Don't like Obama, fine, but why the dishonesty?

[Oldandtired]

Claiming the healthcare bill is too expensive (it's budget-positive by CBO analysis) - Is dishonest.

How many times do I have to correct you on this before you stop saying it? Every thread that you say this in I correct you and you run and hide from that thread.

The truth is it is in no way budget positive or budget neutral, but even when that is pointed out to some people with proof straight out of the very bill in question (even proof from the very paragraph in the bill that lies that it is budget positive) they refuse to stop being blinded by the lies they ingest.

Rick

Well, the CBO scored it as deficit positive, but i'm assuming you're making the claim that the reason for that is the increased taxes included in the bill.

Not to mention that the taxes increase immediately and the most costly benefits go into affect in 4 years....
So that beingt said, it will most certasinly be deficit negative by the second decade...unless taxes are increased above and beyond the first increase.
Furthermore, and the CBO concurs with this....their fiugures are based on the scenarios painted out by the WH....and that is including the theory that a half a trillion in fraud will be found in Medicare.....which, of course, if it were so easy, why didnt they cut that out years ago?

I mean...a half a trillion?

 

[Dr.House]

There are plenty things that people could find Obama not doing a good job in.So why do so many on this forum and other places have to lie, exaggerate, and make shit up about Obama? Why call him socialist, marxist, the "messiah", "owebama", claim he isn't a US citizen, claims he want to destroy america? or claim things done by other people is really Obama's doing, and anything that goes on in the gov't or military is under Obama's direction?
YOu totally discredit any point you may have when you resort to such Glenn Beck/Rush type absurd attacks and arguments. You just look like some stupid, childish, partisan hack nutjob when you do so.

How is it that when George Bush was president EVERYTHING was ultimately his responsibility but we shouldn't hold Obama to the same standard? Why not?

I can't speak for everyone but when I made my arguments concerning "If it happens on his watch it's his fault" I based it on the fact that this argument was used for years by righties to attack clinton and blame him for everything. He even got blamed for the events that took place on ruby ridge and he wasn't even president yet.
Therefore, when W became president and the righties flip flopped and refused to hold W to the same standard that they held clinton to, as they started to blame clinton for things that occured on W's watch, I started calling them out for their dishonesty and hypocrisy using their own past arguments.

Then fast forward to now and you have righties refusing to hold W accountable for what happened on his watch with their lame claims that he is no longer president even as they continue to blame clinton for things that occured AFTER he was out of office. There were some righites who started trying to blame obama for things that occured on w's watch even before obama was actually in office.

I just find it hilarious how under a democrat (clinton) righties were all about whose watch it was then under a republican everything was a dems fault (no personal responsibility from those who take pride in preaching it to others) and now the hypocrtical righties have come full circle now that a democrat is president again and they are now back to being all about whose watch it is.

Oh and in case you missed it everytime a democrat tries to hold W accountable for what happened on his watch that led us to where we are now they are attacked by the righties who scream that W is no longer president.
Why is it ok for cons to continue to look back and blame clinton for things that happened on Ws watch and not ok for dems to blame W for things that occured on his watch that led us to where we are now? Seems like the typical righty hypocrisy in it's purest form to me.

So you believe the right was correct to hold Clinton acountable and the left is correct to hold Boooosh accountable?

Or was the right wrong to hold Clinton acountable and the left is wrong to hold Booooosh acountable?

Or was the right wrong to hold Clinton acountable and the left is correct to hold Booooosh acountable?

 

[hboats]

Claiming the healthcare bill is too expensive (it's budget-positive by CBO analysis) - Is dishonest.

How many times do I have to correct you on this before you stop saying it? Every thread that you say this in I correct you and you run and hide from that thread.

The truth is it is in no way budget positive or budget neutral, but even when that is pointed out to some people with proof straight out of the very bill in question (even proof from the very paragraph in the bill that lies that it is budget positive) they refuse to stop being blinded by the lies they ingest.

Rick

Well, the CBO scored it as deficit positive, but i'm assuming you're making the claim that the reason for that is the increased taxes included in the bill.

The CBO scored it as deficit positive, but in the same paragraph they raise very serious questions as to how they could have done that. Read my response below and go to the link that is supplied to check it out for yourself. It's all a smoke and mirrors act to get it to be "deficit positive" when it in reality isn't.

Please, please, please show me how the current proposal will reduce the deficit. You can't because it just isn't true. Show me where in the current proposal from the Democrats it shows that they can possibly pass this bill and yet reduce the deficit. I'd really like to see some proof of that. The Republican's bills have been good bills. Did you look at any of them? Did Congress, or the House? No, they just dismissed them because they deal with Tort reform and the Democrats can't have Tort reform because it would take away the silly lawsuits that their lawyer friends like to bring to courts.

Rick

...Whoops, wrong link! Stand by for that....

...No my bad, it actually wan't the wrong link, I misread the header! So once again...

"According to CBO and JCT’s assessment, enacting the Chairman’s mark, as amended, would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $81 billion over the 2010–2019 period."

Director’s Blog Blog Archive Preliminary Analysis of the Senate Finance Committee Chairman?s Mark As Amended
(Paragraph 3)

You should read this whole thing, based on your distaste for the bill I don't think you really know what it does.
Contrary to what you said, many republican proposals have been included in the legislation, and Barry and the dems have said repeatedly they'd look at tort reform. But they're not gonna look at shit until they get some concessions themselves. What's the point of discussing when the Republicans have indicated they will all vote no, no matter what?

Tort reform would reduce premiums by a fraction of a percent. Do I have to link you up to the CBO estimates on that as well?

Please read the rest of the paragraph from which you took the above quote. First of all, taxes will go up, not just for the insurer, but for everyone. And I love this little quote "$110 billion in net savings from other sources." So, we're going to realize net savings of $110 billion from "other sources." I wonder what these "other sources" might be. The fact of the matter is, they're talking about financing the first SIX years of this bill with TEN years of tax increases. Does that sound fiscally responsible to you? Does that really sound like in ten years we're going to have a reduced deficit? It's just another fancy shell game.

Sure, pick and choose which quotes you want to cherry pick from the CBO, but in truth this bill would not reduce the deficit.

Rick

The above is from http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-scrap-the-bill-start-over-if-you-will-8.html

Rick

 

[drsmith1072]

Id say partially responsible for 9/11, but Reagan and Bush I played a part as well to be fair..........

The housing bubble?

In large measure the Clinton administration , due to regulations established in the early 1990's which pressured banks to extend billions of dollars to non-credit worthy borrowers. Its not even debatable........and of course Republicans werent going to say sh!t and get pigeonholed for being racist. It was a no-lose for the Dums.

LOL so despite the fact that republicans controlled the white house and congress years and did NOTHING to prevent what righties say that tehy predicted would happen it's all clinton's and the dems fault. LOL

Like I said, they like to TALK about and preach personal responsibility to others but never apply that same standard to themselves ot their own party.

Republicans CHOSE to do nothing but it's the democrats fault. LOL The democrats may be screwing up the passage of the health bills but at least they tried which is more than can be said for the republicans and the housing bust.

you may want to go back and look who signed the bills into law deregulating lending practices.....you may want to go back and look who proposed a bill to re regulate lending and who blocked it.....

I have gone back and looked at that bills were proposed and what was signed, have you?? I have even seen the youtube videos posted and reposted by lemmings of the right as they try to blame democrats while they refuse to hold their own accountable for their inaction.

As for blocked, and I have asked this several times and the righties ALL run away when I ask it, but how did the minority democrats block a bill that was NEVER put on the floor for a vote or a debate??

I know exactly what you are talking about and I have heard and countered the spin in the past. There was a bill that mccain co-sponsored that was NOT blocked in committee and made it out of committee. However, the MAJORITY REPUBLICANS NEVER SENT THE BILL TO THE FLOOR.

FACT is that no one blocked anything and you bought into the same LIES that all of the rest of the righty lemmings bought into.

Republicans had the majority and therefore they controlled the agenda and NEVER out anything on the floor for a debate or a vote. Republicans blocked themselves when they CHOSE to do NOTHING.

So once again it is the republicans own fault that they CHOSE to do nothing and the righty lemmings rush to blame the democrats as those same righty lemmings refuse to hold their own to the same standard of personal responsibility that they preach to others.

 

[Some Guy]

As for blocked, and I have asked this several times and the righties ALL run away when I ask it, but how did the minority democrats block a bill that was NEVER put on the floor for a vote or a debate??

The exact same way the republicans are blocking Obamacare, probably.

 

[Oldandtired]

LOL so despite the fact that republicans controlled the white house and congress years and did NOTHING to prevent what righties say that tehy predicted would happen it's all clinton's and the dems fault. LOL

Like I said, they like to TALK about and preach personal responsibility to others but never apply that same standard to themselves ot their own party.

Republicans CHOSE to do nothing but it's the democrats fault. LOL The democrats may be screwing up the passage of the health bills but at least they tried which is more than can be said for the republicans and the housing bust.

you may want to go back and look who signed the bills into law deregulating lending practices.....you may want to go back and look who proposed a bill to re regulate lending and who blocked it.....

I have gone back and looked at that bills were proposed and what was signed, have you?? I have even seen the youtube videos posted and reposted by lemmings of the right as they try to blame democrats while they refuse to hold their own accountable for their inaction.

As for blocked, and I have asked this several times and the righties ALL run away when I ask it, but how did the minority democrats block a bill that was NEVER put on the floor for a vote or a debate??

I know exactly what you are talking about and I have heard and countered the spin in the past. There was a bill that mccain co-sponsored that was NOT blocked in committee and made it out of committee. However, the MAJORITY REPUBLICANS NEVER SENT THE BILL TO THE FLOOR.

FACT is that no one blocked anything and you bought into the same LIES that all of the rest of the righty lemmings bought into.

Republicans had the majority and therefore they controlled the agenda and NEVER out anything on the floor for a debate or a vote. Republicans blocked themselves when they CHOSE to do NOTHING.

So once again it is the republicans own fault that they CHOSE to do nothing and the righty lemmings rush to blame the democrats as those same righty lemmings refuse to hold their own to the same standard of personal responsibility that they preach to others.

If you think a majority controls congress then you know very little about how our congress works.

There is a big difference between a majority and a fillubuster proof majority...A BIG DIFFERENCE.

That being said.....A majority by no means give control of the house or the senate...certainly no control over decisions.

Are you truly that naive about politics? I mean...you come onhere ands debate politics...but you are one that believes a simple majority means control.

I mean...really? You really think that?

Jeez.....pathetic....really pathetic.

 

[Some Guy]

How many times do I have to correct you on this before you stop saying it? Every thread that you say this in I correct you and you run and hide from that thread.

The truth is it is in no way budget positive or budget neutral, but even when that is pointed out to some people with proof straight out of the very bill in question (even proof from the very paragraph in the bill that lies that it is budget positive) they refuse to stop being blinded by the lies they ingest.

Rick

Well, the CBO scored it as deficit positive, but i'm assuming you're making the claim that the reason for that is the increased taxes included in the bill.

Not to mention that the taxes increase immediately and the most costly benefits go into affect in 4 years....
So that beingt said, it will most certasinly be deficit negative by the second decade...unless taxes are increased above and beyond the first increase.
Furthermore, and the CBO concurs with this....their fiugures are based on the scenarios painted out by the WH....and that is including the theory that a half a trillion in fraud will be found in Medicare.....which, of course, if it were so easy, why didnt they cut that out years ago?

I mean...a half a trillion?

Oh, i agree. There's no way it'll end up being deficit positive or even neutral, never mind the drastic changes it'll trigger in the health insurance industry.

 

[Oldandtired]

As for blocked, and I have asked this several times and the righties ALL run away when I ask it, but how did the minority democrats block a bill that was NEVER put on the floor for a vote or a debate??

The exact same way the republicans are blocking Obamacare, probably.

Ironically, until January, the only ones blocking healthcare reform were the democrats.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

So you believe the right was correct to hold Clinton acountable and the left is correct to hold Boooosh accountable?

Or was the right wrong to hold Clinton acountable and the left is wrong to hold Booooosh acountable?

Or was the right wrong to hold Clinton acountable and the left is correct to hold Booooosh acountable?

Specifically, which things are we looking at?

9/11, for example, was a shared cluster ______. Without getting into the details of could Clinton have grabbed OBL or not, would that have stopped 9/11 or not, etc, Clinton most certainly dropped the ball when it came to recognizing the threat Al Queda posed. In the same way, the Bush administration was focused almost entirely on the threat of China and Russia, employing a Cold War mentality, all the way up to 9/11.

Take the economy: Some of the issues we're seeing now originated out of a Republican House and Senate under a Democratic President, continued under a Republican President with a Republican House and Senate and bore fruit under a Republican President with a Democratic House and Senate. I think a fair share of blame belongs to just about everyone for the 2008 crash.

We create false walls between events when partisans come in and say "Its all the other guy's fault!!!!" Most of the time, there's more than enough blame to push around. I'd rather get to the job of finding a solution.

 

[Oldandtired]

Well, the CBO scored it as deficit positive, but i'm assuming you're making the claim that the reason for that is the increased taxes included in the bill.

Not to mention that the taxes increase immediately and the most costly benefits go into affect in 4 years....
So that beingt said, it will most certasinly be deficit negative by the second decade...unless taxes are increased above and beyond the first increase.
Furthermore, and the CBO concurs with this....their fiugures are based on the scenarios painted out by the WH....and that is including the theory that a half a trillion in fraud will be found in Medicare.....which, of course, if it were so easy, why didnt they cut that out years ago?

I mean...a half a trillion?

Oh, i agree. There's no way it'll end up being deficit positive or even neutral, never mind the drastic changes it'll trigger in the health insurance industry.

Tens of thousands will lose their jobs who work for insurance companies.

Tens of thousands will lose their jobs due to green initiatives.

I fear where we wil be 3 years from now.

 

[antagon]

This post is precisely the sort of dishonesty he's talking about.

Obama didn't "Put" the country in a $14t deficit. It was over $11t when he walked in, and the economy was in shambles... Tax revenues were waaaaay down due to stagnating economic activity. ANYONE elected would be facing a massive deficit right now. Also the federal debt now, today, is $12.5t, not 14...

So if Obama had come in and cut all the waste in government and unconstitutional spending, which would probably easily cut the government in half and we'd be running a surplus.

So no, don't pretend no one who entered office would be looking at that Trillions in spending deficits. A freakin idiot understands that spending MORE when you are out of money is a bad thing.

so you're not an idiot advocating cutting the government in half and running a surplus in a bad recession?

 

[Dr.House]

So you believe the right was correct to hold Clinton acountable and the left is correct to hold Boooosh accountable?

Or was the right wrong to hold Clinton acountable and the left is wrong to hold Booooosh acountable?

Or was the right wrong to hold Clinton acountable and the left is correct to hold Booooosh acountable?

Specifically, which things are we looking at?

In general....

DrSmith was generalizing so I figured I could too....

 

[Oldandtired]

So you believe the right was correct to hold Clinton acountable and the left is correct to hold Boooosh accountable?

Or was the right wrong to hold Clinton acountable and the left is wrong to hold Booooosh acountable?

Or was the right wrong to hold Clinton acountable and the left is correct to hold Booooosh acountable?

Specifically, which things are we looking at?

9/11, for example, was a shared cluster ______. Without getting into the details of could Clinton have grabbed OBL or not, would that have stopped 9/11 or not, etc, Clinton most certainly dropped the ball when it came to recognizing the threat Al Queda posed. In the same way, the Bush administration was focused almost entirely on the threat of China and Russia, employing a Cold War mentality, all the way up to 9/11.

Take the economy: Some of the issues we're seeing now originated out of a Republican House and Senate under a Democratic President, continued under a Republican President with a Republican House and Senate and bore fruit under a Republican President with a Democratic House and Senate. I think a fair share of blame belongs to just about everyone for the 2008 crash.

We create false walls between events when partisans come in and say "Its all the other guy's fault!!!!" Most of the time, there's more than enough blame to push around. I'd rather get to the job of finding a solution.

Do you mind my asking...did you voter for Obama?

I ask as his entire platform was based on blaming the other guys...so if that is your true sentiment, then why did you vote for him...(assuming you did)?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Do you mind my asking...did you voter for Obama?

Yes.

I ask as his entire platform was based on blaming the other guys...so if that is your true sentiment, then why did you vote for him...(assuming you did)?

Palin. And McCain's plan for health insurance reform.

I was split on which I would vote for right up to the moment that Palin started talking. At the end of the day, there wasn't much difference between McCain's platform and Obama's. McCain's two big issues were Iraq (and Bush stabbed him in the back on that one) and his plan for Health Care Reform.

I'd add, I have a lot of family members and friends that never once voted for a Democrat in their life that voted for Obama. To a one, when asked why, they always gave Palin as an answer. I'm not sure I want an Obama 2nd term, but if the GOP runs Palin, I'll vote for him again.

 

[Some Guy]

Tens of thousands will lose their jobs who work for insurance companies.

Tens of thousands will lose their jobs due to green initiatives.

I fear where we wil be 3 years from now.

Without getting long-winded, the mandate + no denial for pre-existing conditions basically demolishes the health insurance industry completely, eventually. Insurance is just risk management; you pay into it just in case you may need it someday. Well, the whole "no denial for people with pre-existing conditions" thing basically no longer makes it insurance/risk management, it makes it nothing... it makes it simply a payer of health insurance bills. Nobody would ever have any reason to have health insurance when you can get hit by a car, shatter every bone in your body, then have a loved one sign you up for "health insurance" so they can pay your bills.

The "no denial of pre-existing conditions" will make insurance premium costs double at the very least. At that point, people will have to make a decision; pay through the entire face, not just the nose, for health insurance, or pay a minuscule fine to the government. Tough choice, isn't it?

Once health insurance no longer has clients, the government turns your "fine" into a tax, drastically increases it, and uses the funds (plus many more billions borrowed from other countries) to institute nationalized health care.

Edit: Oh, and for those of you on the sensitive side, this of course is all my educated opinion/guess.

 

[Some Guy]

Edit: somehow double posted.

 

[Oldandtired]

Do you mind my asking...did you voter for Obama?

Yes.

I ask as his entire platform was based on blaming the other guys...so if that is your true sentiment, then why did you vote for him...(assuming you did)?

Palin. And McCain's plan for health insurance reform.

I was split on which I would vote for right up to the moment that Palin started talking. At the end of the day, there wasn't much difference between McCain's platform and Obama's. McCain's two big issues were Iraq (and Bush stabbed him in the back on that one) and his plan for Health Care Reform.

I'd add, I have a lot of family members and friends that never once voted for a Democrat in their life that voted for Obama. To a one, when asked why, they always gave Palin as an answer. I'm not sure I want an Obama 2nd term, but if the GOP runs Palin, I'll vote for him again.

LMAO...if Palin is the GOP candidate, I may vote for Obama as well!
I am a conservative....but I am not an idiot. I know very little truth about Palin but the obvious disdain for her by half of Americans, warranted or not, in itself would make her an ineffective President.

Likewise, the disdain for Obama by many, warranted or not, is, in my eyes, contributing to his lack of effectiveness.

Only my opinion...so dont jump down my throat...but if you do jump down my throat, say hey to my wife. She seems to spend a lot of time down there.

 

[Oldandtired]

Tens of thousands will lose their jobs who work for insurance companies.

Tens of thousands will lose their jobs due to green initiatives.

I fear where we wil be 3 years from now.

Without getting long-winded, the mandate + no denial for pre-existing conditions basically demolishes the health insurance industry completely. Insurance is just risk management; you pay into it just in case you may need it someday. Well, the whole "no denial for people with pre-existing conditions" thing basically no longer makes it insurance/risk management, it makes it nothing... it makes it simply a payer of health insurance bills. Nobody would ever have any reason to have health care when you can get hit by a car, shatter every bone in your body, then have a loved one sign you up for health insurance so they can pay your bills.

The "no denial of pre-existing conditions" will make insurance premium costs double, at the very least. At that point, people will have to make a decision; pay through the entire face, not just the nose, for health insurance, or pay a minuscule fine to the government. Tough choice, isn't it?

Once health insurance no longer has clients, the government turns your "fine" into a tax, drastically increases it, and uses the funds (plus many more billions borrowed from other countries) to institute nationalized health care.

Edit: Oh, and for those of you on the sensitive side, this of course is all my educated opinion/guess.

What many dont seem to realize is the reason pre-existing condition clauses exist.
People used to play the system. Not buy insurance until they were diagnosed with something...
It is the greed of the consumer that resulted in the pre-exisitng clauses...not the greed of the insurer.
Same with flood, hurricane and dental insurances.

 

[Titanic Sailor]

This is why many Americans view staunch Obammunists as hypocrites:

You can't sit there and hold Bush accountable for all of his failures, and then in the next breath not hold Barak accountable for maintaining or exceeding the same previous Bush failures.

It aint logical my friends.

 

[Some Guy]

What many dont seem to realize is the reason pre-existing condition clauses exist.
People used to play the system. Not buy insurance until they were diagnosed with something...
It is the greed of the consumer that resulted in the pre-exisitng clauses...not the greed of the insurer.
Same with flood, hurricane and dental insurances.

Ability to buy health insurance with pre-existing conditions = ability to buy car insurance with the full intention and disclosure of totaling your car the next day. Yes, it sounds cruel, but it all boils down to paying into a system before you get something out of it. Breaking it down further, it means paying for something.