• 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!

Republican Attacks FISHY White House Request

I just don't buy this sudden fear of how we're going to pay for things that some people claim. I heard none of these fears when Bush got this country into two never ending wars & cut taxes at the same time.

  1. The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan were never intended to be perpetual. The Anti-Republicans want GovernmentCare to be perpetual.
  2. War is a proper use of the public fisc. We pay taxes so the government has the money to overseas and blow things up. :mrgreen:
  3. Folks on both sides complained about Bush's spending--and complained more loudly as the spending went on. Dear Leader continued the spending, so the complaining has gotten still louder.
  4. Whatever mistakes were made in the past do not justify perpetuating those mistakes in the future. If it was wrong for Bush to spend, it is wrong for Dear Leader to spend, and it is doubly wrong for him to spend at a ten times the rate of Bush.
  5. The American people have said "enough" to deficit spending. "We the people" still run this country. Dear Leader needs to listen and put his shopaholism in neutral.
"Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words: 'We the people.' 'We the people' tell the government what to do, it doesn't tell us. 'We the people' are the driver, the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast. Almost all the world's constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our Constitution is a document in which 'We the people' tell the government what it is allowed to do. 'We the people' are free.
 
I disagree, spending on the war was an issue by some, I don't have a problem if the spending is efficient when it comes to defense, as that is a power and responsibilty of the fed, there were, however, some inefficiencies and we will certainly be paying for those.

I say spending is spending. If we cant afford it, it doesn't matter what iut's for.

I don't know whether it is fake fiscal responsibility on the Republican side or that the offenders were removed from office by the voters, time will tell on that.

If you look at most of the loudest Repub pols/leaders who are now screaming "Fiscal Responsibility" they are the very same ones who said nothing under Bush. (Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA)

Here's the thing though, polling is showing that americans in fact don't want UHC as it is being presented, so it's hard to say definitively that these are staged protests, I would need rock solid, unbiased proof.

It depends strictly on which polls you read. The fact is that Obama was elected with his promise of instituting major HC reform in this country. Most Americans believe we desperately need to change the present system & I believe the GOP is simply acting as a front for the HC industry & wants to protect corporate profits by stopping ANY meaningful reforms.



Nice to be able to exchange views with you, without resorting to name calling & hysteria that some resort to on this forum.
Thanks for being civil!:)
 
I say spending is spending. If we cant afford it, it doesn't matter what iut's for.
The verdict of the CBO--we can't afford GovernmentCare.

If you look at most of the loudest Repub pols/leaders who are now screaming "Fiscal Responsibility" they are the very same ones who said nothing under Bush. (Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA)
Why does that matter? If, as you say, "spending is spending," and we shouldn't spend what we can't afford, and the CBO confirms we cannot afford GovernmentCare, why not make common cause with these people on a point they happen to have correct?

Is it so important to oppose these men that fiscal prudence is pushed to the back, and partisan politicking takes precedence?
 
I say spending is spending. If we cant afford it, it doesn't matter what iut's for.
On it's face you are correct, but IMO it goes further, there is legitimate spending and then there is what we've had for close to a century in this country, all beauracracies are inefficient, so none are immune to criticism, but it is a failing of the system itself, inefficiency is encouraged by policy, instead of punished. The earmarks were another problem, they are a gross misuse of the public purse and both parties are guilty to a high degree, I make no excuses for my side, and in fact that is a large reason many of them were sent back to the private sector.



If you look at most of the loudest Repub pols/leaders who are now screaming "Fiscal Responsibility" they are the very same ones who said nothing under Bush. (Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA)
They did tow the party line, I am not sure if they were up for election that year or not, but it is an interesting point, if they are deemed that bad, they will be gone soon, which is the overall point, people are getting sick of out of control spending from both sides.



It depends strictly on which polls you read. The fact is that Obama was elected with his promise of instituting major HC reform in this country. Most Americans believe we desperately need to change the present system & I believe the GOP is simply acting as a front for the HC industry & wants to protect corporate profits by stopping ANY meaningful reforms.
The two I trust the most are Zogby and Rasmussen, partially because their methodology is open, partially because they sample correctly and use random variables, and mainly because their numbers seem to line up more often than not. They are what I am basing the argument off of.


Nice to be able to exchange views with you, without resorting to name calling & hysteria that some resort to on this forum.
Thanks for being civil!:)
Sure thing.
 
  1. The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan were never intended to be perpetual. The Anti-Republicans want GovernmentCare to be perpetual.

