PDA

View Full Version : Obama on Fox



luvmylabs23139
03-17-2010, 05:05 PM
As usual he is refusing to answer the questions!
He just rambles on and ignores direct questions.
Obama is a waste.

WindyCreek
03-17-2010, 05:12 PM
I concur, he has yet to answer asked questions

luvmylabs23139
03-17-2010, 05:14 PM
I love it that Bret is really going after him.

BonMallari
03-17-2010, 05:31 PM
Did you really expect him to answer any tough questions directly, he is lost without a teleprompter and he has been giving so many campaign speeches on healthcare in the last year, he doesnt know any other form of communication

dnf777
03-17-2010, 07:08 PM
Did you really expect him to answer any tough questions directly, he is lost without a teleprompter and he has been giving so many campaign speeches on healthcare in the last year, he doesnt know any other form of communication

Can you really say that with a straight face? This guy went in front of a hostile republican delegation to answer questions with NO teleprompter. Doesn't get any tougher than that. I hate to bring up W again, but after 8 years of someone who couldn't speak WITH a teleprompter, its nice to have someone who uses one as a "prompter", not a script. Having said that, I'm liking less and less of what comes out of his mouth lately, but that's a whole different thread.

luvmylabs23139
03-17-2010, 07:23 PM
The man was asked some simple direct questions. Obumma refused to give direct answers to those questions. He just went off on a tangent about his talking points.
Some of those questions just required a simple yes or no answer.

BonMallari
03-17-2010, 07:26 PM
BAIER: Deem and passed, Senate reconciliation and we don't know exactly what's in the fix bill. Do you still think

OBAMA: No, we will by the time the vote has taken place, not only I will know what's in it, you'll know what's in it because it's going to be posted and everybody's going to be able to able to evaluate it on the merits.


wait a minute...he doesnt even know what is in his own bill, but yet he wants us to trust him and evaluate it after the bill has been passed....isnt that just a little backwards...:confused:

road kill
03-17-2010, 07:27 PM
Can you really say that with a straight face? This guy went in front of a hostile republican delegation to answer questions with NO teleprompter. Doesn't get any tougher than that. I hate to bring up W again, but after 8 years of someone who couldn't speak WITH a teleprompter, its nice to have someone who uses one as a "prompter", not a script. Having said that, I'm liking less and less of what comes out of his mouth lately, but that's a whole different thread.

Baier was anything but "HOSTILE!"

He asked questions that a lot of us have.
We do deserve the respect of an answer.


HOSTILE.....c'mon.





rk

luvmylabs23139
03-17-2010, 07:32 PM
Gatoraid in or out?
Cornhusker kickback in or out?
Louisiana purchase in or out?
CT deal in or out?
Montana deal in or out?

All these questions were asked and only require a one word answer. We still don't have the answers to those questions!

BonMallari
03-17-2010, 07:38 PM
Gatoraid in or out?
Cornhusker kickback in or out?
Louisiana purchase in or out?
CT deal in or out?
Montana deal in or out?

All these questions were asked and only require a one word answer. We still don't have the answers to those questions!

Florida -tossup state, winner usually takes election

Nebraska - Ben Nelson, vote needed

Louisiana- Mary Landreaux , vote needed

Conn- Chris Dodd, sweetheart of a Countrywide Mortgage deal

Montana - Max Baucus- point man on legislation

is there a pattern here ? wonder what kind of a deal Dennis Kucinich got for Ohio

road kill
03-17-2010, 07:44 PM
Florida -tossup state, winner usually takes election

Nebraska - Ben Nelson, vote needed

Louisiana- Mary Landreaux , vote needed

Conn- Chris Dodd, sweetheart of a Countrywide Mortgage deal

Montana - Max Baucus- point man on legislation

is there a pattern here ? wonder what kind of a deal Dennis Kucinich got for Ohio
He gets to keep his GF!!:shock:


rk

Franco
03-17-2010, 09:44 PM
I wouldn't want to bet against Obama in a Shell & Pea game!;-)

subroc
03-18-2010, 01:50 AM
...I'm liking less and less of what comes out of his mouth lately, but that's a whole different thread.

No, this is a good thread for that.

cotts135
03-18-2010, 05:46 AM
Personally I am glad to see that a reporter is aggressive and not easily deterred when questioning the President. Thats how it should be.These guys are supposed to be held accountable to the people who elected them. Sadly thought tv and print reporters defer to the titles and what you end up with is an interview that is usually a waste of peoples time. I would like to see more of this type of interview.
I do however wonder that if a Republican was being interviewed, if the tone and tenor would have been the same. I just don't remember an interview with any Republican on Fox that was as aggressive.

dnf777
03-18-2010, 06:02 AM
Baier was anything but "HOSTILE!"

He asked questions that a lot of us have.
We do deserve the respect of an answer.


HOSTILE.....c'mon.





rk

Didn't see Baier's interview. I was referring to the summit a couple weeks ago.

Just got Dennis Voigt's DVD, so will be taking an enjoyable break from politics for a while! :D:D:D

BonMallari
03-18-2010, 06:11 AM
I just don't remember an interview with any Republican on Fox that was as aggressive.

watch Chris Wallace on Sunday Mornings, he is as tenacious as his dad once was...

the circumstances this time are very different..you have a sitting POTUS that doesnt seem to hear what the country wants and thinks he still has a mandate to further HIS agenda

badbullgator
03-18-2010, 07:08 AM
Personally I am glad to see that a reporter is aggressive and not easily deterred when questioning the President. Thats how it should be.These guys are supposed to be held accountable to the people who elected them. Sadly thought tv and print reporters defer to the titles and what you end up with is an interview that is usually a waste of peoples time. I would like to see more of this type of interview.
I do however wonder that if a Republican was being interviewed, if the tone and tenor would have been the same. I just don't remember an interview with any Republican on Fox that was as aggressive.


Maybe it is because most of the time they actually answer the questions asked???? What ever, I don;t know, but I do know that obongo has a way of NEVER answering a question that he does not want asked. Good at answering those he has planned for, but avoids the others like a golden avoids water

YardleyLabs
03-18-2010, 07:13 AM
watch Chris Wallace on Sunday Mornings, he is as tenacious as his dad once was...

the circumstances this time are very different..you have a sitting POTUS that doesnt seem to hear what the country wants and thinks he still has a mandate to further HIS agenda
How is that different? The last administration was the same.

dnf777
03-18-2010, 07:24 AM
the circumstances this time are very different..you have a sitting POTUS that doesnt seem to hear what the country wants and thinks he still has a mandate to further HIS agenda

You're absolutely right. Things are different. THIS president who is claiming to have a mandate, actually won with a majority of the popular vote!

And what's different about a president wanting to push his agenda? Surely you don't think this is the first president to push his agenda?? I think it's happened some 40-odd times in the past. ;-)

What was a historical oddity was a president who was seated by the supreme court for one term, and winning with a minority of the popular vote (that by itself has happened before) AND using recess appointments, reconciliation, and other parlimentary tactics to "shove policy down our throats" (to paraphrase UB) clearly against the will of the American citizenry. That was the closest we've become to functioning as a monarchy since the day George Washington walked away from D.C. to return to Mt. Vernon, and set the tone for presidents NOT ruling by edict.

BonMallari
03-18-2010, 07:35 AM
How is that different? The last administration was the same.


You are right Jeff, GWB showed the same arrogance, I remember his speech about having political capital and willing to spend it...and because of his arrogance what did we get..we got Barack Obama....

in this day of instant polling and focus groups, why is this administration just blowing off what the people DON"T want....where are there polls showing the American public want this bill or approves of its NON TRANSPARENCY...does anyone on here know what is on this bill...of course not...the Congress as a whole doesnt even know, but they want us to accept it because its the right thing to do...

Hoosier
03-18-2010, 07:36 AM
You're absolutely right. Things are different. THIS president who is claiming to have a mandate, actually won with a majority of the popular vote!

And what's different about a president wanting to push his agenda? Surely you don't think this is the first president to push his agenda?? I think it's happened some 40-odd times in the past. ;-)

What was a historical oddity was a president who was seated by the supreme court for one term, and winning with a minority of the popular vote (that by itself has happened before) AND using recess appointments, reconciliation, and other parlimentary tactics to "shove policy down our throats" (to paraphrase UB) clearly against the will of the American citizenry. That was the closest we've become to functioning as a monarchy since the day George Washington walked away from D.C. to return to Mt. Vernon, and set the tone for presidents NOT ruling by edict.

That break only lasted an hour and 22 minutes.

huntinman
03-18-2010, 07:40 AM
You lefties just can't get over your Bush Derangement Syndrome. Come on, he's gone, get over it. Even Obambi is still whining about his "inherited" problems. Time to man up, stop whining about the past and admit you elected a dolt who is on the fast track to ruining our country.

road kill
03-18-2010, 07:45 AM
It gets pretty old hearing and reading day after day...."but Bush did it!!"

Again like little kids...."heeee staarrteed it!!"
(I thought this was all about CHANGE not more of the same only worse)

Pretty lame argument to support the stuff going on in Washington.

Can any of you leftys (including YOU Dave) explain the arrogance?
Can any of you give 1 reason why we don't get straight answers on the biggest peice of legislation (spending) since FDR??

We have questions, if the effort is legitimate, answer them honestly.
When the guy can NOT give a straight answer to a simple question about HIS bill, it begs closer scrutiny and more doubt!!

It would be that way with anyone you did business with, especially with the kind of money involved that's involved here.

Maybe you leftys are right, maybe this is the right thing to do, but the way your people are going about it is disgusting and cheap.
Not professional at all.

But you know what, maybe you Leftys are wrong......then what??
Who will pay for this?


We all will..........





rk

YardleyLabs
03-18-2010, 09:21 AM
It gets pretty old hearing and reading day after day...."but Bush did it!!"

Again like little kids...."heeee staarrteed it!!"
(I thought this was all about CHANGE not more of the same only worse)

Pretty lame argument to support the stuff going on in Washington.

Can any of you leftys (including YOU Dave) explain the arrogance?
Can any of you give 1 reason why we don't get straight answers on the biggest peice of legislation (spending) since FDR??

We have questions, if the effort is legitimate, answer them honestly.
When the guy can NOT give a straight answer to a simple question about HIS bill, it begs closer scrutiny and more doubt!!

It would be that way with anyone you did business with, especially with the kind of money involved that's involved here.

Maybe you leftys are right, maybe this is the right thing to do, but the way your people are going about it is disgusting and cheap.
Not professional at all.

But you know what, maybe you Leftys are wrong......then what??
Who will pay for this?


We all will..........





rk
Bush only entered into this one because of Bon's comment that Obama was "different" than prior Presidents in running up deficits. As to arrogance and refusing to answer questions, I saw nothing surprising in the brief parts of the interview I saw. Baier wanted to talk about the illegitimate process being used to ram legislation down the throats of a public that wants nothing to do with health care reform and the President wanted to talk about the benefits of health care reform and the millions of people that want it. Baier's questions fell largely into the category of "When did you stop beating your wife?"

I was actually waiting for the President to point out that another word that can be used to describe the legislative tactics being used to consider the bill is called "majority vote." The reality is that the details of the bills under consideration have been spelled out in tremendous detail. What has not been spelled out are peripheral changes that may be made in putting together the final voting coalition or to ensure that the bill does not increase the deficit. That makes this bill like almost all that have preceded it in Congress.

It has been indicated that the bill will include a two part approach: adoption of the Senate bill as passed along with a bill that reconciles key differences between the Senate bill and the President's proposal. These two components will be adopted in a single bill that allows the Senate bill to become law only if the reconciling differences are adopted as well. This avoids having the Senate bill go into law "as is" including some elements that are unacceptable in the House (e.g., the Nelson change) and to the President. Writing a new bill would also open the door to a Senate filibuster, while accepting the Senate bill that was adopted by a vote of 60-39, and handling the modifications through reconciliation allows only the changes to be addressed in the reconciliation process which is subject to simple majority vote.

Republicans oppose this process for only one reason: it makes it harder for them to stop passage. As has been shown repeatedly in the process, all of their principled arguments would disappear in a heartbeat if it served their own purposes as was the case with tax cuts, the Medicare prescription program (and particularly the provisions that force Medicare to pay more for drugs than is paid by other insurance programs), welfare reform, etc. Even when discussing an approach that was a blatant violation of Senate rules to force the appointment of 10 justices opposed by Democrats, Republicans chose to describe that option as the "Constitutional" option because it supported a majority vote instead for the super majority required by Senate rules. So maybe the approach for looking at the tactics being used for health care should be the same. Let's have a "Constitutional" vote where a majority of the Senate (VP as tie breaker) can adopt legislation.

If filibuster is to be the answer for all issues, it may be time to end it. Lindsay Graham, whom I respect a lot, said that using this approach for passing health care reform would undermine any future efforts to obtain bi-partisan cooperation. What he didn't address is the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that efforts to obtain bi-partisan cooperation have done any good to date. If there had been some, his warning might hold more weight.

M&K's Retrievers
03-18-2010, 10:04 AM
...."majority vote....."

They apparently don't have a majority or they would have voted instead of arm twisting and deal making. And what about the majority in every poll taken that shows americans do not want this crap shoved down their throats. America is fast becoming tired of this lying incompetent nucklehead of a president and his band of cronies who are trying to make history for themselves.

Cody Covey
03-18-2010, 11:06 AM
As has been shown repeatedly in the process, all of their principled arguments would disappear in a heartbeat if it served their own purposes as was the case with tax cuts, the Medicare prescription program (and particularly the provisions that force Medicare to pay more for drugs than is paid by other insurance programs), welfare reform, etc. Even when discussing an approach that was a blatant violation of Senate rules to force the appointment of 10 justices opposed by Democrats, Republicans chose to describe that option as the "Constitutional" option because it supported a majority vote instead for the super majority required by Senate rules. So maybe the approach for looking at the tactics being used for health care should be the same. Let's have a "Constitutional" vote where a majority of the Senate (VP as tie breaker) can adopt legislation.
You do realize this is a two way street. I'm sure you saw the videos and clips of the major democratic players all saying how horrible this is. And Biden going as far as to say he would never use it? Or was his hope and change just a campaign slogan (say it isn't so)

