PDA

View Full Version : he STILL doesnt get it



david gibson
11-03-2010, 02:19 PM
review of obamas speech today

"But in his opening remarks and answers to early questions, Mr. Obama refused to say the Republican wave that swept across the country was a fundamental rejection of the policies that his administration has pursued.
really? how does he know what we are thinking??

“There is no doubt that people’s number one concern is the economy,” he said. “What they were expressing great frustration about is that we haven’t made enough progress on the economy.” if it were "just" the economy the masses would not be so totally peeved about everything you say or do, mr obama. open your eyes.

He defended his agenda as an emergency response rather than a well-planned desire to expand government. But he conceded that people didn’t see his response to those emergencies as temporary measures but rather as a new approach to government.

Asked about Republican plans to try and repeal his health care legislation, Mr. Obama said he was willing to consider “tweaks” to the program but does not intend to engage in a broad debate over its fate.

“We’d be misreading the election if we thought that the American people want to see us for the next two years re-litigate the arguments that we had for the last two years,” Mr. Obama said. again, he hasn't a clue why we voted the rascals out. sorry to call you on your arrogance mr president, but you are wrong. again.


the epitome of cant see the forest for the trees regards........

BonMallari
11-03-2010, 02:29 PM
I watched the presser too and came away with the same conclusion as you did David...I think his ego or ideology wont allow him to admit that

M&K's Retrievers
11-03-2010, 04:33 PM
For what it's worth, I read it the same as well.

Buzz
11-03-2010, 04:35 PM
"But in his opening remarks and answers to early questions, Mr. Obama refused to say the Republican wave that swept across the country was a fundamental rejection of the policies that his administration has pursued.
really? how does he know what we are thinking??



the epitome of cant see the forest for the trees regards........


Somehow I think he's better off not knowing what you're thinking...

david gibson
11-03-2010, 04:40 PM
Somehow I think he's better off not knowing what you're thinking...

and you are better of as well........ ;-)

YardleyLabs
11-03-2010, 04:54 PM
I have not seen the press conference. However, based on the poll I posted earlier today,only 23% of adults view repealing health care legislation as the highest priority and only about half the public favors repeal anyway (the number has fluctuated above and below 50%). If the repeal involves also repealing prohibitions on pre-existing condition exclusions, support for repeal disintegrates. Even fewer people consider extending all of the tax cuts to be a high priority.

The number one priority is expanding jobs and reducing unemployment. There is anger and frustration that economic problems continue. Democrats were punished for that failure, but that does not translate to support for Republicans in Congress (who remain less popular than Democrats) or for any specific agenda.

Unfortunately, what voters actually want is a free lunch. They want guaranteed health coverage, but no personal mandate to pay for it. If they choose not to pay, they want to retain the ability to buy coverage when they need it without restriction. They want the social security deficit to go away, but don't want to pay more in social security taxes or to see any decrease in benefits. They want tax cuts for themselves, but no service cuts that affect themselves. They are perfectly happy to see taxes increased for others and services cut for others to achieve that objective.

The failure of leadership in both parties has been in pandering to this nonsense. Republicans always argue that all problems can be solved by cutting taxes and cutting services to lazy people and cheats. Democrats always argue that services can be continued if only the wealthiest few will pay their fair share. Both positions are nonsense and the political leaders on both sides know it.

Buzz
11-03-2010, 05:06 PM
Unfortunately, what voters actually want is a free lunch. They want guaranteed health coverage, but no personal mandate to pay for it. If they choose not to pay, they want to retain the ability to buy coverage when they need it without restriction. They want the social security deficit to go away, but don't want to pay more in social security taxes or to see any decrease in benefits. They want tax cuts for themselves, but no service cuts that affect themselves. They are perfectly happy to see taxes increased for others and services cut for others to achieve that objective.

The failure of leadership in both parties has been in pandering to this nonsense. Republicans always argue that all problems can be solved by cutting taxes and cutting services to lazy people and cheats. Democrats always argue that services can be continued if only the wealthiest few will pay their fair share. Both positions are nonsense and the political leaders on both sides know it.


That is a mouthful Jeff, and it is VERY true. Somehow, I'm sure some will come crawling out of the woodwork to explain how wrong you are, or get upset because, dang that Jeff thinks he's so smart. Now where is my kicking screaming kid having a tantrum animated smilie thingie?

gman0046
11-03-2010, 05:08 PM
Another Obongolo BS presser. A couple of days ago he called Republicans enemies, today he called them his Republican friends. Your right Roger he still "doesn't get it". He will "get it" after the 2012 election.

code3retrievers
11-03-2010, 05:14 PM
Unfortunately, what voters actually want is a free lunch. They want guaranteed health coverage, but no personal mandate to pay for it. If they choose not to pay, they want to retain the ability to buy coverage when they need it without restriction. They want the social security deficit to go away, but don't want to pay more in social security taxes or to see any decrease in benefits. They want tax cuts for themselves, but no service cuts that affect themselves. They are perfectly happy to see taxes increased for others and services cut for others to achieve that objective.

The failure of leadership in both parties has been in pandering to this nonsense. Republicans always argue that all problems can be solved by cutting taxes and cutting services to lazy people and cheats. Democrats always argue that services can be continued if only the wealthiest few will pay their fair share. Both positions are nonsense and the political leaders on both sides know it.

Unbelievable! Jeff said something I think I can agree with. I have to go check the weather forecast for hell because I think it just froze over.

Cody Covey
11-03-2010, 07:26 PM
I have not seen the press conference. However, based on the poll I posted earlier today,only 23% of adults view repealing health care legislation as the highest priority and only about half the public favors repeal anyway (the number has fluctuated above and below 50%). If the repeal involves also repealing prohibitions on pre-existing condition exclusions, support for repeal disintegrates. Even fewer people consider extending all of the tax cuts to be a high priority.

The number one priority is expanding jobs and reducing unemployment. There is anger and frustration that economic problems continue. Democrats were punished for that failure, but that does not translate to support for Republicans in Congress (who remain less popular than Democrats) or for any specific agenda.

Unfortunately, what voters actually want is a free lunch. They want guaranteed health coverage, but no personal mandate to pay for it. If they choose not to pay, they want to retain the ability to buy coverage when they need it without restriction. They want the social security deficit to go away, but don't want to pay more in social security taxes or to see any decrease in benefits. They want tax cuts for themselves, but no service cuts that affect themselves. They are perfectly happy to see taxes increased for others and services cut for others to achieve that objective.

The failure of leadership in both parties has been in pandering to this nonsense. Republicans always argue that all problems can be solved by cutting taxes and cutting services to lazy people and cheats. Democrats always argue that services can be continued if only the wealthiest few will pay their fair share. Both positions are nonsense and the political leaders on both sides know it.Yes they do want a free lunch but what do you expect to happen when you say no denial for pre-exsisting conditions? Why wouldn't you wait for something to happen before you got insurance? $750 fee for not getting insurance is a hell of a lot cheaper than paying for insurance for a year. especially when nothing will even happen to the most of us. If i wait to buy car insurance until after i get in a wreck you are Okay with that as well right Jeff?

M&K's Retrievers
11-03-2010, 08:00 PM
Yes they do want a free lunch but what do you expect to happen when you say no denial for pre-exsisting conditions? Why wouldn't you wait for something to happen before you got insurance? $750 fee for not getting insurance is a hell of a lot cheaper than paying for insurance for a year. especially when nothing will even happen to the most of us. If i wait to buy car insurance until after i get in a wreck you are Okay with that as well right Jeff?

Your beating you head against the wall trying to explain one of the major the obvious pitfalls to Obamacare. I've given up.

Marvin S
11-03-2010, 08:43 PM
review of obamas speech today

"But in his opening remarks and answers to early questions, Mr. Obama refused to say the Republican wave that swept across the country was a fundamental rejection of the policies that his administration has pursued.
really? how does he know what we are thinking??

“There is no doubt that people’s number one concern is the economy,” he said. “What they were expressing great frustration about is that we haven’t made enough progress on the economy.” if it were "just" the economy the masses would not be so totally peeved about everything you say or do, mr obama. open your eyes.

He defended his agenda as an emergency response rather than a well-planned desire to expand government. But he conceded that people didn’t see his response to those emergencies as temporary measures but rather as a new approach to government.

Asked about Republican plans to try and repeal his health care legislation, Mr. Obama said he was willing to consider “tweaks” to the program but does not intend to engage in a broad debate over its fate.

“We’d be misreading the election if we thought that the American people want to see us for the next two years re-litigate the arguments that we had for the last two years,” Mr. Obama said. again, he hasn't a clue why we voted the rascals out. sorry to call you on your arrogance mr president, but you are wrong. again.


the epitome of cant see the forest for the trees regards........

I happened to catch a quick shot on CNBC when he was asked the question about the appearance that his administration is hostile to business. That's one I hope they save for the next POTUS election, the look was about as hostile as I've seen dear leader ever use. He's now got his feet in the fire & he don't like it.


Unfortunately, what voters actually want is a free lunch. They want guaranteed health coverage, but no personal mandate to pay for it. If they choose not to pay, they want to retain the ability to buy coverage when they need it without restriction. They want the social security deficit to go away, but don't want to pay more in social security taxes or to see any decrease in benefits. They want tax cuts for themselves, but no service cuts that affect themselves. They are perfectly happy to see taxes increased for others and services cut for others to achieve that objective.

The failure of leadership in both parties has been in pandering to this nonsense. Republicans always argue that all problems can be solved by cutting taxes and cutting services to lazy people and cheats. Democrats always argue that services can be continued if only the wealthiest few will pay their fair share. Both positions are nonsense and the political leaders on both sides know it.

Soooooooooo, if the voters don't like the R's why did they cleanup?

Jeff - I don't know many people that believe the way you describe in the hilited Paragraph. But I'm sure we hang out in different venues :).

The failure is in the D's pandering to this type of nonsense, but that's their constituency :o. You will not see real R's buy into this nonsense, but you don't have many of those in your territory.

But all in all your comments sound like sour grapes!!!!!!!!!!!!

Buzz
11-03-2010, 08:56 PM
Yes they do want a free lunch but what do you expect to happen when you say no denial for pre-exsisting conditions? Why wouldn't you wait for something to happen before you got insurance? $750 fee for not getting insurance is a hell of a lot cheaper than paying for insurance for a year. especially when nothing will even happen to the most of us. If i wait to buy car insurance until after i get in a wreck you are Okay with that as well right Jeff?

I think that's what the mandate to buy coverage was all about and that's why the Republicans proposed just that once upon a time. Interesting the way they beat Democrats over the head with their own proposal.



Republican support for the individual mandate policy goes back further than this health care reform discussion. Earlier this month, Julie Rovner profiled a history of the policy dating back to the 1980′s

In fact, says Len Nichols of the New America Foundation, the individual mandate was originally a Republican idea. “It was invented by Mark Pauly to give to George Bush Sr. back in the day, as a competition to the employer mandate focus of the Democrats at the time.”…

“We called this responsible national health insurance,” says Pauly. “There was a kind of an ethical and moral support for the notion that people shouldn’t be allowed to free-ride on the charity of fellow citizens.”

The policy was originally included in many Republican proposals including the proposals during the Clinton administration. The leading GOP alternative plan known as the 1994 Consumer Choice Health Security Act included the requirement to purchase insurance. Further, this proposal was based off of a 1990 Heritage Foundation proposal outlined a quality health system where “government would require, by law every head of household to acquire at least a basic health plan for his or her family.”

More recently, the Heritage Foundation continued to support the proposal under the Massachusetts health care reform effort passed into law while Mitt Romney was governor. While the proposal did change over the course of the reform process in the state, and Romney and Heritage tried to walk back their support, as Romney admitted this weekend it is, “the ultimate conservative plan.”

The questions raised by tenther individual mandate opponents have largely been debunked by constitutional law experts. Grassley and other Republican are appealing to conservative voters with their recent opposition rather than the constitutional questions. If there had been problems with the legality of the requirement, the argument would have been raised at one point in the last thirty years.



Where are my hypocrisy quotes when you need them?

Buzz
11-03-2010, 08:57 PM
The failure is in the D's pandering to this type of nonsense, but that's their constituency :o. You will not see real R's buy into this nonsense, but you don't have many of those in your territory.



I'll be interested to see if they get around to cutting farm subsidies or not.

YardleyLabs
11-03-2010, 09:56 PM
Your beating you head against the wall trying to explain one of the major the obvious pitfalls to Obamacare. I've given up.
Obamacare addressed this issue very directly with the personal mandate. Republicans are leveraging that to build opposition while pretending to also favor elimination of pre-existing condition exclusions. As Frank Sinatra sang, "You can't have one without the other."

depittydawg
11-03-2010, 10:11 PM
I have not seen the press conference. However, based on the poll I posted earlier today,only 23% of adults view repealing health care legislation as the highest priority and only about half the public favors repeal anyway (the number has fluctuated above and below 50%). If the repeal involves also repealing prohibitions on pre-existing condition exclusions, support for repeal disintegrates. Even fewer people consider extending all of the tax cuts to be a high priority.

The number one priority is expanding jobs and reducing unemployment. There is anger and frustration that economic problems continue. Democrats were punished for that failure, but that does not translate to support for Republicans in Congress (who remain less popular than Democrats) or for any specific agenda.

Unfortunately, what voters actually want is a free lunch. They want guaranteed health coverage, but no personal mandate to pay for it. If they choose not to pay, they want to retain the ability to buy coverage when they need it without restriction. They want the social security deficit to go away, but don't want to pay more in social security taxes or to see any decrease in benefits. They want tax cuts for themselves, but no service cuts that affect themselves. They are perfectly happy to see taxes increased for others and services cut for others to achieve that objective.

The failure of leadership in both parties has been in pandering to this nonsense. Republicans always argue that all problems can be solved by cutting taxes and cutting services to lazy people and cheats. Democrats always argue that services can be continued if only the wealthiest few will pay their fair share. Both positions are nonsense and the political leaders on both sides know it.

It's about jobs. A lesson Obama and the Dems never figured out. And it looks like Boeiner and the Republicans haven't got the message yet either. If they don't get it, they will be back out in 2 years. And tax breaks don't work. If either party wants to get serious about jobs, they have to look at trade policy.

M&K's Retrievers
11-03-2010, 10:45 PM
Obamacare addressed this issue very directly with the personal mandate. Republicans are leveraging that to build opposition while pretending to also favor elimination of pre-existing condition exclusions. As Frank Sinatra sang, "You can't have one without the other."

Frank also sang "Oops there goes another rubber tree plant". Kinda like the Dems last night. :cool:

Marvin S
11-04-2010, 12:40 AM
I'll be interested to see if they get around to cutting farm subsidies or not.

That's equal opportunity pork :). When Thune ran against Daschle I donated to his campaign, got me on a lot of donater lists. Thune has never stopped trying to get another donate from us, as far as I am concerned he is a part of the problem. But he sends out a nice Xmas card showing his handsome family from his Sioux Falls address, but he was elected to the house from Murdo :(. That's why I always liked Jimmy Abdnor, people told me he never forgot where he was from.

The Environmental Working Group has a website showing all the recipients of this pork. Hopefully they can get some traction on the issue. Funny thing - there was a family when i went to HS that always had new cars to drive to school, nice clothes, etc. while the rest of us made do with a clean T & jeans. Guess who's in the top 5 recipients from our county :rolleyes:.

The editor of our county newspapers husband writes a column for the newspaper, he's a seed salesman. He's constantly ragging about what a ripoff ethanol is, I'm amazed he hasn't lost customers. But it will be interesting, some powerful committee chairs bit the dust last night, not sure the farmers lobby is strong enough to combat political survival.

Gerry Clinchy
11-04-2010, 12:47 AM
About the pre-existing conditions thing ... and compulsion to buy health insurance.

With Medicare, if you don't sign up for prescription coverage your first year on Medicare, you will pay a higher premium when you do sign up. I guess this is because they figure that you might wait to sign up until you need the coverage?

Secondly, if you don't sign up for it by Dec. 31 in a given year, you are not permitted to sign up for that entire ensuing year ... until 11/15 of the following year. Duh? Is there some reason why they forbid you to sign up for insurance for 11-1/2 months?

Can you hardly wait to see the regulations that will go along with the health care bill? I wonder if you will have to have insurance by 12/31 each year for the following year, but if you don't have insurance effective Jan. 1, you get hit with the penalty for the whole year?