  1. A short term bad thing is still bad & a long term good thing is still good.

    [*]War is a proper use of the public fisc. We pay taxes so the government has the money to overseas and blow things up. :mrgreen:
    I disagree. Not ALL wars are a "proper use of the public fisc"
    (especially if started based on decieving the Congress & public)

    [*]Folks on both sides complained about Bush's spending--and complained more loudly as the spending went on.
    Really?...Have a link to any of the following Repub leaders complaining about Bush's spending?..Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA)



    [*]The American people have said "enough" to deficit spending. "We the people" still run this country. Dear Leader needs to listen and put his shopaholism in neutral.

It isn't the American people who have said that, it's the GOP. The American people elected Obama knowing full well of his intentions to inject lots of money into our economy & to reform HC.
Saying something doesn't make it so.;)
 
Associated Press account of Waxman/Rangel

The Associated Press: A look at health care plans in Congress

A look at the House Democratic bill:

WHO'S COVERED: Around 94 percent of non-elderly residents (those not covered by Medicare, which kicks in at age 65) would be covered — compared with 81 percent today. Nearly half of the 17 million non-elderly residents who remain uninsured would be illegal immigrants.

COST: About $1.5 trillion over 10 years.

HOW IT'S PAID FOR: Revenue-raisers include: $544 billion over the next decade from new income taxes on single people making more than $280,000 a year and couples making more than $350,000; $37 billion in business tax increases. About $500 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. About $200 billion from penalties paid by individuals and employers who don't obtain coverage.

REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS: Individuals must have insurance, enforced through tax penalty with hardship waivers. The penalty is 2.5 percent of income.

REQUIREMENTS FOR EMPLOYERS: Employers must provide insurance to their employees or pay a penalty of 8 percent of payroll. Companies with payroll under $250,000 annually are exempt.

Employers could apply for a two-year exemption from the mandate if they can prove the requirements would result in job losses that would negatively impact their communities.

SUBSIDIES: Individuals and families with annual income up to 400 percent of poverty level ($88,000 for a family of four) would get sliding-scale subsidies to help them buy coverage. The subsidies would begin in 2013.

HOW YOU CHOOSE YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE: Through a new Health Insurance Exchange open to individuals and, initially, small employers; it could be expanded to large employers over time. States could opt to operate their own exchanges in place of the national exchange if they follow federal rules.

BENEFIT PACKAGE: A committee would recommend an "essential benefits package" including preventive services, mental health services, oral heath and vision for children; out-of pocket costs would be capped. The new benefit package would be the basic benefit package offered in the exchange and over time would become the minimum quality standard for employer plans. Insurers wouldn't be able to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

GOVERNMENT-RUN PLAN: A new public plan available through the insurance exchanges would be set up and run by the secretary of Health and Human Services. On average it would pay Medicare rates plus 5 percent to doctors.

CHANGES TO MEDICAID: The federal-state insurance program for the poor would be expanded starting in 2013 to cover all non-elderly individuals with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level ($14,404).
 
The verdict of the CBO--we can't afford GovernmentCare.

Have a link where the CBO reports that we can't afford ANY type of government care?...No matter how the legislation is worded???...& considering we already have
govrnment care in the form of Medicare & Medicaid.
 
From ABC

CBO/Elmendorf's CRITICAL testimony before Baucus' GATEWAY committee (Senate Finance), July 16, elicited by questioning from Kent Conrad (hardly a Mitch McConnell), the single most important day/moment so far in the young Obama presidency, the very instant when CBO testified that the COST CURVE under Waxman/Rangel, rather than reversing its trajectory as required to justify/rationalize Obama's most basic ambitions instead rather steepens its assent SIGNIFICANTLY

emphases and underscores mine

CBO Sees No Net Federal Cost Savings in Dem Health Plans - The Note

Here's a blow to President Obama and Democrats pressing health care reform.

One of the main arguments made by the President and others for investing in health reform now is that it will save the federal government money in the long run by containing costs.

Turns out that may not be the case, according to Doug Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Answering questions from Democrat Kent Conrad of North Dakota at a hearing of the Senate Budget Committee today, Elmendorf said CBO does not see health care cost savings in either of the partisan Democratic bills currently in Congress.

Conrad: Dr. Elmendorf, I am going to really put you on the spot because we are in the middle of this health care debate, but it is critically important that we get this right. Everyone has said, virtually everyone, that bending the cost curve over time is critically important and one of the key goals of this entire effort. From what you have seen from the products of the committees that have reported, do you see a successful effort being mounted to bend the long-term cost curve?