YardleyLabs
03-18-2010, 11:26 AM
You do realize this is a two way street. I'm sure you saw the videos and clips of the major democratic players all saying how horrible this is. And Biden going as far as to say he would never use it? Or was his hope and change just a campaign slogan (say it isn't so)
Interestingly, the videos I have seen are talking about the Republican "nuclear option" in judicial appointments. If you look at what was being proposed at that time, there is no comparison whatsoever. They were not proposing to use reconciliation -- which would have been explicitly excluded by Senate rules -- but the backdoor approach of having the chair simply declare that the rules did not apply knowing that a majority vote would then uphold the ruling of the chair. However, the reality is that every time the reconciliation process has been used -- 17 times by Republicans and 6 times by Democrats -- those in the minority have objected. What a surprise. Now some of those are trying to pretend that this time is different because......... Once again, what a surprise. The fact is that reconciliation has been used repeatedly to force majority votes on issues that cost more, produced bigger deficits, and made massive changes in fundamental policy that were no more related to the budget process than health care reform. What does that tell us? Basically, that if a majority of Senators feel strongly enough about an issue they will find a way to make it happen. Over time, Republicans have been much more likely to make that decision than Democrats. I'm not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing.

dnf777
03-18-2010, 11:39 AM
You lefties just can't get over your Bush Derangement Syndrome. Come on, he's gone, get over it. Even Obambi is still whining about his "inherited" problems. Time to man up, stop whining about the past and admit you elected a dolt who is on the fast track to ruining our country.

More like you righties can't accept responsibility for your actions, and would rather brush the Bush catastrophe under the rug! Ain't that easy, we're still paying for it. My tax guy just gave me a little reminder of the Bush years, despite his tax cuts, my bill is pretty damn big! But then again, bush has us paying his taxes, and all his filthy rich buddies taxes for them!

dnf777
03-18-2010, 11:43 AM
It gets pretty old hearing and reading day after day...."but Bush did it!!"

Again like little kids...."heeee staarrteed it!!"
(I thought this was all about CHANGE not more of the same only worse)

Pretty lame argument to support the stuff going on in Washington.

Can any of you leftys (including YOU Dave) explain the arrogance?
Can any of you give 1 reason why we don't get straight answers on the biggest peice of legislation (spending) since FDR??

We have questions, if the effort is legitimate, answer them honestly.
When the guy can NOT give a straight answer to a simple question about HIS bill, it begs closer scrutiny and more doubt!!

It would be that way with anyone you did business with, especially with the kind of money involved that's involved here.

Maybe you leftys are right, maybe this is the right thing to do, but the way your people are going about it is disgusting and cheap.
Not professional at all.

But you know what, maybe you Leftys are wrong......then what??
Who will pay for this?


We all will..........





rk

First, just because I'm to the left of you, doesn't make me a "lefty"! :D

Second, I can't and won't explain arrogance for Obama nor anyone else.

Third, this piece of legislation is only a trillion dollars or so SMALLER than Bush's tax cuts! So it is NOT the biggest piece of legislation since FDR. And if you want to say that Bush's bill was a tax CUT, it was not. It merely was a cut for the extreme rich, while YOU and ME, and our progeny get to shoulder the burden, while Bush and his buds go fishing in K-port on million dollar yachts.

Why are righties allowed to constantly reference FDR, but nobody else is allowed to reference the mess Bush made of this country??

dnf777
03-18-2010, 11:49 AM
That break only lasted an hour and 22 minutes.

Please don't burden yourself with monitored my schedule. You wouldn't like it!;-)

But PLEASE feel free to comment on the subject matter, especially Bush using parliamentary tactics (the same ones the dems are being attacked for by the very people who used them under Bush) after winning by a popular MINORITY of votes. You know, since it was mentioned that Obama had the audacity to claim a mandate after winning with over a 10 million vote margin.

luvmylabs23139
03-18-2010, 12:20 PM
[quote=dnf777;585367]

It merely was a cut for the extreme rich, while YOU and ME, and our progeny get to shoulder the burden, while Bush and his buds go fishing in K-port on million dollar yachts.

quote]

Absolutely not true!
All the tax bracket rates were cut.
THe lowest rate BEFORE was 15%
Bush created a 10% bracket.
I could list them all out but not just the rich benefited.

BonMallari
03-18-2010, 12:23 PM
Please don't burden yourself with monitored my schedule. You wouldn't like it!;-)

But PLEASE feel free to comment on the subject matter, especially Bush using parliamentary tactics (the same ones the dems are being attacked for by the very people who used them under Bush) after winning by a popular MINORITY of votes. You know, since it was mentioned that Obama had the audacity to claim a mandate after winning with over a 10 million vote margin.

ah yes the Audacity of Hope ( never read it)....how much of that clear mandate(undisputable) that he HAD, support what he is doing now...I dont know if you have stated your opinion before on this healthcare legislation, but being the healthcare professional that you are, do you support the passage of the bill....or would you also like to deem your choice too :p:p

Hoosier
03-18-2010, 12:27 PM
Please don't burden yourself with monitored my schedule. You wouldn't like it!;-)

But PLEASE feel free to comment on the subject matter, especially Bush using parliamentary tactics (the same ones the dems are being attacked for by the very people who used them under Bush) after winning by a popular MINORITY of votes. You know, since it was mentioned that Obama had the audacity to claim a mandate after winning with over a 10 million vote margin.

I don't believe any President sense Reagan has had a mandate. We have been picking the lesser of two evils ever since. Look at who we've had to choose from on the national ticket Dole, McCain, The Clinton's, The Bush's, Gore, Karry, all of these people sucked, and now the Republicans ran some old man that looks like The Crypt Keeper against a young charismatic used car salesman, who just happens to be a commie, and you think he has a mandate because he won by less then 1%.

People don't want what he's trying to shove down their throats, and he knows it. That's why he won't answer a question, he knows if he does people will see the impact this bill will have on them personally, and he'll lose even more support for that junker he's selling.

As far as your schedule, I just stated the obvious. I was scrolling through the thread, seen where you threatened to train dogs for a while, then there you were again. Not that I've been out in the snow and the mud, but that's another story.

dnf777
03-18-2010, 05:20 PM
I don't believe any President sense Reagan has had a mandate. We have been picking the lesser of two evils ever since. Look at who we've had to choose from on the national ticket Dole, McCain, The Clinton's, The Bush's, Gore, Karry, all of these people sucked, and now the Republicans ran some old man that looks like The Crypt Keeper against a young charismatic used car salesman, who just happens to be a commie, and you think he has a mandate because he won by less then 1%.

People don't want what he's trying to shove down their throats, and he knows it. That's why he won't answer a question, he knows if he does people will see the impact this bill will have on them personally, and he'll lose even more support for that junker he's selling.

As far as your schedule, I just stated the obvious. I was scrolling through the thread, seen where you threatened to train dogs for a while, then there you were again. Not that I've been out in the snow and the mud, but that's another story.

I didn't claim he had a mandate. I merely compared his claim against W's, who actually lost the popular vote, yet held to a mandate attitude. Bush and his congress shoved more things down people's throats than Johnny Holmes, yet that all seems to be ok. Even though between two wars and a record tax cut, and record deficits and expansion of gov't powers, nobody seemed to mind too much?? No, I havent read Audacity of Hope, nor am I an ardent Obama supporter, but things HAD to change. We were teetering on the edge of a cliff, and are still grasping at loose gravel to hold on. I just don't see the logic in sticking to policies that brought us to the brink of disaster. Maybe Obama will fail also, that's yet to be seen. Bush and the conservative policies (if you want to call them that!) had proven themselves failures.

Just because I'm not a W disciple, does NOT mean I'm an Obama fan. There's room in the middle. Believe me, I'm not alone.

dnf777
03-18-2010, 05:26 PM
[quote=dnf777;585367]

It merely was a cut for the extreme rich, while YOU and ME, and our progeny get to shoulder the burden, while Bush and his buds go fishing in K-port on million dollar yachts.

quote]

Absolutely not true!
All the tax bracket rates were cut.
THe lowest rate BEFORE was 15%
Bush created a 10% bracket.
I could list them all out but not just the rich benefited.


Ok, so the average family in NW Pa can buy another carton of marlboros per week, and the average AIG exec can buy another G-5 jet. At the cost of $2 trillion over the life of the cuts. Those budget shortfalls are passed onto the states and municipalities, schools etc....everything that has to cut services, close schools, raise local and state taxes or face budget crises that we see across the country....and who suffers the most for it? Middle and lower class citizens.

YardleyLabs
03-18-2010, 05:29 PM
I don't believe any President sense Reagan has had a mandate. ...
Reagan's popularity varied widely during his presidency. In January 2003, he had an approval rating of 42% and a disapproval rating of 54%.At this time in his Presidency, Reagan's ratings were comparable to Obama's. [http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-presapp0605-31.html?printVersion=true]

M&K's Retrievers
03-18-2010, 05:30 PM
I didn't claim he had a mandate. I merely compared his claim against W's, who actually lost the popular vote, yet held to a mandate attitude. Bush and his congress shoved more things down people's throats than Johnny Holmes, yet that all seems to be ok. Even though between two wars and a record tax cut, and record deficits and expansion of gov't powers, nobody seemed to mind too much?? No, I havent read Audacity of Hope, nor am I an ardent Obama supporter, but things HAD to change. We were teetering on the edge of a cliff, and are still grasping at loose gravel to hold on. I just don't see the logic in sticking to policies that brought us to the brink of disaster. Maybe Obama will fail also, that's yet to be seen. Bush and the conservative policies (if you want to call them that!) had proven themselves failures.

Just because I'm not a W disciple, does NOT mean I'm an Obama fan. There's room in the middle. Believe me, I'm not alone.

What Bush did or didn't do doesn't excuse the raping of this country that Obama has done in a little over a year and if left (no pun intended) unchecked will continue to do.

M&K's Retrievers
03-18-2010, 05:36 PM
[QUOTE=luvmylabs23139;585385]


Ok, so the average family in NW Pa can buy another carton of marlboros per week, and the average AIG exec can buy another G-5 jet. At the cost of $2 trillion over the life of the cuts. Those budget shortfalls are passed onto the states and municipalities, schools etc....everything that has to cut services, close schools, raise local and state taxes or face budget crises that we see across the country....and who suffers the most for it? Middle and lower class citizens.

A reduction from 15% to 10% is a 33% reduction in taxes which is quite a bit more than a carton of smokes.

