Health Care

[Etoille]

Originally Posted by Mario Speedwagon

So what you're saying is that wasn't just a promise that he couldn't or has to fulfill, it was a straight lie that he never had any intention of even considering.

Thanks, that makes me feel MUCH better.

LOL I went on record this past fall as saying that there was a lot of lemmingism going on in Obama's constituency.

The reason I, and others like me, aren't disillusioned with Obama is because never hopped on the bandwagon. Not that we didn't choose him, but that we did so with our eyes open. There was an AWFUL lot of slurping going on for Obama around here. I'm not upset because I didn't think he was this savior that was going to do what no other president has done in history - deliver on exactly what he promised.

Anyone who thinks that a campaign is a serious foreshadowing of exactly how things will come to pass is the definition of insane imho. Everything is shades of grey; if you think you were going to EVER nail a LAWYER turned POLITICIAN from CHICAGO down to a specific promise now that is complete lunacy.

The point is that you cant trust what ANY politician says. Thats why doing your own research is so important. You can sort through the bullshit for yourself and decide whats an egregious lie and whats a......impressive retelling of a story. And about which issues those recolorings happened and whether the issue its about makes a difference to you.

Obama was NEVER for a full repeal of DOMA for instance. I disagree with that particular stance as I said but the gay and lesbian community acting like they've been betrayed over it (like they have over Don't Ask Don't Tell thus far) is pure poppycock.

[MrSpitz]

Yea I could really give a shit arguing about who claims what for themselves.

I kinda give more of a shit about how we are going to pay for all this now and wondering why more people aren't skeptical.

But great posts.

[chaos]

It can all be a part of the discussion, but whatever.

I think people are skeptical, especially considering the whole "pay as you go" proposal on the heels of the healthcare expenditures, that caused a lot of raised eyebrows. But at this point it's all theory, it's all just discussion, not sure what more of a reaction you would like for people to have.

[chaos]

In other news, this whole North korea thing has really painted Obama into a corner. I don't think anything will happen, but if it dose that's pretty much it for his entire Presidency, the rest of it will be North kroea.

Anyway they're tracking this ship right now which supposedly has missile parts or something on it. But, they aren't allowed to board. They are, no shit, going to ASK the ship to pull into the nearest port so that it can be inspected. Geez, I don't know, isn't that a little severe?

Meanwhile Kim Jong Il has said that any boarding on a NK ship, at all, will be considered an act of war.

Why even bother passing UN resolutions if we are going to pass petty little bullshit measures which are meaningless and we can't even enforce?

[Knucklehead]

Originally Posted by Mario Speedwagon

Since when has fiscal conservatism been a facet of the republican party?

It's, you know, a facet. Like a Republican version of the unicorn and rainbows that the Democrats are always selling us if we only elect them one more time.

[Borzak]

Originally Posted by chaos

In other news, this whole North korea thing has really painted Obama into a corner. I don't think anything will happen, but if it dose that's pretty much it for his entire Presidency, the rest of it will be North kroea.

Anyway they're tracking this ship right now which supposedly has missile parts or something on it. But, they aren't allowed to board. They are, no shit, going to ASK the ship to pull into the nearest port so that it can be inspected. Geez, I don't know, isn't that a little severe?

Meanwhile Kim Jong Il has said that any boarding on a NK ship, at all, will be considered an act of war.

Why even bother passing UN resolutions if we are going to pass petty little bullshit measures which are meaningless and we can't even enforce?

Well the report I saw quoted Hillary as saying they would ask...then if they didn't agree they would publicize where it wound up going. Not that I think a nation that is buying nuclear materials/arms/missles/whatever is worried about being "outed" in the newspaper.

[Etoille]

Originally Posted by MrSpitz

Yea I could really give a shit arguing about who claims what for themselves.

I kinda give more of a shit about how we are going to pay for all this now and wondering why more people aren't skeptical.

But great posts.

*shrug* You could give a shit. Perhaps LISTENING to how other people perceived things will explain to you WHY they're not as pissed off/skeptical.

Like for instance those who had done their homework aren't as skeptical/pissed off because they were skeptical to begin with and did a decent job of managing their expectations.

You might not want to give a shit but I think saying "wow thanks I could care less" when someones saying "hey heres how I approached it and why I'm not surprised" offers you insight into the answer to the very question you're asking and in itself presents the opportunity to learn for the next go round... is a little crazy.

As chaos said it is all part of the same discussion. Especially when the topic is (as the posts I was responding to outlined) "how do you think Obama's done so far on delivering on his promises".

At some point you need to turn off Fox News, close your mouth, open your mind and think for yourself.

I need not remind you that this is the second time in the past few days where I've said those words along with "do your homework" to you. The reason I'm not outraged is BECAUSE I did my homework. See how that works? I'm giving you the answers here bud.

[Simas]

Jesus fuck you dont even have to "do your homework". Anyone who thinks a politician, of any party, will keep all their campaign promises is stupid. Anyone who thinks a president will have fully enacted his or her platform in six months is stupid. This should be common sense.

As for how we pay for it its either spending cuts, tax increases, money saving reforms or kicking the debt on down the road. It will most likely be all of the above.

[Etoille]

Bush takes swipes at Obama policies - Washington Times

The fact that he says "The government can't spend your money better than you can" and "Government doesn't create wealth" or ANYTHING about fiscal conservatism is pee in your pants fucking funny.

Not only is he the biggest spender, adjustments for EVERYTHING in the country's history, he outsourced more shit to the private sector than ANYONE else did by far with little care as to how the money was spent. CPFF for manufacturing anyone? Anyone?

This shit is too good. Whats next? Is he going to start extolling the virtues of speaking eloquently?

[MrSpitz]

Didn't you used to say you were a lawyer?

I don't give a shit if people assign fiscal conservatism to a political party or parts of your asshole.

What I care about is generating funding for a 1 trillion dollar program, that is supposedly going to save money, when we just have had trillions of unfunded obligations brought on our balance sheet on top of the trillions that dumbass bush gave us. When you have multiple trillions of budget deficits, you reach a point where spending cuts and tax increases become so extreme they suffocate economic growth, further undermining any attempts to pay it back. If you kick a debt this size alone, the interest payments become large enough that you hamper future spending, you kill the value of your currency thus depressing your real wages and purchasing power, and you have to print more money leading to ridiculous levels of inflation and more depression of real wages. That is the problem, there is a point at which debt becomes so large that you can't reasonably tackle it without shooting yourself in the foot, and in those cases it is (oh my god he's going to say it) more pragamatic and beneficial economically to OPT NOT TO TAKE ON MORE DEBT.


Really, I mean really. I don't even know what to say, I really hope you just took a rip of salvia or something before you wrote that post.

[Haus]

Originally Posted by Etoille

If he had promised you a money tree would you be upset that it hasn't been delivered?

The point is he didn't because he knew it was something he couldn't deliver. If with all the preparation and writing that goes into presidential campaigns they can't vet out "shit we can't or won't do" that's their fault. If they make the statement, then YES I do expect them to live up to it, or face the wrath of being called liars.

Originally Posted by Etoille

He HAS cracked down on lobbyists more than any president in modern history to date

Wrong : Read PolitiFact | No. 240: Tougher rules against revolving door for lobbyists and former officials for why. And as mentioned "other presidents" is irrelevant when you make a specific statement as to what you will do, and then don't do it. That's called a "lie"

Originally Posted by Etoille

and if you seriously thought he was going to post his laws on a message board for commentary then I have a bridge in Alaska to sell you. The system doesn't work like that and anyone who believed that were the same idiots that thought George Bush was actually going to try to pass the marriage protection amendment.

Wrong : He openly stated something and then didn't do it. That is either a LIE or a FAILURE. PolitiFact | No. 234: Allow five days of public comment before signing bills

If you want to defend him saying "well all politicians lie", then how did he supposedly win the presidency because he got people to "believe" and "hope" for "change". If you're going to play those cards in the election, live up to them once in office. Else you are , in fact, just as much of a liar and crook as anybody you vilified to replace.

Oh, Mr Spitzer,
Yes, the population fell completely for the exact same scare tactics to get the stimulus through that it did to get the Patriot act passed, and I believe in time both will be equal levels of fail. Get ready, because he's lining up to use the same tactics to push through his version of medical reform...

[chaos]

I don't necessarily think that is always a bad thing. Sometimes people need to be scared into doing the right thing. Is his health care policy the "right thing"? Hell, I don't know and neither does anyone else here most likely. It's all perspective. Drop an atomic bomb on Japan and you're a monster, don't drop the bomb and the war continues and a million more Americans die, and you're a pussy incapable of leading. With leadership comes tough choices. I'm willing to give most leaders the benefit of the doubt on a lot of issues, unless we're talking about something like indiscriminate war or restricting rights or violating the constitution.

I don't think Obama really needs to be defended in any event. He's done some things, he has not done some others, there you go. If you want to get all personal about it and scream into the night "HE'S A LIAR! FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!" well, that won't get you anywhere. Leaders prioritize, for whatever reason things like gay rights have been put way back on the back burner. With the lobbyist thing, he quickly found that if he couldn't use lobbyists in any form for his posts, then he'd have no qualified candidates because of how Washington works. Bitter pill but we all have to swallow it.

[Knucklehead]

Originally Posted by MrSpitz

What I care about is generating funding for a 1 trillion dollar program, that is supposedly going to save money, when we just have had trillions of unfunded obligations brought on our balance sheet on top of the trillions that dumbass bush gave us.

Isn't it $1 trillion over 10 years? Math is not my strong suit but isn't that something like $100 billion a year? I realize that's still quite a bit, but let's not deceive ourselves here: nobody on the right bitches about the hundreds of billions we are throwing away in the sands of the Middle East to protect American's lives. But the minute we want to protect American's health at home, well, then $100 billion a year is suddenly too much.

I hope you can understand the hypocritical disconnect inherent here.

[Etoille]

Originally Posted by Haus

The point is he didn't because he knew it was something he couldn't deliver. If with all the preparation and writing that goes into presidential campaigns they can't vet out "shit we can't or won't do" that's their fault. If they make the statement, then YES I do expect them to live up to it, or face the wrath of being called liars.



Wrong : Read PolitiFact | No. 240: Tougher rules against revolving door for lobbyists and former officials for why. And as mentioned "other presidents" is irrelevant when you make a specific statement as to what you will do, and then don't do it. That's called a "lie"



Wrong : He openly stated something and then didn't do it. That is either a LIE or a FAILURE. PolitiFact | No. 234: Allow five days of public comment before signing bills

If you want to defend him saying "well all politicians lie", then how did he supposedly win the presidency because he got people to "believe" and "hope" for "change". If you're going to play those cards in the election, live up to them once in office. Else you are , in fact, just as much of a liar and crook as anybody you vilified to replace.

Oh, Mr Spitzer,
Yes, the population fell completely for the exact same scare tactics to get the stimulus through that it did to get the Patriot act passed, and I believe in time both will be equal levels of fail. Get ready, because he's lining up to use the same tactics to push through his version of medical reform...

What color is the sky in your world?

[Heylel Teomim]

Originally Posted by Knucklehead

But the minute we want to protect American's health at home, well, then $100 billion a year is suddenly too much.

It's not just too expensive, it's socialism.