PDA

View Full Version : Oh the Hypocracy



Steve Amrein
07-29-2009, 04:35 PM
BHO's 2004 comments

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOnYnIDX0Eg&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fnewsbusters%2Eorg%2Fblogs%2Fp%2D j%2Dgladnick%2F2009%2F07%2F27%2Fobama%2D2004%2Dbus h%2Drushed%2Dlegislationthrough%2Dcongress%2Dwitho ut%2Dallowing%2Dti&feature=player_embedded

Tell me again why this is different ??????:rolleyes:

badbullgator
07-29-2009, 07:06 PM
BHO's 2004 comments

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOnYnIDX0Eg&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fnewsbusters%2Eorg%2Fblogs%2Fp%2D j%2Dgladnick%2F2009%2F07%2F27%2Fobama%2D2004%2Dbus h%2Drushed%2Dlegislationthrough%2Dcongress%2Dwitho ut%2Dallowing%2Dti&feature=player_embedded

Tell me again why this is different ??????:rolleyes:

ummmm...he is half black and may or may not have been born here:confused:
Other than that........I don;t klnow

Steve Amrein
07-30-2009, 10:36 AM
Bueller........ Bueller






Anyone anyone ??????? Why is not OK to rush legislation before but now we HAVE TO

YardleyLabs
07-30-2009, 10:50 AM
The fact is that both sides attempt to control the legislative calendar to benefit their own legislative objectives. For those in the weaker position, delay is the best option to buy time to gain strength. For those in the stronger position, speed is important to take advantage of that strength before it begins to erode. Sometimes, speed is used in periods of near hysteria to ram action through with little or no review by anyone. That was, for example, the case with the Patriot Act in 2001. In other cases, speed is simply an illusion. That is normally the case with budget bills which are negotiated detailed line by line over a period of months before they are presented for a vote. These bills are normally hundreds (even thousands) of pages long with the final version negotiated in the last hours prior to passage. However, the lack of reading time is an illusion. Those bills have been read over and over wit only negotiated changes in the last hours. If voting were delayed for three more days, there would simply be three more days of change resulting in a bill that was still only produced in its final form hours before the vote. The issues on health reform have nothing to do with whether or not people have read the bill. In fact, the most recent version of the house bill agreed to yesterday by the "Blue Dogs" has not even been drafted yet. And when a final bill reaches a vote -- whenever that may be -- it will contain changes agreed to in the 24 hours prior to the vote and those in the weaker position will be calling for delay, calling the rush to judgment irresponsible.

txbadger
07-30-2009, 10:59 AM
The fact is that both sides attempt to control the legislative calendar to benefit their own legislative objectives. For those in the weaker position, delay is the best option to buy time to gain strength. For those in the stronger position, speed is important to take advantage of that strength before it begins to erode. Sometimes, speed is used in periods of near hysteria to ram action through with little or no review by anyone. That was, for example, the case with the Pork Bill of 2009. In other cases, speed is simply an illusion. That is normally the case with budget bills which are negotiated detailed line by line over a period of months before they are presented for a vote. These bills are normally hundreds (even thousands) of pages long with the final version negotiated in the last hours prior to passage. However, the lack of reading time is an illusion. Those bills have been read over and over wit only negotiated changes in the last hours. If voting were delayed for three more days, there would simply be three more days of change resulting in a bill that was still only produced in its final form hours before the vote. The issues on health reform have nothing to do with whether or not people have read the bill. In fact, the most recent version of the house bill agreed to yesterday by the "Blue Dogs" has not even been drafted yet. And when a final bill reaches a vote -- whenever that may be -- it will contain changes agreed to in the 24 hours prior to the vote and those in the weaker position will be calling for delay, calling the rush to judgment irresponsible.
*********

Fixed it for you
:)

Bob Gutermuth
07-30-2009, 11:14 AM
They don't need to change the health care bill, they need to torpedo the whole thing.

Steve Amrein
07-30-2009, 11:18 AM
The fact is that both sides attempt to control the legislative calendar to benefit their own legislative objectives. For those in the weaker position, delay is the best option to buy time to gain strength. For those in the stronger position, speed is important to take advantage of that strength before it begins to erode. Sometimes, speed is used in periods of near hysteria to ram action through with little or no review by anyone. That was, for example, the case with the Patriot Act in 2001. In other cases, speed is simply an illusion. That is normally the case with budget bills which are negotiated detailed line by line over a period of months before they are presented for a vote. These bills are normally hundreds (even thousands) of pages long with the final version negotiated in the last hours prior to passage. However, the lack of reading time is an illusion. Those bills have been read over and over wit only negotiated changes in the last hours. If voting were delayed for three more days, there would simply be three more days of change resulting in a bill that was still only produced in its final form hours before the vote. The issues on health reform have nothing to do with whether or not people have read the bill. In fact, the most recent version of the house bill agreed to yesterday by the "Blue Dogs" has not even been drafted yet. And when a final bill reaches a vote -- whenever that may be -- it will contain changes agreed to in the 24 hours prior to the vote and those in the weaker position will be calling for delay, calling the rush to judgment irresponsible.