Hew
03-18-2010, 05:50 PM
A reduction from 15% to 10% is a 33% reduction in taxes which is quite a bit more than a carton of smokes.
Facts? DNF doan need no stinkin' facts.

M&K's Retrievers
03-18-2010, 06:06 PM
Reagan's popularity varied widely during his presidency. In January 2003, he had an approval rating of 42% and a disapproval rating of 54%.At this time in his Presidency, Reagan's ratings were comparable to Obama's. [http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-presapp0605-31.html?printVersion=true]

I didn't realize Reagan was pres in 2003:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Clay Rogers
03-18-2010, 06:11 PM
You know, these comparisons to Bush hold no water. Your man, Obama, ran on changing business as usual in Washington. If you don't remember that, there is plenty of footage out there to prove it, even from mainstream media outlets. So this arguement that Bush did it is a waste of time and internet space. Your man got elected promising to change politics in Washington, and he has, for the worse. Who would have thought that possible? Now I know, Did Not Finish777, yardley and Roger will come on here to beat me to death, but its all the truth. Obama is fake and liar, that is why he cant answer the questions, because he can't tell the truth.

luvmylabs23139
03-18-2010, 06:53 PM
[quote=luvmylabs23139;585385]


Ok, so the average family in NW Pa can buy another carton of marlboros per week, and the average AIG exec can buy another G-5 jet. At the cost of $2 trillion over the life of the cuts. Those budget shortfalls are passed onto the states and municipalities, schools etc....everything that has to cut services, close schools, raise local and state taxes or face budget crises that we see across the country....and who suffers the most for it? Middle and lower class citizens.


I get screwed no matter who is in charge. My property taxes always go up.
No kids, so I have to pay for everyone elses. My dogs really need SS#'s.
That might help even things out a bit.

dnf777
03-18-2010, 07:15 PM
You know, these comparisons to Bush hold no water. Your man, Obama, ran on changing business as usual in Washington. If you don't remember that, there is plenty of footage out there to prove it, even from mainstream media outlets. So this arguement that Bush did it is a waste of time and internet space. Your man got elected promising to change politics in Washington, and he has, for the worse. Who would have thought that possible? Now I know, Did Not Finish777, yardley and Roger will come on here to beat me to death, but its all the truth. Obama is fake and liar, that is why he cant answer the questions, because he can't tell the truth.

Corn-hole-hunter,
Your argument is off point and totally unrelated to the topic of discussion, but what the heck? And you're grammatically correct, I did NOT compare Bush to Obama, I contrasted them. Comparing notes similarities, contrasting notes differences. Thank you for the correction, but I doubt that's what you meant!

Sorry for the name calling, we should try not to do that here.

Finished this regards,
dave

Gerry Clinchy
03-18-2010, 07:26 PM
Yardley wrote:

It has been indicated that the bill will include a two part approach: adoption of the Senate bill as passed along with a bill that reconciles key differences between the Senate bill and the President's proposal. These two components will be adopted in a single bill that allows the Senate bill to become law only if the reconciling differences are adopted as well.

As I understand it, the Parliamentarian has ruled that it cannot be done that way. The Senate bill must become law first ... as is ... before the changes can be made through reconciliation. The problem is that the House doesn't trust the Senate :-) to make the changes the House wants in there.

The problem then becomes that amendments can be made to the "basic" reconciliation points that would be proposed to keep the House happy ... and then the end product might not be what the House would want after all.

Yardley wrote:

that were no more related to the budget process than health care reform.

I do think that health care reform impacts the budget. That is a big sticking point. I don't know if this is correct (feel free to correct me), but a point made today by Hugh Hewitt was the CBO scoring of the budgetary impact presumed that the demand for health care would remain the same. Stunning ... if you add 30 million people (or even half that) to the demand, how can demand remain the same? Do 30 million people have to die to keep it "balanced".

It is also disturbing that Obama stated that ideas of Dole & ? were in this bill ... which might imply that they endorse the bill ... which they have not done. Incorporating an idea, but then mutilating it with the "deals", can neutralize the impact of a good idea.

Yardley wrote:

As has been shown repeatedly in the process, all of their principled arguments would disappear in a heartbeat if it served their own purposes as was the case with tax cuts, the Medicare prescription program (and particularly the provisions that force Medicare to pay more for drugs than is paid by other insurance programs), welfare reform, etc.

The difference would be that the public opinion was in favor of those things. The public opinion may have failed to anticipate the long-term budgetary impact, but they were things that voters supported. The voters may not always be right, but I think the elected officials owe them representation of their views ... unless they can give a really good reason for voting against the voters' wishes.

DNF777 wrote:

Just because I'm not a W disciple, does NOT mean I'm an Obama fan. There's room in the middle. Believe me, I'm not alone.

If there is a failure in the Obama presidency thus far, that is one of them. He promised change, and people in the middle believed him. Yet, the way he has handled things so far, those people in the middle no longer believe that he is representing change for the better. He is resorting to the same back room deals, and every other arm-twisting device that has been so unsavory to many in politics. Additionally, he has also sown divisiveness, even within his own ranks. Maybe he has delivered on one facet of transparency ... we've gotten to see just how down and dirty those guys in DC can be. However, he has shown that he is no different from those fellows.

Gerry Clinchy
03-18-2010, 07:27 PM
Oh, yes ... I've been working all day, so just now reading the thread :-)

YardleyLabs
03-18-2010, 07:50 PM
I didn't realize Reagan was pres in 2003:rolleyes::rolleyes:Sorry, January 1983.:oops:

YardleyLabs
03-18-2010, 07:53 PM
You know, these comparisons to Bush hold no water. Your man, Obama, ran on changing business as usual in Washington. If you don't remember that, there is plenty of footage out there to prove it, even from mainstream media outlets. So this arguement that Bush did it is a waste of time and internet space. Your man got elected promising to change politics in Washington, and he has, for the worse. Who would have thought that possible? Now I know, Did Not Finish777, yardley and Roger will come on here to beat me to death, but its all the truth. Obama is fake and liar, that is why he cant answer the questions, because he can't tell the truth.
Every non-incumbent candidate runs on a platform of changing the culture. In fact, that and bi-partisanship were the cornerstones of Bush's 2000 campaign. Look where that led.

M&K's Retrievers
03-18-2010, 08:05 PM
Every non-incumbent candidate runs on a platform of changing the culture. In fact, that and bi-partisanship were the cornerstones of Bush's 2000 campaign. Look where that led.

I think that is the major problem. No matter how good their intentions are when they start out, they wind up being lying members of a corrupt system. I can't help but doubt that the intentions of Obama were ever sincere.

YardleyLabs
03-18-2010, 08:06 PM
Yardley wrote:


As I understand it, the Parliamentarian has ruled that it cannot be done that way. The Senate bill must become law first ... as is ... before the changes can be made through reconciliation. The problem is that the House doesn't trust the Senate :-) to make the changes the House wants in there.

That becomes an interesting question. Under the approach being taken in the House, the Senate bill is adopted. The question is whether it needs to be signed by the President before the Senate can consider reconciliation changes. That is still being sorted out. Obama may use Bush's favorite tactic of a signing statement that he would not implement the law until the reconciling changes have been done. Of course, that becomes interesting if the changes are then rejected or passed in a different form.



...
I do think that health care reform impacts the budget. That is a big sticking point. I don't know if this is correct (feel free to correct me), but a point made today by Hugh Hewitt was the CBO scoring of the budgetary impact presumed that the demand for health care would remain the same. Stunning ... if you add 30 million people (or even half that) to the demand, how can demand remain the same? Do 30 million people have to die to keep it "balanced".

I haven't read their analysis. I suspect that they are assuming the same patterns of usage for the newly covered individuals, not assuming that the newly covered consume nothing.



It is also disturbing that Obama stated that ideas of Dole & ? were in this bill ... which might imply that they endorse the bill ... which they have not done. Incorporating an idea, but then mutilating it with the "deals", can neutralize the impact of a good idea.

I don't think anyone is confused about Republican opposition to anything proposed by the administration. The administration is trying to make the point that they have adopted ides from the Republicans despite that opposition.



Yardley wrote:


The difference would be that the public opinion was in favor of those things. The public opinion may have failed to anticipate the long-term budgetary impact, but they were things that voters supported. The voters may not always be right, but I think the elected officials owe them representation of their views ... unless they can give a really good reason for voting against the voters' wishes.

That is not actually true. Bush regularly acted in opposition to public opinion -- one of the reasons his popularity hovered around 30%. On the 2003 tax cuts, in particular, opponents outnumbered supporters. I haven't researched the other bills passed through reconciliation. However, Bush was fond of pointing out that he was hired to make decisions, not to read polls.

Franco
03-18-2010, 08:13 PM
I think that is the major problem. No matter how good their intentions are when they start out, they wind up being lying members of a corrupt system. I can't help but doubt that the intentions of Obama were ever sincere.

They realize how much power they don't have, The Emporer has no cloths.
They are overwhelmed with getting themselves and thier party members reelected. Very little postive gets done. Just look at Congresses approval ratings. If they were this low 225 years ago, they'd all be tared & feathered! The only thing they know how to do is waste money. If the system is not broken, then someone tell me how we are going to pay our debt and support everyone citizen and non.

Hoosier
03-18-2010, 08:47 PM
Reagan's popularity varied widely during his presidency. In January 2003, he had an approval rating of 42% and a disapproval rating of 54%.At this time in his Presidency, Reagan's ratings were comparable to Obama's. [http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-presapp0605-31.html?printVersion=true]

Reagan carried 49 states had 525 electoral votes and 59% of the popular vote. Mondale only carried his home state of Minnesota and DC 13 electoral votes and had 41% of the popular vote. I would call that a mandate.

Clay Rogers
03-18-2010, 08:48 PM
Corn-hole-hunter,
Your argument is off point and totally unrelated to the topic of discussion, but what the heck? And you're grammatically correct, I did NOT compare Bush to Obama, I contrasted them. Comparing notes similarities, contrasting notes differences. Thank you for the correction, but I doubt that's what you meant!

