• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bachmann: Health care law contains $105 billion in hidden pre-approved spending

j-mac said:
Ah politifact....The St. Pete times that was looked at for this and concluded that their editorial desk was Waaaaaaaay too involved with the supposed Fact Check to be honest....Again. Biased.


j-mac
Click to expand...

So it was not in the bill, the CBO manager is lying, and somehow democrats managed to get it in while they where not looking(even though it was in multiple versions of the bill)?
 
liblady said:
you seem very hostile lately. can bachmann prove her assertions? your source seems just a tad biased, btw.
Click to expand...


I am sure that any source that reports on this at all will be called biased by libs. But anyhoo.

Bachmann's also not the first person to point this out. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, tried earlier this year, without success, to block the $105 billion. The money was the subject of a study by Heritage Foundation fellow and former congressman Ernest Istook in late January.

Istook got his figures in large part from a Congressional Research Service report dated Oct. 14 of last year.

Though the information has been floating around in various Washington studies, Istook said the inclusion of up-front spending in the health care law is "extremely unusual."

"I am unaware of any other piece of authorizing legislation that included appropriations at all," he told FoxNews.com.

Istook wrote in January that the inclusion of the money was a major foul on Democrats' part. He accused the bill's authors of bypassing the normal appropriations process to block any future Congress from meddling with the money.

Bachmann Calls on Congress to Block $105B in Health Law Money - FoxNews.com
Click to expand...


So you tell me, would you feel all warm and fuzzy if repubs had a law they did this with?


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
I am sure that any source that reports on this at all will be called biased by libs. But anyhoo.




So you tell me, would you feel all warm and fuzzy if repubs had a law they did this with?


j-mac
Click to expand...
Let's just be honest. If this were a bill you agreed with you wouldn't give two ****s that the bill actually spent money in order to fund the bill.

As long as you argue from the position that this money, that was in multiple versions of the bill and was scored by the CBO and wasn't tossed in at the last minute, was "hidden" in the bill then I think that proves you aren't here for honest debate and I'd rather not waste my time debating something that really should be plainly obvious to you.
 
hazlnut said:
Bachman is an idiot. Everyone knows that. Anything she says is worthless.
Click to expand...

She could run rings around your sorry ass, and that of any putz Dem in congress with her knowledge of the constitution. Fact for you, 'Nut.

Too funny the same old pathetic card comes out every time you worthless bags of feces disagree with someone. Congrats on being a perfect cliche. Give yourself a hand.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Let's just be honest. If this were a bill you agreed with you wouldn't give two ****s that the bill actually spent money in order to fund the bill.

As long as you argue from the position that this money, that was in multiple versions of the bill and was scored by the CBO and wasn't tossed in at the last minute, was "hidden" in the bill then I think that proves you aren't here for honest debate and I'd rather not waste my time debating something that really should be plainly obvious to you.
Click to expand...


So then don't debate. I accept your concession. You were really only in here to derail from honest debate to start with.....


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
To the libs in here thinking they are funny or something....This is serious business, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid hid appropriations in this law that are illegal, and bypass the legal channels to fund their crap plan. So instead of the usual attacking of the person telling us about what is to be discussed ie: Bachmann can you snarky little libs talk about the 105 billion, you know the actual topic of the thread?

j-mac
Click to expand...


They don't care, Mac. Their collective stupidity is always on display. They would rather try and win a pissing match than look at reality. Impressive, huh?
 
So if it turns out that money was secretly spent on a bill that turns out to be ruled unconstitutional, and Obama ignored that ruling altogether.......

What now?
 
Ed Gein said:
They don't care, Mac. Their collective stupidity is always on display. They would rather try and win a pissing match than look at reality. Impressive, huh?
Click to expand...


I must agree. It is sad. See I am one to believe that progressive thinking in politics infected both parties in the past hundred years, and when the repub progressives lost to demo they learned a lesson that we are now finding out was not learned by demo's, and that is that this radical spend happy crap is no longer in vogue. They will pay for lying.


j-mac
 
Erod said:
So if it turns out that money was secretly spent on a bill that turns out to be ruled unconstitutional, and Obama ignored that ruling altogether.......

What now?
Click to expand...
The money wasn't "secretly spent," follow the link is my previous post.
 
pbrauer said:
Politifact knocked this one down:

PolitiFact | Bachmann's $105 billion charge: Was the funding secret?
Click to expand...


There is your first problem believing politifact.

Study finds PolitiFact rates Republican statements false 3 times the rate of Democrats
A February 2011 study published by the University of Minnesota’s Smart Politics news site, a part of the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, finds a significant bias on the part of PolitiFact in favor of statements made by Democrats: “That means a supermajority of falsehoods documented by PolitiFact over the last year – 76 percent – were attributed to Republicans, with just 22 percent of such statements coming from Democrats.”

A glance at the most recent PolitiFact ratings by the Oregonian would definitely support findings of a pro-Democrat bias.

The University of Minnesota’s Smart Politics study especially calls out “how statements are selected” by PolitiFact: “there remains a fundamental question of which statements (by which politicians) are targeted for analysis in the first place. A Smart Politics content analysis of more than 500 PolitiFact stories from January 2010 through January 2011 finds that current and former Republican officeholders have been assigned substantially harsher grades by the news organization than their Democratic counterparts.”

Study finds significant pro-Democrat bias by PolitiFact | The Oregon Catalyst
Click to expand...

Analysis of the study here:

Smart Politics - Selection Bias? PolitiFact Rates Republican Statements as False at 3 Times the Rate of Democrats


j-mac
 
Will one of you conservatives who is freaking out about this explain to me how, exactly, this money was "hidden?"

By putting it in the bill?

edit: maybe they're mad they didn't get a certified letter personally informing them?
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Will one of you conservatives who is freaking out about this explain to me how, exactly, this money was "hidden?"

By putting it in the bill?

edit: maybe they're mad they didn't get a certified letter personally informing them?
Click to expand...

Right. Something clearly written is not hidden.
 
Redress said:
So it was not in the bill, the CBO manager is lying, and somehow democrats managed to get it in while they where not looking(even though it was in multiple versions of the bill)?
Click to expand...

Just making sure you saw these questions J-mac.
 
Erod said:
So if it turns out that money was secretly spent on a bill that turns out to be ruled unconstitutional, and Obama ignored that ruling altogether.......

What now?
Click to expand...

Except that it turns out the money was openly in the bill, the CBO even made their projections figuring with that money, and the law has been rules to be constitutional as often as unconstitutional. So other than being wrong about every single thing you presented, you got it.
 
case-closed.jpg
 
Redress said:
Except that it turns out the money was openly in the bill, the CBO even made their projections figuring with that money, and the law has been rules to be constitutional as often as unconstitutional. So other than being wrong about every single thing you presented, you got it.
Click to expand...

Reality has a liberal bias.
 
Boo Radley said:
As we all know, lies are always equal. Bob always lies as much Tom. reconizing difference is always a sign of bias. :coffeepap
Click to expand...


Are you saying that liberal lies are better than repub lies?


j-mac
 
Redress said:
Just making sure you saw these questions J-mac.
Click to expand...


Yep I saw them Red. And to tell you the truth, there is an aspect of truth in what you are saying....It was in the bill when offered. However, when you hand over a 2,700 page bill literally hours before the vote on that bill in the middle of the night, are you really telling me that all's on the up and up with that?


j-mac
 
Erod said:
So if it turns out that money was secretly spent on a bill that turns out to be ruled unconstitutional, and Obama ignored that ruling altogether.......

What now?
Click to expand...

Either way, the taxpayers aren't going to see the 105 billion ever again. It's as good as gone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom