells and found costs to high to continue operation in the artic. Many leases have been abandoned.

So based on @RandyKnight's posts without sources or time frame, he is wrong blaming President Obama again. Facts are facts. Learn them.

stumbler · Mar 10, 2017

One thing that is just funny as fuck today is stories on the new jobs report with about a half dozen clips of Trump on the campaign trail screaming you can't believe a fucking thing in the government's jobs and unemployment reports because they are all lies.

xxxaddict76 · Mar 10, 2017

stumbler said: ↑

One thing that is just funny as fuck today is stories on the new jobs report with about a half dozen clips of Trump on the campaign trail screaming you can't believe a fucking thing in the government's jobs and unemployment reports because they are all lies.
Click to expand...

Per President Dipshit unemployment was 45%. Give it time. President Dipshit will tweet about how great things are with unemployment at 4.7% and going down.

freethinker · Mar 10, 2017

stumbler · Mar 10, 2017

Whoa anyone check Trump's approval rating lately? Maybe you Trump supporters should. Its been a while since I checked it last and I was a little shocked to see how much more it has continued to fall.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/trump_favorableunfavorable-5493.html

PS Maybe things are looking better at Rasmussen. I think I'll check that more friendly territory.

stumbler · Mar 10, 2017

Nope Trump is even 4 points underwater at Rasmussen. Not good. Sad.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_mar10

RandyKnight · Mar 10, 2017

RCP Average 1/12 - 3/7 -- 42.6 Favorable.....works for me----

not to shabby when you have 90% of all media against you....

it was 37% before he swore in......so he is moving on up....

Log in or Sign up

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

ace's n 8's Porn Star

Sanity_is_Relative Porn Star

RandyKnight Have Gun, Will Travel

xxxaddict76 Porn Star Banned!

xxxaddict76 Porn Star Banned!

stumbler Porn Star

RandyKnight Have Gun, Will Travel

stumbler Porn Star

RandyKnight Have Gun, Will Travel

stumbler Porn Star

xxxaddict76 Porn Star Banned!

xxxaddict76 Porn Star Banned!

stumbler Porn Star

xxxaddict76 Porn Star Banned!

freethinker Pervy Bear

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

RandyKnight Have Gun, Will Travel

President Trumps first 100 days;

Log in or Sign up

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

ace's n 8's Porn Star

Sanity_is_Relative Porn Star

RandyKnight Have Gun, Will Travel

xxxaddict76 Porn Star Banned!

xxxaddict76 Porn Star Banned!

stumbler Porn Star

RandyKnight Have Gun, Will Travel

stumbler Porn Star

RandyKnight Have Gun, Will Travel

stumbler Porn Star

xxxaddict76 Porn Star Banned!

xxxaddict76 Porn Star Banned!

stumbler Porn Star

xxxaddict76 Porn Star Banned!

freethinker Pervy Bear

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

RandyKnight Have Gun, Will Travel

Useful Searches