So which Obama is right ? I guess I am confussed.

The reason why bills are rushed thru is so that the public will not have time to comment. Pointing out what kind of crap is in one of these things after the fact is pointless. They are hardley ever rolled back and the machine just gets bigger.

YardleyLabs
07-30-2009, 11:35 AM
So which Obama is right ? I guess I am confussed.

The reason why bills are rushed thru is so that the public will not have time to comment. Pointing out what kind of crap is in one of these things after the fact is pointless. They are hardley ever rolled back and the machine just gets bigger.
Not have time to comment?!?!?!?!?!

Few bills in the last decade have had as much discussion as the health care reform bills. Reportedly, over $50 million has been spent on TV ads in just the last few weeks. Hearings have been held in three different House committees and in the senate on almost a weekly basis for the last few months. Obama has held daily "town meetings" around the country with daily Republican responses, both broadcast almost continuously on TV and reported in the daily press.

The issue is not lack of discussion....

On the question of quality of discussion, there are different issues.

For example, what is the cost of the proposed program? Anyone watching the news knows that the proposed program will cost more than $1 trillion over ten years according to CBO estimates. Right?

Not really. If you actually read the CBO report, the story is a little different. The bill includes costs, but it also contains a mix of cost containment and revenue components as well. In fact, the CBO estimate is that in the three years from 2010 through 2012, implementation of the program would actually reduce the Federal deficit by $49 billion. Over the ten year period, it is estimated the program would increase the cumulative deficit by about $230 billion assuming that none of the attempts to improve preventive care or improve the efficiency of medical services generate any savings at all. Why aren't any of those numbers being reported?

achiro
07-30-2009, 11:58 AM
I see what you did there Jeff. Good show changing the point of the thread like that... GOOD show!

Steve Amrein
07-30-2009, 12:19 PM
Not have time to comment?!?!?!?!?!

Few bills in the last decade have had as much discussion as the health care reform bills. Reportedly, over $50 million has been spent on TV ads in just the last few weeks. Hearings have been held in three different House committees and in the senate on almost a weekly basis for the last few months. Obama has held daily "town meetings" around the country with daily Republican responses, both broadcast almost continuously on TV and reported in the daily press.

The issue is not lack of discussion....

On the question of quality of discussion, there are different issues.

For example, what is the cost of the proposed program? Anyone watching the news knows that the proposed program will cost more than $1 trillion over ten years according to CBO estimates. Right?

Not really. If you actually read the CBO report, the story is a little different. The bill includes costs, but it also contains a mix of cost containment and revenue components as well. In fact, the CBO estimate is that in the three years from 2010 through 2012, implementation of the program would actually reduce the Federal deficit by $49 billion. Over the ten year period, it is estimated the program would increase the cumulative deficit by about $230 billion assuming that none of the attempts to improve preventive care or improve the efficiency of medical services generate any savings at all. Why aren't any of those numbers being reported?



When I say not have time to comment I am speaking that every day someone is pointing something bad out. Depending on which version of news media you are getting the info from it goes from a utopian system that eveyone has coverage and it will save money to the other side that is killing old people or leaving them without care and going down the road to socialism. I would love to see historical data that the government ran something that was of equal value and saved money. Heck I would be happy to see it withen its original budget.


My original post showed that BHO is a hypocryte because he was speaking about a bill he opposed and should be slowed. When its his baby he wants it done yesterday. I will be happy to find his words on in print or audio but I am sure you have heard them. The merrits of this bill can be discussed elswhere.

JDogger
07-31-2009, 01:26 AM
Hypocracy = rule by hypocrites.

I think ya nailed it there Steve.

JD

Steve Amrein
07-31-2009, 09:17 AM
Thats OK, those on the left when confronted that their guy is caught lying they just change the subject. Just wanted to be clear but it proves a point.

Henry V
07-31-2009, 02:18 PM
Thats OK, those on the left when confronted that their guy is caught lying they just change the subject. Just wanted to be clear but it proves a point.
First, could you please point out the lie here? What specifically did Senator Obama say that was a lie.

Then let's discuss hypocrisy and strategy on getting bills through. Is there some hypocrisy here, sure. Kind of like when you see all these republican leaders proclaiming the virtues of CBO estimates all the while they are cherry picking the analysis (i.e. spin as pointed out by Jeff) while at the same time just a few years ago these exact same people when confronted with how much the war or other republican initiatives cost discounted anything the CBO reported.

The health care bill is getting tons of discussion and review, isn't it? The party of No is fulfilling its role to slow and water down the process. The administration is pressing the issue to get it done. The sausage is being made.