Sorry for the name calling, we should try not to do that here.

Finished this regards,
dave

Hey, I told you I baited my hunting spots under the doctor-pt relationship. You're not suppose to divulge that information.

Buzz
03-18-2010, 09:22 PM
I haven't read their analysis. I suspect that they are assuming the same patterns of usage for the newly covered individuals, not assuming that the newly covered consume nothing.




Ya think? What else could it mean but that newly covered would access healthcare at the same rate as others in their demographic? Of course, that won't stop Hugh Hewitt from twisting it into something else entirely, making out the CBO to be a bunch of totally incompetent idiots. It's the approach that opponents to HCR have taken throughout the entire debate, why would they change now?

Gerry Clinchy
03-18-2010, 09:49 PM
Yardley wrote:

That becomes an interesting question. Under the approach being taken in the House, the Senate bill is adopted. The question is whether it needs to be signed by the President before the Senate can consider reconciliation changes. That is still being sorted out.

My understanding is that the Parliamentarian has ruled on it. The Senate bill must be signed by the Pres & become law before it can be reconciled.

The kinky part is that the "deemed passed" (being now referred to as "demon passed") ... the House doesn't actually vote on the Senate bill, but just on the reconciling changes & "deem the bill passed". This was dredged out from the House rules so that the fellows facing election could say that they did NOT vote for the Senate bill. You gotta admire their creativity :-)

Yardley

That is still being sorted out.

Obama stated in the interview that [paraphrasing] "the process didn't matter." I'm afraid I can't agree with that. To pass a law that is, at best, split 50/50 & even the 50 in favor aren't really convinced does not seem the right way to approach legislation with the far-reaching magnitude of this legislation.

Yardley wrote:

I suspect that they are assuming the same patterns of usage for the newly covered individuals, not assuming that the newly covered consume nothing.


You may be correct in that interpretation. However, I do not believe that the pattern will remain the same. Remember, if you have people with pre-existing conditions now covered, who weren't covered before, they are very likely to use the health care system to a larger extent than they did before & more extensively than the person in "average" health.

I don't know what the deductibles will be. Does anyone? One of the details to be worked out later? My insurance till Medicare had a $1500 deductible. Medicare has a $135 deductible. Quite a difference!

Yardley wrote:

Bush was fond of pointing out that he was hired to make decisions, not to read polls.

If all on this forum were to agree that Bush was not a very good President. There are very few here, from what I can see, who agreed with everything that Bush did. Then, comparing O to Bush does not validate O's actions.

If all agreed that Bush was a good President (obviously not true), then one could use Bush's actions to validate O's actions.

We criticize Bush for Medicare Advantage, for Medicare prescription coverage, yet this health care legislation seems like it is way more expansive.

I wonder to what degree the CBO took into account the economic situation. If unemployment remains high for a while, more individuals will need subsidies or a longer period. There will be fewer left to pay for those subsidies ... until the economy recovers. That could be the source of a much larger deficit in the program than is anticipated.

Part of the "savings" in Medicare ($200 billion ... to justify the $500 billion taken away from Medicare to be put into the new program) are supposed to materialize by the 22% reduction in payments to drs. ... that has never been voted for before. Many believe that will not be voted for this time either.

The latest info is that cutbacks in Medicaid payments to drs. are causing more doctors to turn away Medicaid patients. This seems to be occurring most seriously in those specialties where Medicaid recipient participation is likely to be high, like obstetrics, which also has high malpractice premiums.

Nobody has ventured to say what will happen to health insurance premiums. It is very likely that everybody's premiums are going to go up. Premiums will also go up if this legislation is not passed (that is historically inevitable). Without real cost controls that is inevitable, with or without this legislation. The real question is whether this legislation will keep premium increases lower than without enacting the legislation. Depends on how much the govt will allow premiums to increase before shifting the burden of those costs to a more general taxation process.

I am still confused on this: If the Medicare fund is in deep trouble, how can one take $500 billion (about 1/2 the cost of the new legislation) from that fund, and not cause massive damage to Medicare fund ... causing Medicare to fail even sooner than otherwise? What do those Medicare recipients get from the new legislation to offset that $500 billion? By what authority does the govt take money from that fund, specifically for senior benefits & use it for some other purpose?

Gerry Clinchy
03-18-2010, 10:17 PM
http://www.mcall.com/news/local/sns-ap-us-health-care-overhaul,0,5980339.story

It seems that some of the $ for drugs for seniors will come directly from the pharma companies. But that could also mean that drug prices will overall go up, so that everyone pays more for those drugs, so that discounts can be applied to some of the patients who use them.

But there have been a few more deals thrown in to squeeze out a few more votes.

And article seems to clarify that the house will NOT vote on the Senate bill ... but rather on the "modifications" that the Senate will later (immediately) add to the bill after it is signed by the President.

The article states that 1/6 of the whole economy is impacted with this legislation. That's a LOT.