Elmendorf: No, Mr. Chairman. In the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs.
 
From ABC

CBO/Elmendorf's CRITICAL testimony before Baucus' GATEWAY committee (Senate Finance), July 16, elicited by questioning from Kent Conrad (hardly a Mitch McConnell), the single most important day/moment so far in the young Obama presidency, the very instant when CBO testified that the COST CURVE under Waxman/Rangel, rather than reversing its trajectory as required to justify/rationalize Obama's most basic ambitions instead rather steepens its assent SIGNIFICANTLY

emphases and underscores mine

CBO Sees No Net Federal Cost Savings in Dem Health Plans - The Note

Here's a blow to President Obama and Democrats pressing health care reform.

One of the main arguments made by the President and others for investing in health reform now is that it will save the federal government money in the long run by containing costs.

Turns out that may not be the case, according to Doug Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Answering questions from Democrat Kent Conrad of North Dakota at a hearing of the Senate Budget Committee today, Elmendorf said CBO does not see health care cost savings in either of the partisan Democratic bills currently in Congress.

Conrad: Dr. Elmendorf, I am going to really put you on the spot because we are in the middle of this health care debate, but it is critically important that we get this right. Everyone has said, virtually everyone, that bending the cost curve over time is critically important and one of the key goals of this entire effort. From what you have seen from the products of the committees that have reported, do you see a successful effort being mounted to bend the long-term cost curve?

Elmendorf: No, Mr. Chairman. In the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs.

The HC reform plan is a work in progress so CBO has no final product to look at yet. It can be changed but it will not be killed this time!...Bank on it!
 
your thinking is immature, you are not serious

Ah...There we go...The old (discredited) Karl Rove tactic of always resort to personal attack. It didn't work last November when you tried to convince us that Obama "Palled around with terrorists".....& it won't work now. The country has moved beyond your party's slash & burn, scare tactics.
(How you guys been doing with elections in the last 4 years?):lol:
 
The HC reform plan is a work in progress so CBO has no final product to look at yet. It can be changed but it will not be killed this time!...Bank on it!

tell it to mr elmendorf and mr baucus
 
Ah...There we go...The old (discredited) Karl Rove tactic of always resort to personal attack. It didn't work last November when you tried to convince us that Obama "Palled around with terrorists".....& it won't work now. The country has moved beyond your party's slash & burn, scare tactics.
(How you guys been doing with elections in the last 4 years?):lol:

no, sir, The perpetually upright Prof does not stoop to personal aspersions

your claim that my genuine, heartfelt concerns with what's going on in washington are the mere empty mouthings of statefarm insurance or what you presume (LOLOL!) to be my party are not serious

ie, they're half baked, or immature

1. waxman/rangel FINES folks caught uninsured

2. it forces our friends to purchase coverage, hardly the help they were promised

3. waxman/rangel contains massive cuts to medicare and medicaid

4. it covers illegals

5. it changes the rules concerning funding abortion

6. its numbers are not sustainable, ie, the COST CURVE

7. it looks to make ruthlessly pragmatic savings in the areas of END OF LIFE expenses

8. the prez hasn't read it, his press secty said the prez has no intention of reading it

9. the prez himself says it's foot-in-the-door to down-the-road nationalization

10. the senate version looks to tax med benefits, just like john mccain

my sentiments are sincere, i am a serious person

sorry
 
no, sir, The perpetually upright Prof does not stoop to personal aspersions

your claim that my genuine, heartfelt concerns with what's going on in washington are the mere empty mouthings of statefarm insurance or what you presume (LOLOL!) to be my party are not serious

ie, they're half baked, or immature

1. waxman/rangel FINES folks caught uninsured

2. it forces our friends to purchase coverage, hardly the help they were promised

3. waxman/rangel contains massive cuts to medicare and medicaid

4. it covers illegals

5. it changes the rules concerning funding abortion

6. its numbers are not sustainable, ie, the COST CURVE

7. it looks to make ruthlessly pragmatic savings in the areas of END OF LIFE expenses

8. the prez hasn't read it, his press secty said the prez has no intention of reading it

9. the prez himself says it's foot-in-the-door to down-the-road nationalization

10. the senate version looks to tax med benefits, just like john mccain

my sentiments are sincere, i am a serious person

sorry

You are newer here than I am but, since your concerns appear to be Fox News/RNC canned talking points, I'd be interested in any links you could provide to any debate forum where, during the Bush Presidency you voiced similar strong fiscal or other concerns.
(I may be wrong & will be glad to retract my words....but have the feeling that your concerns ONLY arise when there is a Democrat in the White House)
 
