Obama on Fox

[Clay Rogers]

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]

[quote=dnf777;585569]

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]

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]

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]

Oh, yes ... I've been working all day, so just now reading the thread

[YardleyLabs]

I didn't realize Reagan was pres in 2003

Sorry, January 1983.

[YardleyLabs]

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]

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]

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]

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.