Last edited:
You are newer here than I am but, since your concerns appear to be Fox News/RNC canned talking points, I'd be interested in any links you could provide to any debate forum where, during the Bush Presidency you voiced similar strong fiscal or other concerns.
(I may be wrong & will be glad to retract my words....but have the feeling that your concerns ONLY arise when there is a Democrat in the White House)

how utterly unserious

i provided ten links concerning the issues in question

you have brought nothing except empty allegations about paid ops, boogiemen wearing michael steele masks and guarantees of ironclad proof

LOLOL!

once more:

1. waxman/rangel FINES folks caught uninsured

2. it forces our friends to purchase coverage, hardly the help they were promised

3. waxman/rangel contains massive cuts to medicare and medicaid

4. it covers illegals

5. it changes the rules concerning funding abortion

6. its numbers are not sustainable, ie, the COST CURVE

7. it looks to make ruthlessly pragmatic savings in the areas of END OF LIFE expenses

8. the prez hasn't read it, his press secty said the prez has no intention of reading it

9. the prez himself says it's foot-in-the-door to down-the-road nationalization

10. the senate version looks to tax med benefits, just like john mccain

in the name of self respect, grow up
 
Devil505 said:
You are newer here than I am but, since your concerns appear to be Fox News/RNC canned talking points, I'd be interested in any links you could provide to any debate forum where, during the Bush Presidency you voiced similar strong fiscal or other concerns.
(I may be wrong & will be glad to retract my words....but have the feeling that your concerns ONLY arise when there is a Democrat in the White House)
Many conservatives were unhappy with Bush as well. He did not have a 22% approval rating because only 22% of Americans were conservative. The right did protest Bush, actually. The number is simply growing rapidly as people protest Obama (which seems logical considering he is much more radical in his spending).

Here are 2 reasons why Obama is seeing more protest from conservatives than Bush:

1. Obama's spending dwarfs the spending that occured under Bush.
2. It takes time for people to get angry enough to protest. Bush's spending set of a spark, and Obama's spending grew that spark into a fire.

What I would like to ask is why are the liberals who protested Bush not protesting Obama? One of the biggest complaints against Bush was how he increased the national debt. Yet Obama is doing the same thing. The question can be asked of both sides.
 
Many conservatives were unhappy with Bush as well. He did not have a 22% approval rating because only 22% of Americans were conservative. The right did protest Bush, actually. The number is simply growing rapidly as people protest Obama (which seems logical considering he is much more radical in his spending).

Here are 2 reasons why Obama is seeing more protest from conservatives than Bush:

1. Obama's spending dwarfs the spending that occured under Bush.
2. It takes time for people to get angry enough to protest. Bush's spending set of a spark, and Obama's spending grew that spark into a fire.

What I would like to ask is why are the liberals who protested Bush not protesting Obama? One of the biggest complaints against Bush was how he increased the national debt. Yet Obama is doing the same thing. The question can be asked of both sides.

Fair question & if given some time I would be glad to post links to many scathing arguments I have posted against many of Obma's policies (Keeping Geithner at Treasury, not prosecuting people for torture & political firing, etc)
The fact that Obama's spending is high is no surprise to anyone. It was get him elected President & it is investing in America's infrastructure (rather than Exxon-Mobil & Haliburton or paying bribes to Iraqi leaders.) & was necessitated by bringing us to near depression.
Can you link to any anti-Bush or anti-Repub posts you made anywhere?
 
Last edited:
I agree with trying to stamp out the lies about the health care reform. It's the very strategy of the right here. Much of what has been disseminated (i.e. it's socialist, rationing, death of elderly, etc) are lies. People need to make up their mind on this based on facts and the right don't seem to want to use facts.
So you're saying that the right is as bad as the left when it comes to honesty?
 
OK...Well within the promised time period (7 days) here is the first part of my proof: (there will be more)

(I kept my part of the bargain now it's time for you (Celticlord) to keep yours by acknowledging she was a Republican operative attempting to deceive the public by "Posing" as just an unaffiliated, concerned citizen)

I suggest that this first bit of hard evidence I linked to should suffice to remove this thread from Conspiracy Theories & put it in political scandals dujour as promised in a mod PM.

Think Progress Woman Who Said She Was ‘Just A Mom’ At Town Hall Meeting Is Exposed As A Republican Operative.
Think Progress Woman Who Said She Was ‘Just A Mom’ At Town Hall Meeting Is Exposed As A Republican Operative
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom