Obama - Worst President Ever?

[WRESTLINGFAN]

By the stuff you post.
By the way you keep changing the subject. Jusr look over the last 3 or 4 hours in this thread at how you keep bringing up something new each time someone responds to one of your bumper sticker cliches.
Like I said, the Founding Fathers believed the Constitution they wrote and implemented gave them the authority to impose heath insurance on private industry because they did it.
The first bill was signed into law in 1790 and expanded several years later under President Adams.
The right wing pundits will not tell you that, any more than they'll tell you Lincoln was a progressive, that the Republican conservatives in the South by and large used to be Democrats and went over to the GOP when civil rights came along. Just like they won't tell you the Republicans who helped get the Civil Rights Act were liberals helping President Johnson get past some conservative Democrats.
Learn history the old fashioned way, my friend.
Getting it from Tenthers and pundits will burn those fingers repeatedly.
Stop touching that hot stove........


The founders did not envision The Federal Government mandating an individual to purchase anything to their specifications. What you are stating is totally different. What this healthcare bill states is that an individual MUST purchase insurance that fits the governments requirements.

Insurance is regulated by the States. So in your world you would be ok if the Gov't said we all must purchase a certain color of car

[high fly]

When was the law passed and signed by the president. Youre all over the place


No, I have been consistent. The committee was established by the First Congress on July 20, 1789.
The legislation was passed in 1790.
It was further expanded several years later.
I'd tell you when, but I'd like at least one more post by you indicating you have no idea what this program was. I know, it is a shock to first hear what the Founding Fathers did when they implemented the Constitution they wrote.


I happen to know the powers and limits of the constitution so your silly comments arent impressing me sir


I don't think so.
You have heard pundits who acted as if they knew history and you can't imagine they'd decieve you, but they have. There is nothing silly about the Founding Fathers imposing a health insurance program on perhaps the largest industry in our nation in the 1700s, but they did.
Contrary to what the pundits and the Tenthers tell you, the Founding Fathers believed the Constitution THEY wrote and which THEY carried out gave them this authority in terms of health care.
It is not silly, it is historic fact.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

No, I have been consistent. The committee was established by the First Congress on July 20, 1789.
The legislation was passed in 1790.
It was further expanded several years later.
I'd tell you when, but I'd like at least one more post by you indicating you have no idea what this program was. I know, it is a shock to first hear what the Founding Fathers did when they implemented the Constitution they wrote.




I don't think so.
You have heard pundits who acted as if they knew history and you can't imagine they'd decieve you, but they have. There is nothing silly about the Founding Fathers imposing a health insurance program on perhaps the largest industry in our nation in the 1700s, but they did.
Contrary to what the pundits and the Tenthers tell you, the Founding Fathers believed the Constitution THEY wrote and which THEY carried out gave them this authority in terms of health care.
It is not silly, it is historic fact.

Agreed, the founders believed every word when they were debating and eventually ratified the Constitution. It gave the federal government certain powers which had limits.

I look it and analyze it according to my interpretations of it. Everyone has their own different interpretation. Do you think most people can understand and explain the 3/5 of a person clause?

[high fly]

The founders did not envision The Federal Government mandating an individual to purchase anything to their specifications. What you are stating is totally different. What this healthcare bill states is that an individual MUST purchase insurance that fits the governments requirements.



Sorry, you are just plain wrong.
The Founding Fathers mandated the first health insurance program in the country. Individuals were required to pay into it in the form of a federal tax. Industry also was required to provide health care according to federal specifications.
The federal government purchased a string of hospitals to care for these individual (civilian) citizens.

Haven't found it yet?

Give up?

[high fly]

I look it and analyze it according to my interpretations of it. Everyone has their own different interpretation. Do you think most people can understand and explain the 3/5 of a person clause?

Rather than change the subject to the 3/5th clause, I'd prefer to stay on the topic of whether the Constitution allows the federal government to impose health insurance on private industry.
Ys, you are of course correct, there are many interpretations. As we grow older we often change our own interpretations as does the Supreme Court.
I like goin back and seeing what the Founding Fathers themselves believd the Constitution authorized. In this case, not just their words, but their actions are right there showing us clear as can be that they believed the Constitution allows what I said and describe.
The Tenthers and pundits have misled you.
Stop touching that hot stove....

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Rather than change the subject to the 3/5th clause, I'd prefer to stay on the topic of whether the Constitution allows the federal government to impose health insurance on private industry.
Ys, you are of course correct, there are many interpretations. As we grow older we often change our own interpretations as does the Supreme Court.
I like goin back and seeing what the Founding Fathers themselves believd the Constitution authorized. In this case, not just their words, but their actions are right there showing us clear as can be that they believed the Constitution allows what I said and describe.
The Tenthers and pundits have misled you.
Stop touching that hot stove....

Was this law repealed and so when? Why are you bringing up tenthers and pundits? They don't speak for me. I think you are taking the General welfare clause in a literal way of Welfare. Maybe im wrong

I look at General welfare clause forbidding the Fed govt to expand beyond what was intended to do so

[high fly]

Was this law repealed and so when? Why are you bringing up tenthers and pundits? They don't speak for me. I think you are taking the General welfare clause in a literal way of Welfare. Maybe im wrong

I look at General welfare clause forbidding the Fed govt to expand beyond what was intended to do so



Never repealed to my knowledge and I am not talking about any clauses. I am talking about specific legislation that imposed the tax, imposed the health insurance program on private industry, imposed federal specifications, and everthing else I said - and which is contrary to what you have heard. You just can't imagine it being so, not what I described, right?
Like I keep saying, it is what the authors - the Founding Fathers believed the Constitution allowed because this is just what they did.
Their actions are clear - the Constitution allows the federal government to impose just what I said.
You have been sold an interpretation of the Constitution that was held by a minority of Fiounding Fathers and shot down by the Supreme Court.
The Tenthers and the pundits will not tell you that.
They want you to keep on touching that hot stove...

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Never repealed to my knowledge and I am not talking about any clauses. I am talking about specific legislation that imposed the tax, imposed the health insurance program on private industry, imposed federal specifications, and everthing else I said - and which is contrary to what you have heard. You just can't imagine it being so, not what I described, right?
Like I keep saying, it is what the authors - the Founding Fathers believed the Constitution allowed because this is just what they did.
Their actions are clear - the Constitution allows the federal government to impose just what I said.
You have been sold an interpretation of the Constitution that was held by a minority of Fiounding Fathers and shot down by the Supreme Court.
The Tenthers and the pundits will not tell you that.
They want you to keep on touching that hot stove...


Fuck the tenthers and pundits. I dont need them to explain it to me. I view the document as giving the Federal government certain powers and not being overbearing

This law passed committee in 1790. Adams wasnt elected until 1797 if Im correct. Did this law have punishments of fines or jailtime if not adhered to?

What were the specifics and penalties? Was this bill tucked away and never enforced?

[TheMojoPin]

I tend to lean towards WF in my opinions but Mojo, you saying anyone's opinion "rings hollow" because they're partisan is hysterical.

That's not what I'm doing. I'm calling him out for being partisan and not copping to it. He continually tries to dress up his criticism by saying he felt this way for years now and then trot out a couple of names of Republicans he says he doesn't like when it's clear as day that his biggest problem with all of this is that it's the Democrats doing ths spending and he doesn't like what they're spending the money on. I don't care if someone is partisan; I make no effort to hide my politics and nor should anyone else, but I don't try and spin it like I'm approaching this issues with some kind of "middle" perspective. WF claims to be against big government and government spending, yet he continually champions draconian anti-illegal immigration measures that would be insanely expensive and would expand the government to absurd levels. We didn't hear a peep out of him when Bush was cutting taxes during a war and escalating government spending left and right. He's not against government spending: he's against Democratic government spending. I just would like him to fess up and stop trying to dress up his criticisms as being "fair and balanced." He doesn't like Obama and the Democrats and that's fine, but why try and spin it?

[WRESTLINGFAN]

That's not what I'm doing. I'm calling him out for being partisan and not copping to it. He continually tries to dress up his criticism by saying he felt this way for years now and then trot out a couple of names of Republicans he says he doesn't like when it's clear as day that his biggest problem with all of this is that it's the Democrats doing ths spending and he doesn't like what they're spending the money on. I don't care if someone is partisan; I make no effort to hide my politics and nor should anyone else, but I don't try and spin it like I'm approaching this issues with some kind of "middle" perspective. WF claims to be against big government and government spending, yet he continually champions draconian anti-illegal immigration measures that would be insanely expensive and would expand the government to absurd levels. We didn't hear a peep out of him when Bush was cutting taxes during a war and escalating government spending left and right. He's not against government spending: he's against Democratic government spending. I just would like him to fess up and stop trying to dress up his criticisms as being "fair and balanced." He doesn't like Obama and the Democrats and that's fine, but why try and spin it?

As far as illegal immigration measures, I never called for a police state that would stop every brown person. Thats counter productive However what is wrong with punishing people who hire and rent to illegal aliens? Why are we letting illegals who continue to get DWI's and commit other crimes to stay?. If the Fed gov't spent 100 billion to reduce illegal immigration which whould save hundreds of billions in entitlements, incarceration etc. Whats wrong with that? Since the stimulus passed there should be billions for border enforcement and going to ICE
Local communities are using the 287 G program and its working effectively

I always criticized Bush about the massive Spending and always said that he wasn't a fiscal conservative.

[TheMojoPin]

Bottom line, in terms of this board you kept your opinions along these lines all but silent during the Bush years except when it came to immigration issues. Then Obama and the Democrats take the White House and the flood gates opened. Hell, I think I've offered up more criticism of the Obama administration so far than you did in all the years you were a member here and the Republicans were in the White House.

Again, I have no issue with you or anyone else being partisan...I just find it ridiculous that you insist that you're not partisan on these issues when you clearly are. Who gives a shit if you are? These are your views and you should stand by them. There's no need to spin them as being equally targeted across the political spectrum.

[high fly]

Fuck the tenthers and pundits. I dont need them to explain it to me. I view the document as giving the Federal government certain powers and not being overbearing

This law passed committee in 1790. Adams wasnt elected until 1797 if Im correct. Did this law have punishments of fines or jailtime if not adhered to?

What were the specifics and penalties? Was this bill tucked away and never enforced?


Not sure about penalties.
Nothing was "tucked away." It was a major initiative of the day. The first bill was passed in 1790 and under Adams they had to expand it.
Like I said, it imposed the first health insurance in America on private industry, imposed a tax on citizens, imposed federal specifications, and did so on perhaps the largest industry of the early republic.
Just about all of those things you have said were not possible, yet this is what the Founding Fathers believed the Constitution allowed and they saw implementing this program as vital to the nation.

It was in 1798 that the program was expanded, I forget what they added, it may have been the tax because before then they just mandated the health insurance on industry with no way to fund it, but I'm not sure. They began purchasing the first of 27 federally-administered hospitals in 1799 or 1800 and the program expanded much much more than that.
Ready to admit you're stumped?
I got links and stuff, but I first wanted to get you on record as saying all of this was impossible.

[high fly]

Agreed, the founders believed every word when they were debating and eventually ratified the Constitution. It gave the federal government certain powers which had limits.

I look it and analyze it according to my interpretations of it. Everyone has their own different interpretation.


Look at the scope of authority they believe it gave them in health care. Like I said it allowed them to impose a health insurance plan on private industry.
I taxed individuals, and was a major program, not just some teensy little thing. Tomorrow I'll give you the details which contradict what you have believed possible under the Constitution. You will have to decide who had the more accurate understanding and interpretation of the Constitutution, the authors and the way the implemented the Constitution they wrote, or some latter day pundits with an agenda and a bunch of goofball tenthers?

One hopes you won't keep going back and touching the hot stove which has burned you by leading you to such a false imprssion of the Constitution and American history....

[keithy_19]

I am not one of these follow the party guys at all


Oh, but I am.

http://www.groupii.com/mcparty/images/KidsParty.jpg

[Ogre]

Again, I have no issue with you or anyone else being partisan...I just find it ridiculous that you insist that you're not partisan on these issues when you clearly are. Who gives a shit if you are? These are your views and you should stand by them. There's no need to spin them as being equally targeted across the political spectrum.

:clap:

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Bottom line, in terms of this board you kept your opinions along these lines all but silent during the Bush years except when it came to immigration issues. Then Obama and the Democrats take the White House and the flood gates opened. Hell, I think I've offered up more criticism of the Obama administration so far than you did in all the years you were a member here and the Republicans were in the White House.

Again, I have no issue with you or anyone else being partisan...I just find it ridiculous that you insist that you're not partisan on these issues when you clearly are. Who gives a shit if you are? These are your views and you should stand by them. There's no need to spin them as being equally targeted across the political spectrum.

On the issues such as Illegal immigration, A lot of Republicans and "free mkt" capitalists would want to tar and feather me. I don't know if thats partisan or not but thats a topic that I feel strongly about. I have no shame or reason to be ashamed on my views of that topic

On some social issues like Gay Marriage and drug legalization again, I would be thrown out of the GOPs big tent as that pisses off the evangelicals

People like Ensign, Sanford and others they are a bunch of hypocrites, I hope Sanford does get Impeached. Im sick of these family values Politicians lecturing to everyone meanwhile they are the biggest whores around

I classify myself as a fiscal conservative libertarian leaning with socially moderate views, However Im registered as an Indy

[GregoryJoseph]

Liberals are asking us to give Obama time.
We agree and think 25 to life would be appropriate.
**********************

America needs Obamacare like Nancy Pelosi needs a Halloween mask.
**********************

Q: Have you heard about McDonalds new Obama Value Meal?
A: Order anything you like and the guy behind you has to pay for it.
**********************

Q: What does Barack Obama call lunch with a convicted felon?
A: A fund raiser.
**********************

Q: What's the difference between Obama's cabinet and a penitentiary?
A: One is filled with tax evaders, blackmailers and threats to society.
The other is for housing prisoners.
**********************

If Pelosi, Reid, Kerry and Obama were on a boat in the middle of the ocean and it sank, who would be saved? .... America !
**********************

Q: What's the difference between Obama and his dog, Bo?
A: Bo has papers.

[TheMojoPin]

On the issues such as Illegal immigration, A lot of Republicans and "free mkt" capitalists would want to tar and feather me. I don't know if thats partisan or not but thats a topic that I feel strongly about. I have no shame or reason to be ashamed on my views of that topic

On some social issues like Gay Marriage and drug legalization again, I would be thrown out of the GOPs big tent as that pisses off the evangelicals

People like Ensign, Sanford and others they are a bunch of hypocrites, I hope Sanford does get Impeached. Im sick of these family values Politicians lecturing to everyone meanwhile they are the biggest whores around

I classify myself as a fiscal conservative libertarian leaning with socially moderate views, However Im registered as an Indy

You're never going to admit to what's glaringly obvious by your posting history. I really don't care that you don't like the Democrats and that you fall to the Right...just stop acting like you don't. You were all but silent when the Republicans were in charge and now you're suddenly going on multiple tirades about "big government" on a daily basis. You bitch and moan that people are making excuses whenever they bring up what occured over the last 8 years and you only want to focus on what's going now because that's the only way to you can spin it as a series of Democratic blunders as opposed to looking at it as a series of decisions (some good, some bad, some we simply don't know yet) over or in response to a long course of events. I don't know why you feel you have to try and justify yourself as some kind of moderate. If you simply don't like Democratic big spending and government, just say so.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

You're never going to admit to what's glaringly obvious by your posting history. I really don't care that you don't like the Democrats and that you fall to the Right...just stop acting like you don't. You were all but silent when the Republicans were in charge and now you're suddenly going on multiple tirades about "big government" on a daily basis. You bitch and moan that people are making excuses whenever they bring up what occured over the last 8 years and you only want to focus on what's going now because that's the only way to you can spin it as a series of Democratic blunders as opposed to looking at it as a series of decisions (some good, some bad, some we simply don't know yet) over or in response to a long course of events. I don't know why you feel you have to try and justify yourself as some kind of moderate. If you simply don't like Democratic big spending and government, just say so.

I am focusing on the blunders of the last 8 years and I stated them, But thinking that I only have a gripe with Democrats and not the GOP doesnt mean that I am partisan. I criticize the Dems more because their philosophy doesnt appeal to me. I dont like the Spending they are doing but being in the Minority thats what we do, we give out our opposition. Right or wrong thats how the country operates in that matter. I don't have a party at all as I stated because my views aren't in lockstep with the GOP

As far as Obama where's the Change? Arent renditions still going on? Haven't Civilians been Killed by Drone attacks. Everything Bush was accused of Doing in some way Obama is continuing that policy.

Goldman Sachs is up to its practices of the past again, There is no talk of regulation Cred Default Swaps and other derivatives for example. As I stated numerous times Why isnt Glass Steagle being reimplicated?

I don't think all this spending and piling more debt is fiscally sound, If McCain was doing this, I would have been opposed to it as well

[TheMojoPin]

We're all partisan here. I don't know you continue to insist that you're not.

Asking "where's the change?" as if anyone can just stop these things on a dime and turn it around is absurd. Obama has indeed let me down so far on a number of issues, but the majority of things confronting us right now that I want to see him deal with differently than we have for a long time now are going to take time. If we're looking, say, halfway or more into his first term in office and basically nothing's changed, I'll be right there with you looking for something else, but throwing a tantrum day after day less than a year into his first term simply is not being realistic. Critcism along those lines is just as unrealistic as the people you claim are everywhere who expect Obama to do these superhuman things in office. You have the same ridiculous expectations as the people you condemn for expecting the same. As with your takes on government spending, big government and looking back to the previous administration your take is exceedingly hypocritical because you ultimately take the same perspective of the people you critcize but just spin it your perspective and desires.

[HBox]

The gov’t can piss away $ like the best of ‘em. They certainly didn’t need that amount of spending for essentials. It’s incredible that people can actually stand up and try to defend the totality of that bill. All that spending in that bill does not, simply cannot, actually end up “creating jobs”. How many documented jobs have actually been created so far? ... Anyway, let’s just say they’ve “saved or created” 1,000,000 jobs so far and spent say half of it. That’s about $400,000 per job. Sign me up! Or even let’s say they’ve spent ¼ of it and created 2,000,000 jobs. That about $100,000 per job. Not bad! I’d love to see a rundown of those 2,000,000 $100,000 jobs. Even though none of that is actually true. I know I exaggerate a bit and have taken some liberties, but so does that bill. It’s helpful, but it’s a disaster in terms of spending many many 100s of billions of dollars that simply should not have been spent in that way.

In the healthcare post, it’s a point of view. Points of view are all good, but, my impression is that it’s distinctly a left of center one and does a “good” sales job – it sounds good but there are few specifics. They remain partisan bills lacking real input and consensus from relevant stakeholders. Period. I see in there the author quotes this gem in the second para:

“but I can't think of a thing to try that they didn't try. They really make the best effort anyone has ever made. Everything is in here....I can't think of anything I'd do that they are not doing in the bill. You couldn't have done better than they are doing.’ …”

Hmmmm. That kind of sets the tone. Then again it makes good talking points:

Obama makes a Ron Brownstein blog post mandatory reading for the West Wing (http://www.politico.com/playbook/1109/playbook874.html)

No one is saying “not now”. What’s being said is “not this”.

Bipartisan DOES NOT equal better bill. Not by a longshot. The opposition to this bill has made it clear in acts and words that they have not the slightest interest in seeing any bill pass. Chuck Grassley said as much in August, when he was also supposedly negotiating with Max Baucus. If the Republicans thought this was an important they would have done something when they were in power. Beyond the Medicare Prescription drug benefit, which is a bigger long term financial disaster than anything that has been passed recently by the way, they did almost nothing in the many years they had complete control of Washington. And it's not as if it wasn't a problem. It was, and it only got worse and worse faster and faster and they sat there twiddling their thumbs. They barely did anything with one of their ideas, Health Savings Accounts. If they didn't have enough confidence in that idea to further implement it when they were in power why the hell should a party that doesn't believe in that include it in their bill?

And that article has opinions from people who study this for a living and who were critical of prior efforts to restrain costs. At the end of the day that is what really matters. We need to do something to control rising costs. People keep throwing around this 1/6th of the economy thing. HEALTH CARE SPENDING SHOULDN'T BE THAT MUCH OF THE ECONOMY. We've left it in the hands of private industry for so long and all prices have done is get higher and higher. And why wouldn't they? They'd love to make more money. From insurers to doctors to hospitals. All of this is being done to 1. expand coverage and 2. hopefully one day shrink health care spending to less than 1/6th economy. Which is the ironic part of course. They are getting criticized for taking control of 1/6th of the economy when they are trying to shrink that sector to a reasonable level.

[epo]

Liberals are asking us to give Obama time.
We agree and think 25 to life would be appropriate.
**********************

America needs Obamacare like Nancy Pelosi needs a Halloween mask.
**********************

Q: Have you heard about McDonalds new Obama Value Meal?
A: Order anything you like and the guy behind you has to pay for it.
**********************

Q: What does Barack Obama call lunch with a convicted felon?
A: A fund raiser.
**********************

Q: What's the difference between Obama's cabinet and a penitentiary?
A: One is filled with tax evaders, blackmailers and threats to society.
The other is for housing prisoners.
**********************

If Pelosi, Reid, Kerry and Obama were on a boat in the middle of the ocean and it sank, who would be saved? .... America !
**********************

Q: What's the difference between Obama and his dog, Bo?
A: Bo has papers.

I almost reported that post to the moderators on the basis of "general stupidity".

[WRESTLINGFAN]

We're all partisan here. I don't know you continue to insist that you're not.

Asking "where's the change?" as if anyone can just stop these things on a dime and turn it around is absurd. Obama has indeed let me down so far on a number of issues, but the majority of things confronting us right now that I want to see him deal with differently than we have for a long time now are going to take time. If we're looking, say, halfway or more into his first term in office and basically nothing's changed, I'll be right there with you looking for something else, but throwing a tantrum day after day less than a year into his first term simply is not being realistic. Critcism along those lines is just as unrealistic as the people you claim are everywhere who expect Obama to do these superhuman things in office. You have the same ridiculous expectations as the people you condemn for expecting the same. As with your takes on government spending, big government and looking back to the previous administration your take is exceedingly hypocritical because you ultimately take the same perspective of the people you critcize but just spin it your perspective and desires.

In cases of taxes and gov't spending Im not one of these anarchists. I realize that there needs to be some revenue taking by he gov't to fund the military, run the basic functions of gov't for example

I don't honestly know how much It would cost for increased border security, deporting illegal aliens who commit crimes and enforcing workplace raids. Maybe 100 billion? Thats far less than the Stimulus, TARP, Bailing of FRE, FNMA GM/Chrysler Bush's Stimulus back in 2008 (which I opposed)

As far as down the road. The expectations is that unempl will hover btwn 9-10% going till the end of 2010. Thats almost halfway into Obamas term. As far what happens in Afghanistan, Even though I was opposed to sending in 34K more troops lets wait and see. If it begins to be contained and the strategy works, I will be more than happy to give him Kudos

[GregoryJoseph]

I almost reported that post to the moderators on the basis of "general stupidity".

Come on!

It was one of those HILARIOUS email forwards!

Everybody LOVES THOSE!!!

[Dude!]

Come on!

It was one of those HILARIOUS email forwards!

Everybody LOVES THOSE!!!

i know i do

seriously, i am concerned about
how gaunt and tired obama looks

it's almost like his masters
removed the 'energy chip'
from his main board

[high fly]

As far as Obama where's the Change?


You have GOT to be kidding.
Notice the number of issues you criticize Obama for and how you seek new ones, regardless of how trivial they are or how wriong you end up being on them.
Now, compare that to your "criticism" of Bush.
How similar are they?

You have not been paying attention............

[high fly]

The founders did not envision The Federal Government mandating an individual to purchase anything to their specifications. What you are stating is totally different. What this healthcare bill states is that an individual MUST purchase insurance that fits the governments requirements.

Insurance is regulated by the States. So in your world you would be ok if the Gov't said we all must purchase a certain color of car


Again, you have mis-staed what I have said, but this is as good a place as any to fill you in on the history you are not getting from the Tenthers and the right-wing pundits. What they have not told you is that the strict constructionist interpretation has been a minority view since the founding of the nation. It has been shot down by Supreme Court decisions such as McCullough v Maryland (1819, as i recall) and is a view not held by the majority of the Founding Fathers.
They have misled you.

First off, I need to point out that at the moment I am not debating whether or not a national health plan is desirable. The point I am establishing here is that the Founding Fathers believed the Constitution allows the federal government to mandate health care. They did it on perhaps the largest industry of their day and I have seen nothing to indicate they did not have the authority to impose it on any other industry if they chose to do so.
The authors of the Constitution are the best sources for interpreting it and their words and actions clearly show what they believe the Constituion authorizes.


Repeatedly I have told you that you were wrong about the authority the federal government had to impose a health insurance on private industry. You have cited Article 1 Section 8 and have repeated the arguments of the Tenthers and the far right pundits.


To get the scope of what I am about to post, we have to remember the importance and pervasive nature of the shipping industry in the early U.S. It was of paramount importance and even what was bought and sold within the 13 states was frequently sent by merchant vessel. It was the need for a big government (dare I say it – socialist) canal program that caused George Washington to call the meetings which ultimately resulted in the Articles of Confederation and later the Constitution.
This industry was so big and so critical the federal government moved early on to make sure our merchant sailors had a health care plan.

July 20, 1789, The First Congress appointed a committee to study such a federally-imposed plan on private industry.

July 29, 1790, Congress enacted legislation requiring merchant ships to provide health care for their crews. Congress stipulated a medicine chest had to be aboard ship and that health care for their employees was mandatory.

July 16, 1798, Congress passed and President Adams signed into law the Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen which expanded the earlier program. It included one of the first taxes in individuals. Each seaman had to pay 20 cents a month, which was collected by harbor masters appointed by the President of the United States. The federal government embarked on a program to secure 27 hospitals to serve these merchant mariners.
The U.S. Marine Hospital Services was established as was the U.S. Public Health Service. Merchant marine hospitals were not only established on the coast, but you can find them inland in places like Louisville and Memphis and they were being constructed at least into the 1850s.
I came across scores of them, but here are a couple of links to the first two, established in 1799 and 1800:

In 1799, access to the Marine Hospital Services was expanded to include sailors in the U.S. Navy.


Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen scroll to the bottom of the first page, then continue to the next one:
http://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/1StatL605.pdf

U.S. Public Health Service history:
http://www.usphs.gov/aboutus/history.aspx

More Public Health Service history:
http://www.os.dhhs.gov/about/opdivs/phs.html

Marine Hospital in Massachussetts In 1799
http://www.olgp.net/chs/hospital/marine.htm

Here is some general history of the Marine Hospital Services given in the opening to this history of one of them in the state of Washington:
http://www.blnz.com/news/2008/04/23/Describing_Life_Cycle_US_Marine_5422.html

Marine Hospital in Norfolk sold to federal gvt. In 1800
http://www.npl.lib.va.us/history/history42.html

More history from the National Institutes of Health
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/phs_history/intro.html

Here you can see the government funding quite a few important health programs at the National institutes of health:
http://www.nih.gov/about/budget.htm

". It was the first time any employer offered health insurance in the United States and thus marked the advent of the US health system. ":
http://www.1798consultants.com/about_us.html



You see, WrestlingFan, what you were told by pundits and Tenthers is just plain wrong according to the way the best experts in what the Constitution allows the federal government to do in terms of health care.
You have been lied to over and over. You were searching and finding nothing last night over several hours when we were discussing it. I don’t think you will find this history at Hannity.com or ElRushbo.com or GlennBeck.com.
This was a massive program in the early days of our nation when resources were incredibly scarce. The first health insurance plan in America was not produced by good ol’ consuhvative market forces filling a glaring need.
And it was not killed in committee as you had hoped nor was it declared unconstitutional.
I found tons of information on individual Marine Hospital Services hospitals, and there is a tremendous amount of information on other measures taken to improve public health undertaken by the Public Health Service.
When was the last time we had a yellow fever epidemic wipe out half the population of a town?

[WRESTLINGFAN]

You have GOT to be kidding.
Notice the number of issues you criticize Obama for and how you seek new ones, regardless of how trivial they are or how wriong you end up being on them.
Now, compare that to your "criticism" of Bush.
How similar are they?

You have not been paying attention............

Bush got his criticisms from me about certain issues.Yes Where the Change? Look at this whole TARP fiasco. Main Street is not benefitting from this. It was intended to get credit flowing from the big Banks to the smaller ones so that small businesses could expand. Geithner was grilled on this and he refused to answer if Goldman was a counterparty or actually did place bets on the Credit Default Swaps. Goldman received 13 billion dollars. He played the blame the last 8 years card but was called out when he was asked where he was for the past 8 years. Prior to becoming Treas Sec'y he was president of the NY Fed. He knew exactly what was going on. Obama loves wall st, contrary whats being reported. He still has Larry Summers on as one of his economic advisors

There are calls for Geithners resignation from Both sides of the aisle

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Again, you have mis-staed what I have said, but this is as good a place as any to fill you in on the history you are not getting from the Tenthers and the right-wing pundits. What they have not told you is that the strict constructionist interpretation has been a minority view since the founding of the nation. It has been shot down by Supreme Court decisions such as McCullough v Maryland (1819, as i recall) and is a view not held by the majority of the Founding Fathers.
They have misled you.

First off, I need to point out that at the moment I am not debating whether or not a national health plan is desirable. The point I am establishing here is that the Founding Fathers believed the Constitution allows the federal government to mandate health care. They did it on perhaps the largest industry of their day and I have seen nothing to indicate they did not have the authority to impose it on any other industry if they chose to do so.
The authors of the Constitution are the best sources for interpreting it and their words and actions clearly show what they believe the Constituion authorizes.


Repeatedly I have told you that you were wrong about the authority the federal government had to impose a health insurance on private industry. You have cited Article 1 Section 8 and have repeated the arguments of the Tenthers and the far right pundits.


To get the scope of what I am about to post, we have to remember the importance and pervasive nature of the shipping industry in the early U.S. It was of paramount importance and even what was bought and sold within the 13 states was frequently sent by merchant vessel. It was the need for a big government (dare I say it – socialist) canal program that caused George Washington to call the meetings which ultimately resulted in the Articles of Confederation and later the Constitution.
This industry was so big and so critical the federal government moved early on to make sure our merchant sailors had a health care plan.

July 20, 1789, The First Congress appointed a committee to study such a federally-imposed plan on private industry.

July 29, 1790, Congress enacted legislation requiring merchant ships to provide health care for their crews. Congress stipulated a medicine chest had to be aboard ship and that health care for their employees was mandatory.

July 16, 1798, Congress passed and President Adams signed into law the Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen which expanded the earlier program. It included one of the first taxes in individuals. Each seaman had to pay 20 cents a month, which was collected by harbor masters appointed by the President of the United States. The federal government embarked on a program to secure 27 hospitals to serve these merchant mariners.
The U.S. Marine Hospital Services was established as was the U.S. Public Health Service. Merchant marine hospitals were not only established on the coast, but you can find them inland in places like Louisville and Memphis and they were being constructed at least into the 1850s.
I came across scores of them, but here are a couple of links to the first two, established in 1799 and 1800:

In 1799, access to the Marine Hospital Services was expanded to include sailors in the U.S. Navy.


Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen scroll to the bottom of the first page, then continue to the next one:
http://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/1StatL605.pdf

U.S. Public Health Service history:
http://www.usphs.gov/aboutus/history.aspx

More Public Health Service history:
http://www.os.dhhs.gov/about/opdivs/phs.html

Marine Hospital in Massachussetts In 1799
http://www.olgp.net/chs/hospital/marine.htm

Here is some general history of the Marine Hospital Services given in the opening to this history of one of them in the state of Washington:
http://www.blnz.com/news/2008/04/23/Describing_Life_Cycle_US_Marine_5422.html

Marine Hospital in Norfolk sold to federal gvt. In 1800
http://www.npl.lib.va.us/history/history42.html

More history from the National Institutes of Health
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/phs_history/intro.html

Here you can see the government funding quite a few important health programs at the National institutes of health:
http://www.nih.gov/about/budget.htm

". It was the first time any employer offered health insurance in the United States and thus marked the advent of the US health system. ":
http://www.1798consultants.com/about_us.html



You see, WrestlingFan, what you were told by pundits and Tenthers is just plain wrong according to the way the best experts in what the Constitution allows the federal government to do in terms of health care.
You have been lied to over and over. You were searching and finding nothing last night over several hours when we were discussing it. I don’t think you will find this history at Hannity.com or ElRushbo.com or GlennBeck.com.
This was a massive program in the early days of our nation when resources were incredibly scarce. The first health insurance plan in America was not produced by good ol’ consuhvative market forces filling a glaring need.
And it was not killed in committee as you had hoped nor was it declared unconstitutional.
I found tons of information on individual Marine Hospital Services hospitals, and there is a tremendous amount of information on other measures taken to improve public health undertaken by the Public Health Service.
When was the last time we had a yellow fever epidemic wipe out half the population of a town?

I appreciate that information thank you for sharing it. As far as you thinking that I take my orders from the talkers, You are wrong. Thats just My interpretation of the constitution, I really don't have time to listen to the Rushbos and Manatees since I am at work during the day

[WRESTLINGFAN]

i know i do

seriously, i am concerned about
how gaunt and tired obama looks

it's almost like his masters
removed the 'energy chip'
from his main board

FLOTUS looks healthy though and that caboose of hers proves it :clap:

[SonOfSmeagol]

Bipartisan DOES NOT equal better bill. Not by a longshot. The opposition to this bill has made it clear in acts and words that they have not the slightest interest in seeing any bill pass. Chuck Grassley said as much in August, when he was also supposedly negotiating with Max Baucus. If the Republicans thought this was an important they would have done something when they were in power. Beyond the Medicare Prescription drug benefit, which is a bigger long term financial disaster than anything that has been passed recently by the way, they did almost nothing in the many years they had complete control of Washington. And it's not as if it wasn't a problem. It was, and it only got worse and worse faster and faster and they sat there twiddling their thumbs. They barely did anything with one of their ideas, Health Savings Accounts. If they didn't have enough confidence in that idea to further implement it when they were in power why the hell should a party that doesn't believe in that include it in their bill?

And that article has opinions from people who study this for a living and who were critical of prior efforts to restrain costs. At the end of the day that is what really matters. We need to do something to control rising costs. People keep throwing around this 1/6th of the economy thing. HEALTH CARE SPENDING SHOULDN'T BE THAT MUCH OF THE ECONOMY. We've left it in the hands of private industry for so long and all prices have done is get higher and higher. And why wouldn't they? They'd love to make more money. From insurers to doctors to hospitals. All of this is being done to 1. expand coverage and 2. hopefully one day shrink health care spending to less than 1/6th economy. Which is the ironic part of course. They are getting criticized for taking control of 1/6th of the economy when they are trying to shrink that sector to a reasonable level.

As I’ve said, what is done by partisans can be undone by future partisans. Not to mention all the other stakeholder that were NOT included in the process. Part of me just wants to say fuck it, go ahead and fail. In the end all the tricks and gimmicks crafted by the likes of Pelosi and Reid in the closets of DC won’t work in the real world. And all will see that this ill-advised huge gov’t takeover, that depends on dubious cuts in benefits and unsustainable taxes, will of course end up costing more.

[Syd]

As I’ve said, what is done by partisans can be undone by future partisans. Not to mention all the other stakeholder that were NOT included in the process. Part of me just wants to say fuck it, go ahead and fail. In the end all the tricks and gimmicks crafted by the likes of Pelosi and Reid in the closets of DC won’t work in the real world. And all will see that this ill-advised huge gov’t takeover, that depends on dubious cuts in benefits and unsustainable taxes, will of course end up costing more.

What stakeholders weren't represented? The Republicans and blue too afraid to run as Republicans made sure that all the insurance companies wouldn't have any reduction in profit, the Progressive caucus tried in vain to represent the people and the Democrats tried to make the "grind the poors into dust" plan of the GOP work with the "help the middle class" plan of the Progressives.

Not really seeing who was left out.

[SonOfSmeagol]

What stakeholders weren't represented? The Republicans and blue too afraid to run as Republicans made sure that all the insurance companies wouldn't have any reduction in profit, the Progressive caucus tried in vain to represent the people and the Democrats tried to make the "grind the poors into dust" plan of the GOP work with the "help the middle class" plan of the Progressives.

Not really seeing who was left out.

bcbs and/or any of the other non-profits, which actually account for a huge amount of health insurance, as well as the for-profit cos would have been a start. Then the gov’t would have realized that the bills essentially represents control of health insurance, and do nothing really to help the costs of actual health care delivery, and other costs. There are some things that the ins companies actually support in reform – as long as they are applied evenly across the industry – such as not allowing denial of coverage. Instead, the gov’t seeks to control a huge sector of business, and badly I might add, in a vacuum.

As has been noted in the HC thread, the companies are simply not making the kinds of outrageous profits and growth in revenue that you might want to believe. They are actually middle of the road when it comes to profits, revenue, and growth. They’re a convenient bogeyman but the facts don’t support it. Also, they’re huge costs involved in Medicare fraud, malpractice and prevention of malpractice, and other costs that these bills do nothing to address (in fact the House even removes caps on malpractice suits).

[Syd]

Also, they’re huge costs involved in Medicare fraud, malpractice and prevention of malpractice, and other costs that these bills do nothing to address (in fact the House even removes caps on malpractice suits).[/SIZE]

Again, you're all over the place. You want limited government, but you want government to be able to price an exact value on your life. It always amuses me that conservatives are the real people clamoring for a nanny-state, just so long as it is compatible with their corporate puppet-masters.

[SonOfSmeagol]

Again, you're all over the place. You want limited government, but you want government to be able to price an exact value on your life. It always amuses me that conservatives are the real people clamoring for a nanny-state, just so long as it is compatible with their corporate puppet-masters.

Nope, actually I'll accept the "industry standard" value for my life if it comes to it. It's the value of YOUR life that I want the gov't to put a price cap on.

[Syd]

lol

[HBox]

As I’ve said, what is done by partisans can be undone by future partisans. Not to mention all the other stakeholder that were NOT included in the process. Part of me just wants to say fuck it, go ahead and fail. In the end all the tricks and gimmicks crafted by the likes of Pelosi and Reid in the closets of DC won’t work in the real world. And all will see that this ill-advised huge gov’t takeover, that depends on dubious cuts in benefits and unsustainable taxes, will of course end up costing more.

Then your problem is with the CBO. They said these bills will reduce the deficit. And they have plenty of ideas in these bills to restrain costs which were acknowledged by independent experts. If this is not enough I'm forced to ask: what would be? And that government takeover comment just strains your credibility. The public option in both bills are so weak and limited that I don't see why anyone is scared of it. So few people will be even eligible to sign up for it and could just end up being a dumping ground for private insurer's sickest patients which would end up eventually destroying it.

As for being undone by future partisans: people probably said that about Medicare. We get to today and Republicans are trying to position themselves as defenders of Medicare against Democrats who want to cut their benefits. Once a bill is passed all that is left is alterations unless it is a mind-blowingly horrible failure. No one will go out and campaign on taking people's health insurance away.

[SonOfSmeagol]

Then your problem is with the CBO. They said these bills will reduce the deficit. And they have plenty of ideas in these bills to restrain costs which were acknowledged by independent experts. If this is not enough I'm forced to ask: what would be? And that government takeover comment just strains your credibility. The public option in both bills are so weak and limited that I don't see why anyone is scared of it. So few people will be even eligible to sign up for it and could just end up being a dumping ground for private insurer's sickest patients which would end up eventually destroying it.

As for being undone by future partisans: people probably said that about Medicare. We get to today and Republicans are trying to position themselves as defenders of Medicare against Democrats who want to cut their benefits. Once a bill is passed all that is left is alterations unless it is a mind-blowingly horrible failure. No one will go out and campaign on taking people's health insurance away.

The CBO and bills address the cost of coverage, not costs of providing the care and the business aspects of the industry. The bills are, in effect, redistribution of income initiatives. What actual business decisions were behind mandates such as people must buy coverage, or penalize them if they don’t. How were these amounts determined – again from a business basis. How did they determine that a 25 year old shall pay no more than 1/2 what a 65 year old pays. I think they actually did all the calculations based on how to best pay for redistributed coverage with little or no consideration of the business aspects. Where do the bills increase competition, required to actually bring care costs down while maintaining quality. How do these bills actually decrease the cost to less than 1/6 of the economy. They don’t – they pay for coverage. The govt takeover comment refers not just to the public option, but the ridiculous and arbitrary maze of bureaucracy that will be created to “govern” the industry. Even you have indicated that you think that the industry has had it’s chance, and now it’s time for the gov’t to have it’s shot.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Matt Taibbi who is wayyyyy left of me wrote another great article in RS on how Obama's people Including Robert Rubin is more concerned with Wall St

[underdog]

Matt Taibbi who is wayyyyy left of me wrote another great article in RS on how Obama's people Including Robert Rubin is more concerned with Wall St

Wait a second. Are you telling me that a politician is more concerned with rich people than normal people? You're really going out on a limb here. I am SHOCKED.

[GregoryJoseph]

Wait a second. Are you telling me that a politician is more concerned with rich people than normal people? You're really going out on a limb here. I am SHOCKED.

Worse.

A DEMOCRATIC politician!

Aren't they the ones "for the people"?

I thought only Republicans cared about the rich...

[underdog]

Worse.

A DEMOCRATIC politician!

Aren't they the ones "for the people"?

I thought only Republicans cared about the rich...

Eh, they're basically all the same. I think republicans are just more honest about their greed.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Wait a second. Are you telling me that a politician is more concerned with rich people than normal people? You're really going out on a limb here. I am SHOCKED.

Obama hearts Wall Street

[GregoryJoseph]

Eh, they're basically all the same. I think republicans are just more honest about their greed.

Watch it with that kind of talk, mister.

Mojo and epo will show up and berate you for being "bitter" and "jaded."

[underdog]

Watch it with that kind of talk, mister.

Mojo and epo will show up and berate you for being "bitter" and "jaded."

Once you reach a certain level of politics, it's seemingly impossible to not be in the pocket of the rich. How else do you raise the money to be elected senator or president?

[GregoryJoseph]

Once you reach a certain level of politics, it's seemingly impossible to not be in the pocket of the rich. How else do you raise the money to be elected senator or president?

Now you're beginning to understand...

[TheMojoPin]

Once you reach a certain level of politics, it's seemingly impossible to not be in the pocket of the rich. How else do you raise the money to be elected senator or president?

You're talking to a guy that pretends like saying he would never support someone who seeks elected office is a rational talking point in a political discussion.

[TheMojoPin]

Now you're beginning to understand...

That's going to be the nature of any kind of society that expects to be largely capitalist AND democratic. Think about it. Try being a realist for once.

[Bob Impact]

largely capitalist
LOL
The Fed, Government regluation/subsidization of business, the income tax, welfare, social security, any discussion what so ever about socialized medicine does not make us largely capitalist. In fact, the more we push towards government control over business the more important it will be for businesses to have a "most favored nation" status with government officials, and the more important their lobby will be. It's not a one way street and Washington absolutely knows it. The more you SEPARATE government and business the less business is interested in what government is up to and vice versa.

[GregoryJoseph]

That's going to be the nature of any kind of society that expects to be largely capitalist AND democratic. Think about it. Try being a realist for once.

Like I said, you're not very "progressive" in your thinking, are you?

You've got the classic "Eh, what can we do?" attitude.

[HBox]

The CBO and bills address the cost of coverage, not costs of providing the care and the business aspects of the industry. The bills are, in effect, redistribution of income initiatives. What actual business decisions were behind mandates such as people must buy coverage, or penalize them if they don’t. How were these amounts determined – again from a business basis.[quote]

[size=2]The CBO analysis has to attempt to analyze and estimate the effects these bills will have on rising costs to determine how much the government will need to spend for it's share of health care spending. That's the only way they can estimate the costs all the way through 10 years. They are obviously not perfect, but they will provide the best and most independent estimate we can get.

As for the mandate: you have to have a mandate if you are not going to allow insurers to deny coverage to pre-existing conditions. If you did not allow insurers to deny people with pre-existing conditions but did not penalize people for not having insurers there would be no reason for healthy people to have health insurance. People would just buy it when they got sick and drop it when they were healthy again. This would destroy the health insurance industry. The amount of the fine should be enough that it doesn't make financial sense to pay the penalty instead of buying insurance.

[quote]How did they determine that a 25 year old shall pay no more than 1/2 what a 65 year old pays.

I don't know where this came from but the average 65 year old will have much, much higher health care costs than the average 25 year old.

I think they actually did all the calculations based on how to best pay for redistributed coverage with little or no consideration of the business aspects. Where do the bills increase competition, required to actually bring care costs down while maintaining quality.

The health insurance exchanges will allow people to buy insurance with many different insurers competing. But as long as we remain mainly employer dependent for insurance coverage that's where most of the competition will happen, or not happen.

How do these bills actually decrease the cost to less than 1/6 of the economy. They don’t – they pay for coverage. The govt takeover comment refers not just to the public option, but the ridiculous and arbitrary maze of bureaucracy that will be created to “govern” the industry. Even you have indicated that you think that the industry has had it’s chance, and now it’s time for the gov’t to have it’s shot.

The article you labeled an opinion piece had plenty of examples of how the Senate will attempt to restrain costs. You can't keep pretending like they don't exist even if you don't agree they will help, even in the face of the CBO and many experts who believe they will. Some examples:

Reid gave ground on one Baucus proposal that the economists identified as a priority-taxing high-end insurance plans. Like many health reformers, the economists who wrote Obama argue that such a tax "will help curtail the growth of private health insurance premiums by creating incentives to limit the costs of plans to a tax-free amount."

The Finance bill laid out a series of measures to change the way providers are paid for delivering care to Medicare recipients; the hope was that once Medicare instituted these reforms, private insurers would also adopt many of them. "The goal here is that the things we do in Medicare will translate over into the private sector, and there is quite a bit of historical precedence for that," said one Democratic aide involved in drafting the package.

For instance, hospitals under current law must report on their performance in treating patients for common conditions like heart problems and pneumonia; under the bill, their Medicare payments, for the first time, would be affected by their ranking on those reports. Hospitals would also be penalized if they readmit too many patients after surgery or allow too many to acquire infections while in the hospital itself. Another provision would begin the process of applying such "value-based purchasing" toward other providers like hospice providers and inpatient rehabilitation facilities.

It requires Medicare to begin studying the utilization patterns of doctors participating in the program. And then it establishes a "values based payment modifier" that would, in a budget-neutral manner, increase reimbursements for physicians found to deliver high-quality care at lower cost, and reduce them for physicians at the other end of that spectrum.

The bill encourages groups of providers to establish doctor-led "accountable care organizations" to more comprehensively manage patients' care by allowing them to share in any savings for Medicare they produce. It also establishes a voluntary national pilot of "bundled" payments that would encourage hospitals, doctors and other providers to work more closely together. Another pilot program would test coordinated home-based care for chronically ill seniors.

Under the Senate bill, that board would be required to offer cost-saving proposals when Medicare spending rises too fast; Congress could not reject its proposals without substituting equivalent savings. Since the board would be prohibited from offering changes that raise taxes or "ration care," and since the legislation initially exempts hospitals from its recommendations, it could choose to promote the sort of payment reforms the bill establishes. (More prosaically it might also clear away some of the expensive coverage mandates that Congress imposes on Medicare under pressure from different elements of the medical industry)

a Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation in the Health and Human Services Department. Though this center has received much less attention than the Medicare Commission, it could have a comparable effect. It would receive $1 billion annually to test payment reforms; in a little known provision, the bill authorizes the HHS Secretary to implement nationwide, without any congressional action, any reform that department actuaries certify will reduce long-term spending. While the House bill omitted the Medicare Commission (a top priority for Obama) it included the innovation center.

And if you are going to count regulation as government control then the government has control over every industry and every aspect of our lives. What I meant was that we have the most private run health care system in the world and it has created a ridiculously expensive health care system that is part-great and part-disastrous. We don't even get our moneys worth. To ignore every other health care system in the world that is better and cheaper than ours and go in the opposite direction seems stupid to me.

[LordJezo]

Watched Fired Up this past weekend.

The leftist slant in that move was pretty deep. By the end of the film they were simply chanting Obama's name. Earlier on they went on a tirade against Bush.

It's sick that this is what defines the vote in this country and really sways how the youth pick at the polling place.

But then again it is Hollywood, and everyone knows that it's completely overrun with libs.

[Jujubees2]

But then again it is Hollywood, and everyone knows that it's completely overrun with libs.

and Jews!

[SonOfSmeagol]

As for the mandate: you have to have a mandate if you are not going to allow insurers to deny coverage to pre-existing conditions. If you did not allow insurers to deny people with pre-existing conditions but did not penalize people for not having insurers there would be no reason for healthy people to have health insurance. People would just buy it when they got sick and drop it when they were healthy again. This would destroy the health insurance industry. The amount of the fine should be enough that it doesn't make financial sense to pay the penalty instead of buying insurance.

The article you labeled an opinion piece had plenty of examples of how the Senate will attempt to restrain costs. You can't keep pretending like they don't exist even if you don't agree they will help, even in the face of the CBO and many experts who believe they will. Some examples:

And if you are going to count regulation as government control then the government has control over every industry and every aspect of our lives. What I meant was that we have the most private run health care system in the world and it has created a ridiculously expensive health care system that is part-great and part-disastrous. We don't even get our moneys worth. To ignore every other health care system in the world that is better and cheaper than ours and go in the opposite direction seems stupid to me.

Well, I think it is different that mere regulation. Those examples you had mostly called for quite a bit of gov’t control over supply, costs, and quality of services. This is different than say, the FDA that sets and enforces food and drug safety standards or the FAA that tries to make sure planes won’t fall out of the sky. Otherwise, the food, drug, and airplane cos run their own businesses. Part of the reason that we actually have such quality care here is innovation that is driven by competition. I hate to see that stifled.

I really have no problem with the gov’t stepping in with more regulation and promoting an increase in competition – I’ve always said that. I just think they have no business trying to actually be a business of this size and scope. Why can’t they just go for, at least at first, solving the real issues at hand – insuring the uninsured (that want to be insured) and providing a safety net for catastrophic/extreme cases. Pay for it by taxing ALL employer health benefits, reducing fraud, and “minimizing” malpractice. Why not allow competition across state lines. I would even go for the mandates to increase the pool, and prohibit denials. As long as it is applied evenly to all cos, it may work. Also, as I've said I'm not an expert nor do I have the solutions! I only have what I've read here and there when I have the time. I just think more focus and less govt rather than more is better! Why all these proposed boards, programs, committees, and huge maze of bureaucracy that the gov’t has no business being involved in!

[GregoryJoseph]

http://www.stickergiant.com/Merchant2/imgs/250/vp25.gif

[GregoryJoseph]

http://www.stickergiant.com/Merchant2/imgs/450/xpol1027_450.jpeg

[underdog]

Instead of talking in bumper sticker, he's just started posting them.

[GregoryJoseph]

http://www.stickergiant.com/Merchant2/imgs/450/xrg1191_450.jpeg

[lleeder]

http://www.stickergiant.com/Merchant2/imgs/450/xrg1191_450.jpeg

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/N1l87Wzselg&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/N1l87Wzselg&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Hope there are no greek columns tonight when he speaks at West Point

I have a feeling its blame the Past 8 yrs card again. Bad Move Obama by sending more troops to Afghanistan

[Ritalin]

Hope there are no greek columns tonight when he speaks at West Point

I have a feeling its blame the Past 8 yrs card again. Bad Move Obama by sending more troops to Afghanistan

Lemme ask you this: what if anything do you think he's done right?

[badmonkey]

Lemme ask you this: what if anything do you think he's done right?

Obama - Best President Ever? (http://www.ronfez.net/forums/showthread.php?t=79005)

[Ritalin]

Obama - Best President Ever? (http://www.ronfez.net/forums/showthread.php?t=79005)

Yeah, I was asking wrestling fan specifically.

[GregoryJoseph]

http://www.stickergiant.com/Merchant2/imgs/450/vm46_450.jpeg

[Dude!]

http://www.stickergiant.com/Merchant2/imgs/450/vm46_450.jpeg

i love the new
bumper-sticker postings

bumper stickers are
the new "cats" of ronfez.net!

[GregoryJoseph]

http://www.stickergiant.com/Merchant2/imgs/450/zbs970_450.jpeg

[badmonkey]

Yeah, I was asking wrestling fan specifically.

Yes, I'm aware. You forgot how easy it is for him to derail threads. You ask him here what he thinks Obama's done right and the next thing you know this becomes another illegal immigration thread. Ask him again in the thread about how wonderful Obama is doing.

...btw...that was a joke... so was my original response to you....

:wallbash:

Badmonkey

[Ritalin]

Yes, I'm aware. You forgot how easy it is for him to derail threads. You ask him here what he thinks Obama's done right and the next thing you know this becomes another illegal immigration thread. Ask him again in the thread about how wonderful Obama is doing.

...btw...that was a joke... so was my original response to you....

:wallbash:

Badmonkey

oh

[newport king]

meh.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Yeah, I was asking wrestling fan specifically.

I gave him credit on this board for scrapping the Missile Defense system in Eastern Europe, that was posted more than once.

Also for how he handled the Skalawags sp? off the Coast of Somalia

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Tonights speech was not enough to convince the country about sending more troops. Also why must he insist on other points like the economy? We are well aware of that, Whether I agree with his policies or not isnt the point, he has had many opportunities to present his case for that.



He was all over the map tonight.

[TheMojoPin]

Tonights speech was not enough to convince the country about sending more troops.

It's amazing how you know all of these things.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

It's amazing how you know all of these things.

Why must you jump on everyone for expressing their opinions that aren't in line with yours or Obamas?

My views from when this was being discussed was not to escalate this further. This is no longer Dubyas. Obama owns this now

30K more troops and withdraw within 18 Months? What other NATO allies will commit troops? I didnt hear him elaborate on that

[TheMojoPin]

Why must you jump on everyone for expressing their opinions that aren't in line with yours or Obamas?

That's not what I'm doing. I don't agree at all with Obama on this issue...I'm simply pointing out how you continually make these absurd declarations immediately after something happens as if they're fact or these predictions for the future like you know 110%for sure what is going to happen.

[Furtherman]

Didn't convince you? Shocking.

[Ritalin]

He has to talk about the economy because there are going to be plenty of people who will say, rightfully in my opinion, how can we continue to pile up deficits and then nation build in afganistan? To hell with Kabul, I need a new school in my neighborhood. The answer, of course, is that Bush wasted our countries will and
resources in Iraq, and the Pakistan Bomb. But how do you tell
that to people? Do you wear a flight suit and stand in front of propaganda banners or
do you try to wrestle publicly with a difficult issue and treat people like adults.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

He has to talk about the economy because there are going to be plenty of people who will say, rightfully in my opinion, how can we continue to pile up deficits and then nation build in afganistan? To hell with Kabul, I need a new school in my neighborhood. The answer, of course, is that Bush wasted our countries will and
resources in Iraq, and the Pakistan Bomb. But how do you tell
that to people? Do you wear a flight suit and stand in front of propaganda banners or
do you try to wrestle publicly with a difficult issue and treat people like adults.

We already get it. This card has been played out so many times. Bush screwed up. How many times must this drum be beaten?

[TheMojoPin]

Do you just want the last 8 years totally stricken from the record?

In the real world of politics and world affairs you have to deal with the actions and legacies of those that came before you. It's not like a blank slate is started when someone takes office. There's a difference between recognizing the reasons and causes for the situations we're in now in an effort to figure out what do, explain what is happening and trying to move forward and simply blaming the guy that came before. While this administration has obviously not been above shots at the Bush administration, your histronics every time anything is referred to in the last 8 years are getting ridiculous.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

That's not what I'm doing. I don't agree at all with Obama on this issue...I'm simply pointing out how you continually make these absurd declarations immediately after something happens as if they're fact or these predictions for the future like you know 110%for sure what is going to happen.

Well looking at the track record of the Stimulus, bailing out GM and Chrysler. The CEO is resigning after only a few months at GM, Job losses and foreclosures, TARP being mishandled

If I am wrong in 18 months than I will say so. Hell if OBL is caught I will vote for Obama in '12

[Ogre]

Hope there are no greek columns tonight when he speaks at West Point

No, but the White House DID invite the Greek Council. President Gilbert Lowell presiding.
http://images.starpulse.com/Photos/Previews/Revenge-Nerds-movie-02.jpg

We're Lambda Lambda Lambda and Omega Moo.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Do you just want the last 8 years totally stricken from the record?

In the real world of politics and world affairs you have to deal with the actions and legacies of those that came before you. It's not like a blank slate is started when someone takes office. There's a difference between recognizing the reasons and causes for the situations we're in now in an effort to figure out what do, explain what is happening and trying to move forward and simply blaming the guy that came before. While this administration has obviously not been above shots at the Bush administration, your histronics every time anything is referred to in the last 8 years are getting ridiculous.

I never said to forget about 01-09 but how many times must It be brought up? This constant reminder of failed policies, Instead of repeating the same tired lines which I happen to agree that the ball was dropped, Move forward and have some sort of better detailed plan

If this is going to be some sort of decisive victory, Fuck I dont say go it alone, However say fr example 500 french troops just isnt going to cut it

[Ritalin]

We already get it. This card has been played out so many times. Bush screwed up. How many times must this drum be beaten?

Because the reason we have to send 30,000 troops is because Bush fucked up and didn't keep his eye on the ball. We're going to find as we go along that there were LOTS of things we're going to have to fix.

But that's neither here nor there. When the commander in chief has to send in more troops, doesn't he owe us an explaination why? Then my question is, why should he cop to it? It's not his fault.

[TheMojoPin]

I never said to forget about 01-09 but how many times must It be brought up? This constant reminder of failed policies, Instead of repeating the same tired lines which I happen to agree that the ball was dropped, Move forward and have some sort of better detailed plan

Yes, it's shocking to bring up the past when almost everything significant the administration has had to deal with so far extends well before they took office. One needs to always refer to and analyze and understand what happened in the past to better work towards alleviating these problems. Why does it pain you so much to simply refer to the reality of what we're delaing with?

[GregoryJoseph]

Because the reason we have to send 30,000 troops is because Bush fucked up and didn't keep his eye on the ball. We're going to find as we go along that there were LOTS of things we're going to have to fix.

But that's neither here nor there. When the commander in chief has to send in more troops, doesn't he owe us an explaination why? Then my question is, why should he cop to it? It's not his fault.

We wouldn't be in this mess in the first place if ol' Blowjob Bill Clinton kept HIS eye on the ball.

He let every act of terrorism go unchecked.

[TheMojoPin]

Please stop poking the rubes, Gvac.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Yes, it's shocking to bring up the past when almost everything significant the administration has had to deal with so far extends well before they took office. One needs to always refer to and analyze and understand what happened in the past to better work towards alleviating these problems. Why does it pain you so much to simply refer to the reality of what we're delaing with?

Im not defending the failed policies at all, Youre not going to see me with pom poms cheering what went on in the past, However constantly repeating the same lines in which most of us already know isnt the best way to move forward

He has pointed them out already and we understand that

[Ritalin]

We wouldn't be in this mess in the first place if ol' Blowjob Bill Clinton kept HIS eye on the ball.

He let every act of terrorism go unchecked.

well he actually fired missles at OBL but don't put me in a position to defend Bill.

Did Bill cause 9/11? Nah. Neither did W.

[Ritalin]

Please stop poking the rubes, Gvac.

Who you calling a rube?

You live in Chicago.

[GregoryJoseph]

well he actually fired missles at OBL but don't put me in a position to defend Bill.

That aspirin factory never saw it coming! :clap:

[TheMojoPin]

Im not defending the failed policies at all, Youre not going to see me with pom poms cheering what went on in the past, However constantly repeating the same lines in which most of us already know isnt the best way to move forward

He has pointed them out already and we understand that

I didn't say you were defending them.

I also think you're vastly overstating both the frequency and the nature of most of the references by this administration to the previous one in the last few months.

[Ritalin]

That aspirin factory never saw it coming! :clap:


Get bent.

[TheMojoPin]

The factory bombing was a debacle and was indicative of the catch-22 of the US' approach towards terrorism in the last couple of years of the Clinton administration. After the Africa embassy bombings the US did indeed step up its efforts to gather intelligence and strike back against terrorism, particuarly Al-Quada. The problem, however, was the absolutely piss-poor and halfassed intelligence system we had in place in the Middle East and Asia at the time. The US was basically starting all over again from scratch. The Clinton administration did indeed want to act further against Al-Queda and specifically OBL after '98 but were continually tied up by bad intelligence, doubt about our intelligence or no intelligence (pun possibly intended) at all. This definitely carried over to the Bush administration, which is why I always find the attempts to blame them for 9/11 rather hollow.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

I think Obama wanted to scrap continuing building the F35 Joint Strike fighter, since I believe there are already F22's rolling out

I happen to agree with that

[SonOfSmeagol]

Sigh. Can we get back to the shortcomings of bho please and some good criticism of the plans he outlined tonight for bombing foreign baby milk factories? Sheesh.

[foodcourtdruide]

I think Obama wanted to scrap continuing building the F35 Joint Strike fighter, since I believe there are already F22's rolling out

I happen to agree with that

Glad to see you're coming around! I bet by 2012 you'll be donating to his re-elction campaign.

[Syd]

I think Obama wanted to scrap continuing building the F35 Joint Strike fighter, since I believe there are already F22's rolling out

I happen to agree with that

Scrapping the F35 is a bad idea, scrapping F22 is a good idea. F35 cuts down on overhead a great deal and there are a lot of planes in our armed forces that are getting up there in age. Plus, the F35 was popular enough that a lot of different countries are subsidizing it.

[Dude!]

i don't think there is a person
in america
who isn't secretly longing
for the competence of the
bush-cheney years

you will all deny it
but you know it's true

[boobieman]

The same the same the same..I surpirsed that people think thing were acutally going to be different.

Still think it is too early to say that Obama is the worst, but as for change...really??


SSEYAYYAAAAAAAEEE

[Recyclerz]

i don't think there is a person
in america
who isn't secretly longing
for the competence of the
bush-cheney years

you will all deny it
but you know it's true

I'm trying to decide whether this is the funniest or scariest post on this site in a long time.

[A.J.]

It's probably all our fault. (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/obama_tells_nation_hes_going_out)

[Syd]

i don't think there is a person
in america
who isn't secretly longing
for the competence of the
bush-cheney years

you will all deny it
but you know it's true

Competence?

From the fact that Bush almost choked to death on a pretzel, fell down on a Segway and that Cheney shoots people in the face (in addition to being wholly incapable of eating properly and maintaining a healthy lifestyle and is only kept alive from his fortune)

There's also the fact that Bush was our Constantine and marks the time when the American empire begins its inevitable decline. We were at our zenith in the late 90s in terms of world power and it has all since come crashing down. America is second to the EU in terms of industry, spending power and technical knowledge. By any metric we've given up our superpower status and exist only as a recognizable great power.
I do have to wonder who would actually pine for the Bush administration. Maybe for the weird christofascists that run Xe/Blackwater who have gotten what, a few hundred billion without a single conservative asking "for what?"

then yeah, maybe you're right

[Jujubees2]

Competence?

From the fact that Bush almost choked to death on a pretzel, fell down on a Segway and that Cheney shoots people in the face (in addition to being wholly incapable of eating properly and maintaining a healthy lifestyle and is only kept alive from his fortune)

There's also the fact that Bush was our Constantine and marks the time when the American empire begins its inevitable decline. We were at our zenith in the late 90s in terms of world power and it has all since come crashing down. America is second to the EU in terms of industry, spending power and technical knowledge. By any metric we've given up our superpower status and exist only as a recognizable great power.
I do have to wonder who would actually pine for the Bush administration. Maybe for the weird christofascists that run Xe/Blackwater who have gotten what, a few hundred billion without a single conservative asking "for what?"

then yeah, maybe you're right

You forgot the Bush-Chaney attacks on the constitution.

[Serpico1103]

You forgot the Bush-Chaney attacks on the constitution.

Why pay attention to the Constitution, when all you need to know is in the Bible or God will whisper the answers in your ear.

[high fly]

Competence?

From the fact that Bush almost choked to death on a pretzel, fell down on a Segway and that Cheney shoots people in the face (in addition to being wholly incapable of eating properly and maintaining a healthy lifestyle and is only kept alive from his fortune)

There's also the fact that Bush was our Constantine and marks the time when the American empire begins its inevitable decline. We were at our zenith in the late 90s in terms of world power and it has all since come crashing down. America is second to the EU in terms of industry, spending power and technical knowledge. By any metric we've given up our superpower status and exist only as a recognizable great power.
I do have to wonder who would actually pine for the Bush administration. Maybe for the weird christofascists that run Xe/Blackwater who have gotten what, a few hundred billion without a single conservative asking "for what?"

then yeah, maybe you're right


May as well pile on here.
Bush left office with less jobs than they inherited.
When he left office there was a lot more people below the poverty line.
Bush was never able to get unemployment down to the rate he inherited.
Bush was unable to get the budget balanced again, either.

I can not think of another president who was more derelict in his duty than Bush before 9/11. He and his top officials from the deputy level up received over 100 reports of an upocoming terrorist attack that was going to be massive and have global repercussions, yet they remained snoozing at the switch.
The troop increases we are seeing for Afghanistan reflect the level of negligence there, too....

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Double digit unemployement 3 Million Jobs lost post stimulus Dont worry the new spin is we are losing jobs at a slower pace. Failed bailouts, Weakening of the dollar, Throwing the current President of Honduras under the bus. The AF-1 Blunder by ground zero. Massive debt and deficits as far as the eye can see. Foreign countries worried about the state of our currency, failure of bloated programs like cash for Clunkers, encouraging people to assume more debt, All the misfits he has as Czars

Want to talk about trashing the constitution?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/to_hell_with_the_constitution.html

Its only been 10 months, Hes got plenty more time to blunder even more

[HBox]

Double digit unemployement 3 Million Jobs lost post stimulus Dont worry the new spin is we are losing jobs at a slower pace. Failed bailouts, Weakening of the dollar, Throwing the current President of Honduras under the bus. The AF-1 Blunder by ground zero. Massive debt and deficits as far as the eye can see. Foreign countries worried about the state of our currency, failure of bloated programs like cash for Clunkers, encouraging people to assume more debt, All the misfits he has as Czars

Want to talk about trashing the constitution?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/to_hell_with_the_constitution.html

Its only been 10 months, Hes got plenty more time to blunder even more

The CBO says the stimulus created 600,000 to 1.6 million jobs in the third quarter alone and raised GDP from 1.2 to 3.2 percent. (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10682/11-30-ARRA.pdf)

But please continue to blame him for problems that existed before he entered office. It feeds your blind partisan rage quite well.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

The CBO says the stimulus created 600,000 to 1.6 million jobs in the third quarter alone and raised GDP from 1.2 to 3.2 percent. (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10682/11-30-ARRA.pdf)

But please continue to blame him for problems that existed before he entered office. It feeds your blind partisan rage quite well.

Those shellgame GDP numbers are due to government spending which was mainly for cash for clunkers. How many businesses expanded or hired people. Actually the GDP was revised to 2.8%

How many jobs did Barry create or save this time 600 trillion? A temporary 35 hour job is not creating or saving anything because once they are done they either go on unemployment or have to apply again, its basically a merry go roundIts not working and here is how this stimulus is one of the biggest wastes of taxpayer dollars ever

http://www.npaper-wehaa.com/bluffton-today/2009/11/29/#?article=668869


Why does it bother you that I disagree with his policies, I know a majority of people in the political threads are left of center but God/Allah forbid theres anyone with an opposing view

No one here is giving Bush carte blanche, but continuing idiotic policies by Dubya and in many cases expanding them is idiotic by Obama and his advisors.

[TheMojoPin]

Double digit unemployement 3 Million Jobs lost post stimulus Dont worry the new spin is we are losing jobs at a slower pace.

How is that spin? Isn't that what anyone with common sense would expect? What, did you want the unemployment rate to do a 180?

Do people simply just ignore the CBO? Opponents of the current economic and health care proposals often act like it doesn't exist.

[HBox]

Do people simply just ignore the CBO? Opponents of the current economic and health care proposals often act like it doesn't exist.

They ignore it except when it helps their argument, like when they said the early versions of the health care bills would add to the deficit.

It's only real as long as it reinforces what they already believed. Welcome to FOX News nation.

[HBox]

Those shellgame GDP numbers are due to government spending which was mainly for cash for clunkers. How many businesses expanded or hired people. Actually the GDP was revised to 2.8%

How many jobs did Barry create or save this time 600 trillion? A temporary 35 hour job is not creating or saving anything because once they are done they either go on unemployment or have to apply again, its basically a merry go roundIts not working and here is how this stimulus is one of the biggest wastes of taxpayer dollars ever

http://www.npaper-wehaa.com/bluffton-today/2009/11/29/#?article=668869


Why does it bother you that I disagree with his policies, I know a majority of people in the political threads are left of center but God/Allah forbid theres anyone with an opposing view

No one here is giving Bush carte blanche, but continuing idiotic policies by Dubya and in many cases expanding them is idiotic by Obama and his advisors.

The CBO is independent and not a tool of either party. So should I believe you or the CBO........... hard choice there.

You can disagree with his policies. You just have lousy arguments behind almost every one of them. Isn't it time for the token trash the Republicans post?

[high fly]

Those shellgame GDP numbers are due to government spending which was mainly for cash for clunkers. How many businesses expanded or hired people. Actually the GDP was revised to 2.8%

How many jobs did Barry create or save this time 600 trillion? A temporary 35 hour job is not creating or saving anything because once they are done they either go on unemployment or have to apply again, its basically a merry go roundIts not working and here is how this stimulus is one of the biggest wastes of taxpayer dollars ever



In love with cliches, are we?
If you were out of work, had a family and had to drop your health insurance, but then got a job and got health insurance for your children, I doubt you would call that a "shell game."

Whether those 600,000-1.6 million jobs are from government spending or anything else, that is 600,000 - 1.6 million jobs that weren't there before.
Conservatives have been asking where the jobs are and now they get an answer and instead of facing uit head on and admitting their previous misconcepttion was misguided, they quibble and carp and nibble around the edges, posing as if they are addressing the facts.

It is this kind of crap that i why conservatives have never done much for the American people compared to liberals. Conservatives mostly just get in the way and complain....

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Disagree with the president and his policies, back them up with facts its the same old tired youre getting info from Fox news. Doesnt work with me!!!!

Peter Schiff, Nouriel Roubini and Gerald Clente are where I get my economic news from and they are hardly pundits for some talk show or Fox News

The schtick is getting old

[high fly]

I appreciate that information thank you for sharing it. As far as you thinking that I take my orders from the talkers, You are wrong. Thats just My interpretation of the constitution, I really don't have time to listen to the Rushbos and Manatees since I am at work during the day


YOUR interpretation of the Constitution is at variance with that of the Founding Fathers and I gave you plenty of evidence to support that.
You came out all blustery when I suggested you familiarize yourself with the tax system and said something about them not passing a tax for someone to pump out kids every 9 months.
I then pointed out one of the first taxes was indeed for health care and you blustered and postured some more, basically putting out the same cliches I hear every day on Limbaugh and Hannity and Beck.
Along the way you accused someone of being "naive" and I kept alluding to something you believed to be impossible.
You didn't think the fedral government could do anything with insurance, even after I told you they imposed the first health insurance plan on business in America and I began giving you dates and specifics. Did you think I was just making it up?



Finally, I put up a post that wiped out one cliche after the other and gave you the historic facts, which were just as I had been saying all along.
The thing that adults do at this point is say something like,

Gee, I didn't know about that, I guess you're right. I didn't think the Constitution allowed the federal government to get into health care but now I see the authors believed it did, I can see that by their actions the Constitution allows the federal government to have a bigger role than I had imagined. So I am going to line up with them. Thanks, high fly,for the history lesson....



What you do not realize is you have been sold a phony interpretation of the Constitution. The "strict interpretation" view was held by a minority of the Founding Fathers and has been rejected by the Supreme Court. By relying on pundits with an agenda for your history instead of actually reading real history books, you have been deceived into holding a faulty view that is unsupported by history, the Constitution, the Founding Fathers or the Supreme Court.
At ths point there are 2 smart things to do:
1) start reading real history books
2) realize the sources which led you to a bogus interpretation of the Constitution are the equivalent of a hot stove and decide you will not go back and keep touching that hot stove, otherwise the Limbaughs, the Hannitys. the Levins, the Becks, the O'Reilly's, the Ingraham's, are going to burn the shit out of those fingers of yours again....

[WRESTLINGFAN]

YOUR interpretation of the Constitution is at variance with that of the Founding Fathers and I gave you plenty of evidence to support that.
You came out all blustery when I suggested you familiarize yourself with the tax system and said something about them not passing a tax for someone to pump out kids every 9 months.
I then pointed out one of the first taxes was indeed for health care and you blustered and postured some more, basically putting out the same cliches I hear every day on Limbaugh and Hannity and Beck.
Along the way you accused someone of being "naive" and I kept alluding to something you believed to be impossible.
You didn't think the fedral government could do anything with insurance, even after I told you they imposed the first health insurance plan on business in America and I began giving you dates and specifics. Did you think I was just making it up?



Finally, I put up a post that wiped out one cliche after the other and gave you the historic facts, which were just as I had been saying all along.
The thing that adults do at this point is say something like,

Gee, I didn't know about that, I guess you're right. I didn't think the Constitution allowed the federal government to get into health care but now I see the authors believed it did, I can see that by their actions the Constitution allows the federal government to have a bigger role than I had imagined. So I am going to line up with them. Thanks, high fly,for the history lesson....



What you do not realize is you have been sold a phony interpretation of the Constitution. The "strict interpretation" view was held by a minority of the Founding Fathers and has been rejected by the Supreme Court. By relying on pundits with an agenda for your history instead of actually reading real history books, you have been deceived into holding a faulty view that is unsupported by history, the Constitution, the Founding Fathers or the Supreme Court.
At ths point there are 2 smart things to do:
1) start reading real history books
2) realize the sources which led you to a bogus interpretation of the Constitution are the equivalent of a hot stove and decide you will not go back and keep touching that hot stove, otherwise the Limbaughs, the Hannitys. the Levins, the Becks, the O'Reilly's, the Ingraham's, are going to burn the shit out of those fingers of yours again....

So your view is that whatever the Supreme Court says is gospel? Just like them saying that Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant. Gee 9 lawyers really know about climate

Id love to hear your views on Eminant Domain after the New London CT debacle

[TheMojoPin]

WF, what is the problem you have with the CBO?

[underdog]

The says the stimulus created 600,000 to 1.6 million jobs in the third quarter alone and raised GDP from 1.2 to 3.2 percent. (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10682/11-30-ARRA.pdf)

But please continue to blame him for problems that existed before he entered office. It feeds your blind partisan rage quite well.

How is that spin? Isn't that what anyone with common sense would expect? What, did you want the unemployment rate to do a 180?

Do people simply just ignore the ? Opponents of the current economic and health care proposals often act like it doesn't exist.

The is independent and not a tool of either party. So should I believe you or the ........... hard choice there.

You can disagree with his policies. You just have lousy arguments behind almost every one of them. Isn't it time for the token trash the Republicans post?

WF, what is the problem you have with the ?

What are you guys talking about?

[HBox]

What are you guys talking about?

There is a link in one of my posts to a CBO report on the effects of the stimulus.

[TheMojoPin]

underdog was making a funny, HBox.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

WF, what is the problem you have with the CBO?

I am not doubting about jobs being created but they are not being sustained. As I pointed out before about all the fraud, money going to non existand districts etc. There are even Dems criticizing the Stimulus

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/70103-growing-dem-attacks-on-the-first-stimulus

I know its still scuttlebutt , however talk about a 2nd stimulus possibly occuring? Why? this one hasnt done anything good at all, Plus thats more money we dont have. I do think the stimulus is doing great for the operators at the printing press in the Treas Dept

As far as losing jobs on a slower scale thats like someone devouring fast food for a week and saying I expected to gain 15 lbs but gained only 12

[underdog]

There is a link in one of my posts to a report on the effects of the stimulus.

Damnit, this sentence still works.

[underdog]

underdog was making a funny, HBox.

Trying. I was trying to make a funny.

[TheMojoPin]

As far as losing jobs on a slower scale thats like someone devouring fast food for a week and saying I expected to gain 15 lbs but gained only 12

So I ask again, did you expect the unemployment rate to effectively grind to a halt and dramatically start reversing? When was that ever promised? While I understand the concerns about sutainability (though you're clearly ranting like all of the jobs are temporary), how jaded do you have to be to spin a decreasing scale of unemployment like it's something to be embarassed about? You decry the people who voted for Obama as having unrealistic expectations yet here you are talking like a decreasing unemployment numbers are a bad thing because it's happening too slowly.

And I ask once again, what are your problems specifically with the CBO and their findings?

[IMSlacker]

So I ask again, did you expect the unemployment rate to effectively grind to a halt and dramatically start reversing? When was that ever promised? While I understand the concerns about sutainability (though you're clearly ranting like all of the jobs are temporary), how jaded do you have to be to spin a decreasing scale of unemployment like it's something to be embarassed about? You decry the people who voted for Obama as having unrealistic expectations yet here you are talking like a decreasing unemployment numbers are a bad thing because it's happening too slowly.

And I ask once again, what are your problems specifically with the CBO and their findings?

WF has visited an alternate reality where there was no stimulus package passed and no TARP. Unemployment there is only 3%. We've fucked up royally.

[TheMojoPin]

WF has visited an alternate reality where there was no stimulus package passed and no TARP. Unemployment there is only 3%. We've fucked up royally.

Oh God, WE NEED A DO-OVER.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

So I ask again, did you expect the unemployment rate to effectively grind to a halt and dramatically start reversing? When was that ever promised? While I understand the concerns about sutainability (though you're clearly ranting like all of the jobs are temporary), how jaded do you have to be to spin a decreasing scale of unemployment like it's something to be embarassed about? You decry the people who voted for Obama as having unrealistic expectations yet here you are talking like a decreasing unemployment numbers are a bad thing because it's happening too slowly.

And I ask once again, what are your problems specifically with the CBO and their findings?

Who said the numbers are decreasing. We are at 10.2% but real pct is about 17%. For 2010 its not going to look any better

The fact is that there are less jobs overall from when this was signed

[WRESTLINGFAN]

WF has visited an alternate reality where there was no stimulus package passed and no TARP. Unemployment there is only 3%. We've fucked up royally.

What are you talking about?

[IMSlacker]

What are you talking about?

Quantum mechanics.

[TheMojoPin]

Who said the numbers are decreasing. We are at 10.2% but real pct is about 17%. For 2010 its not going to look any better

The fact is that there are less jobs overall from when this was signed

Oh my God, can you beat that 17% into the ground a little bit more? Unemployment rates are always in regard to the people looking for work. You're not making some kind of scathing expose every time you "correct" the number.

[DiabloSammich]

What are you talking about?



Zhu Zhu pets.

[HBox]

Who said the numbers are decreasing. We are at 10.2% but real pct is about 17%. For 2010 its not going to look any better

The fact is that there are less jobs overall from when this was signed

Yeah, again, you switch numbers so it makes your point look stronger. You do realize that even before the recession your "real" percentage of unemployment was also much higher than the one everyone uses and has accepted and stays with to avoid the kind of confusion you are attempting create.

[badmonkey]

Yeah, again, you switch numbers so it makes your point look stronger. You do realize that even before the recession your "real" percentage of unemployment was also much higher than the one everyone uses and has accepted and stays with to avoid the kind of confusion you are attempting create.

Interesting...it's like you know because you've done it before...


Yes, that's the same report we had in this thread. It was unemployment claims which were down. The economy lost 44,000 jobs. It's all here: Jobless rate dips (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=668&ncid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20030801/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy) Here's a relevant quote:

Those close to 500,000 people didn't get jobs. They gave up looking for them.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Yeah, again, you switch numbers so it makes your point look stronger. You do realize that even before the recession your "real" percentage of unemployment was also much higher than the one everyone uses and has accepted and stays with to avoid the kind of confusion you are attempting create.

Look what the government refers to as "Full employment"

5% Unemployment rate according tho the feds

[WRESTLINGFAN]

There some on the fringe who want Obama impeached. I dont fall into that camp, Besides it would never happen if theres a majority Democratic party in Congress.

Even Obamas biggest critics wouldnt want Biden anywhere near the Oval office

[high fly]

Look what the government refers to as "Full employment"

5% Unemployment rate according tho the feds



Uh, no.
Not for some time now.
The whole idea of what constituted "full employment" was changed back when International Superstar Bill Clinton got it down to 3.8% with Clintonomics.

I told you man, stop touching that hot stove!

[high fly]

Yeah, again, you switch numbers so it makes your point look stronger. You do realize that even before the recession your "real" percentage of unemployment was also much higher than the one everyone uses and has accepted and stays with to avoid the kind of confusion you are attempting create.


Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin all switched over with the new administration, too.Remember the "Constitutional option"?
First they called it the "nuclear option" till they got bad press, then they changed it to the "Constitutional option."
Since Obama got in office, they are back to calling it the "nuclear option" since the Democrats started talking about using it....

................................................. crazy thing is, they think people don't notice this shit.....

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Uh, no.
Not for some time now.
The whole idea of what constituted "full employment" was changed back when International Superstar Bill Clinton got it down to 3.8% with Clintonomics.

I told you man, stop touching that hot stove!

Yea that tech bubble with the help of Cheap money by the Fed was really great

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin all switched over with the new administration, too.Remember the "Constitutional option"?
First they called it the "nuclear option" till they got bad press, then they changed it to the "Constitutional option."
Since Obama got in office, they are back to calling it the "nuclear option" since the Democrats started talking about using it....

................................................. crazy thing is, they think people don't notice this shit.....

Do you work for Media matters?

[badmonkey]

Uh, no.
Not for some time now.
The whole idea of what constituted "full employment" was changed back when International Superstar Bill Clinton got it down to 3.8% with Clintonomics.

I told you man, stop touching that hot stove!

You too...

Can we work this rascal around to AIDS in Africa?
Hows about grammar?
Mebbe not.
Since the subject is unemployment, perhaps this would be a good time to point out that with over 3.6 or 3.7 million jobs lost since he became president, it's looking more and more like Bush will finish his term as the first president since Herbert Hoover to finish the term with less jobs than when he started.

In terms of percentage, when he took over, the unemployment rate was about 4, 4.2%. It's now, what, 6.5%? A 50% jump in unemployment doesn't look so good on one's resume.


When it comes to economics, Bush just doesn't know what he's doing.

This is the man that said: "I understand small business growth. I was one."

" and they ask me why I drink"

This message was edited by high fly on 8-2-03 @ 1:29 PM
This Dr0p did not reflect 500,000 new jobs being created or anything like it.
What this statistic really is , is the number of people who've stopped looking for work, presumably out of frustration.
The unemployment figures reflect those who are out of work who are actively looking for a job.

That this president will finish his term with less employment than when he started is stunning.

" and they ask me why I drink"

[HBox]

Interesting...it's like you know because you've done it before...

That's not even close to the same thing. I don't even want to know how much time it took you to find that. It would be be too pathetic.

[badmonkey]

That's not even close to the same thing. I don't even want to know how much time it took you to find that. It would be be too pathetic.

I search for unemployment rate in the political thread and went to the last page... think it took about 30 seconds total to find both. I didn't even have to specify poster.

[high fly]

Oh my God, can you beat that 17% into the ground a little bit more? Unemployment rates are always in regard to the people looking for work. You're not making some kind of scathing expose every time you "correct" the number.


Whaya wanna bet he never used that rate before Obama was elected?



It's always annoying to see someone think they are being clever when they are as transparent as saran wrap..............

[high fly]

Yea that tech bubble with the help of Cheap money by the Fed was really great


Yeah, so was cutting unemployment by 3 points before the tech boom took place and turning a record-sized deficit into a balanced budget before the tech boom, while also paying off the $125 billion tab for the S&L debacle - yeah, it was great all right.
Damned shame the Republicans couldn't do anything close to it.
In fact, When Bush took over, with unemployment at 4.1 or 4.2%, the CBO was projecting trillions in surpluses if he just left things alone.

But noooo, he had to go and fuck it all up and whose economic theories do you endorse?
The ones who fucked things up, that's who.....

[high fly]

That's not even close to the same thing. I don't even want to know how much time it took you to find that. It would be be too pathetic.


You are correct, it is not at all the same thing.
There are two ways of measuring unemployment. It is deceptive to use one for one president and another one for a different president. I was using the same method of measuring unemployment for Bush and Clinton so I was being consistent, contrary to the implication badmonkey is making here....

Clinton just did a far better job than Bush.
Clinton was handed off a far worse economy and did much better with it............ oh yeah, he got a beejay, too

[high fly]

Originally Posted by high fly
Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin all switched over with the new administration, too.Remember the "Constitutional option"?
First they called it the "nuclear option" till they got bad press, then they changed it to the "Constitutional option."
Since Obama got in office, they are back to calling it the "nuclear option" since the Democrats started talking about using it....

................................................. crazy thing is, they think people don't notice this shit.....



Do you work for Media matters?


No.

Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin all switched over with the new administration, too. Remember the "Constitutional option"?
First they called it the "nuclear option" till they got bad press, then they changed it to the "Constitutional option."
Since Obama got in office, they are back to calling it the "nuclear option" since the Democrats started talking about using it....

................................................. crazy thing is, they think people don't notice this shit.....

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Next time they want to see an Invite for a WH function, someone should ask to see BHO's birth certificate :clap:

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Next time they want to see an Invite for a WH function, someone should ask to see BHO's birth certificate :clap:

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c175/nightwolf457/ATT00001.jpg

[Syd]

so people still unironically believe that black people aren't born in America?

[keithy_19]

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2009/dec/04/mayor-fires-at-obama-online/

In the opinion of Arlington Mayor Russell Wiseman, President Barack Obama's speech on Tuesday night on the war in Afghanistan was deliberately timed to block the Christian message of the "Peanuts" television Christmas special.

"Ok, so, this is total crap, we sit the kids down to watch 'The Charlie Brown Christmas Special' and our muslim president is there, what a load.....try to convince me that wasn't done on purpose. Ask the man if he believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and he will give you a 10 minute disertation (sic) about it....w...hen the answer should simply be 'yes'...."

In some alternate dimension, this man is my hero.

[TheMojoPin]

Wow.

That stuff never ceases to be incredibly depressing.

[epo]

Next time they want to see an Invite for a WH function, someone should ask to see BHO's birth certificate :clap:

Once again this goes back to a tired line....

If he was not a citizen, the Clinton's would've told us.

[keithy_19]

Wow.

That stuff never ceases to be incredibly depressing.

Kind of baffled me too.

[Syd]

Kind of baffled me too.

Why would it baffle you? The best way to subvert Christianity is to interrupt their traditional Christmas television program used to sell advertisements used to promote products and consumerism with a speech that details a war that ultimately involves killing Muslims and theoretically saving Christian lives.

It makes PERFECT sense for a Muslim to do this.

[GregoryJoseph]

Does anyone think Obama is really ANY religion, or do you think he just did the whole "I'm a Christian now" to get votes?

[TheMojoPin]

I don't think it particuarly matters what his faith is.

[GregoryJoseph]

I don't think it particuarly matters what his faith is.

I never said it did.

I merely asked if anyone really believed he was a Christian.

[TheMojoPin]

I think he is to a point, like almost all of our presidents.

[A.J.]

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2009/dec/04/mayor-fires-at-obama-online/

In the opinion of Arlington Mayor Russell Wiseman, President Barack Obama's speech on Tuesday night on the war in Afghanistan was deliberately timed to block the Christian message of the "Peanuts" television Christmas special.

Whew. I thought this was about Arlington, VA.

[TheMojoPin]

Whew. I thought this was about Arlington, VA.

It's even more barbaric there. ANARCHY.

[GregoryJoseph]

http://www.israpundit.com/2008/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/obama_carter1.jpg

[GregoryJoseph]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_m6BE08s5Fkc/SJsxzyFdpdI/AAAAAAAAAOE/EfWHiKWLchg/s400/Obama-Jimmy-Carter-in-black.jpg

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Barack Hussein Obama Keynes. Sure, the main reason that got us into this, lets continue bad habits


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/12/07/national/w145640S41.DTL

[TheMojoPin]

Love to hear your idea as to how to get out of this without the government spending.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Love to hear your idea as to how to get out of this without the government spending.

A start is to quit encouraging people to assume more debt ala Cash for Clunkers. Also look at the DoD budget its in the area of 500-600 billion this year

[TheMojoPin]

So you think that a government needs to effectively stop any new spending during a recession and only focus on cutting costs?

[badmonkey]

So you think that a government needs to effectively stop any new spending during a recession and only focus on cutting costs?

If the govt cut it's spending, they wouldn't need to take so much money out of the economy via taxes and then we might have the money to stimulate the economy ourselves. All spending stimulates the economy, not just government spending. Taxation just takes more money out of the economy.

[TheMojoPin]

It's not realistic to expect the gigantic amount of cut spending it would take to significantly effect taxation that much. We're just too big. I understand the appeal and wish it was something that was feasable, but it's simply not if we want any kind of America: The Superpower to keep existing. There's definitely a middle ground, but not in a situation like we're in now. The ideal time would have been when we had the surplus (either back to the taxpayers or paying off some of our debt) but Clinton didn't do anything with it except to use it to pad his resume.

[badmonkey]

Yes, but Obama and congress are only looking for ways to increase spending and increase taxes especially on businesses. All that is gonna do is make stuff more expensive or unaffordable for people already living paycheck to paycheck or no paycheck at all.

[TheMojoPin]

Yes, but Obama and congress are only looking for ways to increase spending and increase taxes especially on businesses. All that is gonna do is make stuff more expensive or unaffordable for people already living paycheck to paycheck or no paycheck at all.

Depends on the businesses. There will be some blowback with smaller businesses, but the majority facing tax increases won't stubbornly refuse to ever adjust to the buying power of the consumer base. That would just be stupid.

And bottom line, government spending does need to be increased right now. There's no way around that.

It would be nice if we could see the immediate results of these plans, but we simply can't. It's gonna be ugly, but we gotta ride it out, and that would be true in regards to any course of action with this recession.

[badmonkey]

Depends on the businesses. There will be some blowback with smaller businesses, but the majority facing tax increases won't stubbornly refuse to ever adjust to the buying power of the consumer base. That would just be stupid.

And bottom line, government spending does need to be increased right now. There's no way around that.

It would be nice if we could see the immediate results of these plans, but we simply can't. It's gonna be ugly, but we gotta ride it out, and that would be true in regards to any course of action with this recession.

Small businesses create most of the jobs.

[TheMojoPin]

"Small businesses" is a very broad term. People like to say things like "more taxes will kill small businesses" to fearmonger the idea that basically anything less than a corporation is going to go kaput.

[underdog]

Small businesses create most of the jobs.

What constitutes a small business?

[badmonkey]

"Small businesses" is a very broad term. People like to say things like "more taxes will kill small businesses" to fearmonger the idea that basically anything less than a corporation is going to go kaput.


So you don't think that taxes on businesses affect small businesses and their ability to create/save jobs? You think that people believe that there will suddenly be nothing but corporations if taxes increase on businesses?

I'm going by the definition of small business used by the government when they issue reports like this one (http://www.sba.gov/advo/nov09.pdf) that show that 44-69.8% of the jobs at small businesses depending on the specific state.

[TheMojoPin]

So you don't think that taxes on businesses affect small businesses and their ability to create/save jobs? You think that people believe that there will suddenly be nothing but corporations if taxes increase on businesses?

I think that higher taxes will definitely impact small businesses. Some of them will not make it. That's simply the nature of the situation. Some will fail, others will thrive and have more hiring power and still other new ones will appear down the line. Such is the process.

[badmonkey]

I think that higher taxes will definitely impact small businesses. Some of them will not make it. That's simply the nature of the situation. Some will fail, others will thrive and have more hiring power and still other new ones will appear down the line. Such is the process.

It's not that they won't make it, it's that they will have to downsize their staff or not increase their staff in order to pay those taxes. That is the exact opposite of creating jobs and that is the "nature of the situation".

[TheMojoPin]

It's not that they won't make it, it's that they will have to downsize their staff or not increase their staff in order to pay those taxes.

Pretty much the same result either way.

That is the exact opposite of creating jobs and that is the "nature of the situation".

But it's a necessary byproduct. There's really no way out of this that doesn't involve people getting screwed so I'm not going to pretend like there is. It's not like the scenario you're describing would be indefinite since ideally this would be on the path to strengthening the economy again to the point where the public is spending more and strengthening the smaller businesses that are still around and the ones that show up once we're past this.

[A.J.]

A start is to quit encouraging people to assume more debt ala Cash for Clunkers. Also look at the DoD budget its in the area of 500-600 billion this year

I'm betting a lot of that DoD budget is to care for the wounded soldiers.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

According to the Norweigens he's the worst prize winner ever. Will they be called racists now?


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091209/ts_alt_afp/nobelpeaceusnorway_20091209102428

[angrymissy]

And if he went and lived it up atevery event, certain people in the US would be lambasting him for wasting money and celebrating for the award they say he doesn't deserve.

Guy can't win either way.

[A.J.]

According to the Norweigens he's the worst prize winner ever. Will they be called racists now?


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091209/ts_alt_afp/nobelpeaceusnorway_20091209102428

I hope that he told them that he had to leave early because he had a war to get back to.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

And if he went and lived it up atevery event, certain people in the US would be lambasting him for wasting money and celebrating for the award they say he doesn't deserve.

Guy can't win either way.

In his defense, there are plenty of opportunities to live it up, waste money & rub elbows with celebrities over here

Kudos to him for not apologizing that American Golfers are sleazy to their Scandanavian wives

[Dude!]

I hope that he told them that he had to leave early because he had a war to get back to.

Ha!

[WRESTLINGFAN]

If the CinC isnt at the Army Navy Game hes the worst President ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[WRESTLINGFAN]

That dope should have never been elected. He wants the entire country to root for the Vikings

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaO5D7SnFFU

[JohnGacysCrawlSpace]

Senate on Sunday passed a $1.1 trillion spending bill...include action to raise the $12.1 trillion debt ceiling...
http://www.sphere.com/nation/article/senate-to-vote-sunday-on-trillion-dollar-spending-bill/19276706

"The legislation also contains numerous items not directly related to spending. It provides help for auto dealers facing closure, ends a ban on funding by the District of Columbia government for abortions and allows the district to permit medical marijuana, lets Amtrak passengers carry unloaded handguns in their checked baggage and permits detainees held at Guantanamo Bay to be transferred to the United States to stand trial, but not to be released.

The bill also approves a 2 percent pay increase for federal workers."

[Syd]

Surprised that passed but glad it did. Unfucks up what Bush fucked up when he took money from the government and funneled it to private business.

[badmonkey]

Surprised that passed but glad it did. Unfucks up what Bush fucked up when he took money from the government and funneled it to private business.

You can't seriously be that much of a fanboy.

[SonOfSmeagol]

Surprised that passed but glad it did. Unfucks up what Bush fucked up when he took money from the government and funneled it to private business.

Where, exactly, do you think the money came from in the first place to "give the government" a 10% bump this year, an 8% bump last year, and all the other spending? Magic?

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Things are great if youre a federal worker especially in the dept of transportation, close to 1700 workers are 6 figure emloyees, thats before bonuses and overtime


http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-12-10-federal-pay-salaries_N.htm?csp=34

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Surprised that passed but glad it did. Unfucks up what Bush fucked up when he took money from the government and funneled it to private business.

Bush knocked down the towers also right?

[El Mudo]

Senate on Sunday passed a $1.1 trillion spending bill...include action to raise the $12.1 trillion debt ceiling...
http://www.sphere.com/nation/article/senate-to-vote-sunday-on-trillion-dollar-spending-bill/19276706

"The legislation also contains numerous items not directly related to spending. It provides help for auto dealers facing closure, ends a ban on funding by the District of Columbia government for abortions and allows the district to permit medical marijuana, lets Amtrak passengers carry unloaded handguns in their checked baggage and permits detainees held at Guantanamo Bay to be transferred to the United States to stand trial, but not to be released.

The bill also approves a 2 percent pay increase for federal workers."


Hooray!! :clap::clap:

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Who is he trying to fool? BHO is a puppet for the Bankers especially Goldman



http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20091214/pl_bloomberg/a11hzt4g1vyi

[WRESTLINGFAN]

He gives himself a Solid B+ ???

46% approval rating , he must have done an awful lot of blow in College to think thats a B+

[JohnGacysCrawlSpace]

he must have done an awful lot of blow in College

Woah, that duddn't make you a bad person...

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Now Obama and the Congress want to use 150 billion of leftover TARP money for Infrastructure projects

In 1999 Bubba appropriated over 200 billion dollars for that and in 2005 Dubya signed a bill for about 250 billion. Where did all that money go? Now lets throw another 150 billion away

[Furtherman]

He gives himself a Solid B+ ???

46% approval rating , he must have done an awful lot of blow in College to think thats a B+

His self performance review has nothing to do with an independent review.

[SonOfSmeagol]

Obama: No vacation until Senate passes health bill (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hgpcAXtw8moV6ZmuSEYfw4TTGt2wD9COJUM01)

President Barack Obama won't leave Washington for his Hawaii vacation until the Senate finishes work on the health care overhaul, even if that means staying in town for Christmas Eve.

Are we supposed to actually feel sorry for him? Who the fuck cares? What a drama queen elitist maneuver – like he’s making some sort of sacrifice? Disgusting.

[foodcourtdruide]

Obama: No vacation until Senate passes health bill (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hgpcAXtw8moV6ZmuSEYfw4TTGt2wD9COJUM01)



Are we supposed to actually feel sorry for him? Who the fuck cares? What a drama queen elitist maneuver – like he’s making some sort of sacrifice? Disgusting.

What an odd response.

[IMSlacker]

Are we supposed to actually feel sorry for him? Who the fuck cares? What a drama queen elitist maneuver – like he’s making some sort of sacrifice? Disgusting.

I didn't get the impression that we're supposed to feel sorry for him from the article. I've been off since last Thursday and I don't feel sorry for him.

[SonOfSmeagol]

Alright, I take back "elitist". Otherwise he and his Hawaii-bound posse can bite me!

[sailor]

woman lives for 106 years in peace, then obama praises her and she barely last 1 more. (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iEq3ZnVOniMaJs6x1AGdVVO2ALKQD9COFUK00) he's a monster!

[SonOfSmeagol]

woman lives for 106 years in peace, then obama praises her and she barely last 1 more. (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iEq3ZnVOniMaJs6x1AGdVVO2ALKQD9COFUK00) he's a monster!

I know it. Especially after he promised that, if she voted for him, she'd live to be at least 110. Bastard.

[GregoryJoseph]

She probably killed herself when she saw the Health Insurance "reform" he pushed through.

Danny Glover also hates Obama. (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/12/22/obama-rebuts-grumbling-from-african-american-supporters/?icid=main|search2|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.poli ticsdaily.com%2F2009%2F12%2F22%2Fobama-rebuts-grumbling-from-african-american-supporters%2F)

[Jughead]

I just got word from my people...YES..This health care bill is like can of lard..Get it!!:glurps:

[GregoryJoseph]

Glover, known for his activism along with his acting, said recently that "the Obama administration has followed the same playbook, to a large extent, almost verbatim, as the Bush administration. I don't see anything different. . . . What's so clear is that this country from the outset is projecting the interests of wealth and property."

[TooLowBrow]

Glover, known for his activism along with his acting, said recently that "the Obama administration has followed the same playbook, to a large extent, almost verbatim, as the Bush administration. I don't see anything different. . . . What's so clear is that this country from the outset is projecting the interests of wealth and property."

then he said "I'm too old for this shit"

[Knowledged_one]

then he said "I'm too old for this shit"
post of the day

[epo]

Glover, known for his activism along with his acting, said recently that "the Obama administration has followed the same playbook, to a large extent, almost verbatim, as the Bush administration. I don't see anything different. . . . What's so clear is that this country from the outset is projecting the interests of wealth and property."

Shut up.

[SonOfSmeagol]

Shut up.

Shouting down the black man, once again.

[Dude!]

Shouting down the black man, once again.

i'd call it a
high-tech lynching

[WRESTLINGFAN]

I always pictured BHO as more of a Che Guevera guy


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/23/white-house-christmas-decor-featuring-mao-zedong-comes/

[pennington]

Glover, known for his activism along with his acting, said recently that "the Obama administration has followed the same playbook, to a large extent, almost verbatim, as the Bush administration. I don't see anything different. . . . What's so clear is that this country from the outset is projecting the interests of wealth and property."

After Glover left the interview in mid-town Manhattan, he tried to hail a cab to go home...

[underdog]

I always pictured BHO as more of a Che Guevera guy


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/23/white-house-christmas-decor-featuring-mao-zedong-comes/

Weren't those ornaments done by children?

[IMSlacker]

Weren't those ornaments done by children?

Yes.

<table style='font:11px arial; color:#333; background-color:#f5f5f5' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='360' height='353'><tbody><tr style='background-color:#e5e5e5' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com'>The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td><td style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align:right; font-weight:bold;'>Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr><tr style='height:14px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;' colspan='2'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-december-16-2009/obama-s-socialist-christmas-ornament-program'>Obama's Socialist Christmas Ornament Program</a></td></tr><tr style='height:14px; background-color:#353535' valign='middle'><td colspan='2' style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; width:360px; overflow:hidden; text-align:right'><a target='_blank' style='color:#96deff; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/'>www.thedailyshow.com</a></td></tr><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><embed style='display:block' src='http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:258738' width='360' height='301' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='window' allowFullscreen='true' flashvars='autoPlay=false' allowscriptaccess='always' allownetworking='all' bgcolor='#000000'></embed></td></tr><tr style='height:18px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><table style='margin:0px; text-align:center' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='100%' height='100%'><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes'>Daily Show<br/> Full Episodes</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.indecisionforever.com'>Political Humor</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/videos/tag/health'>Health Care Crisis</a></td></tr></table></td></tr></tbody></table>

[underdog]

Yes.

<table style='font:11px arial; color:#333; background-color:#f5f5f5' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='360' height='353'><tbody><tr style='background-color:#e5e5e5' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com'>The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td><td style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align:right; font-weight:bold;'>Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr><tr style='height:14px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;' colspan='2'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-december-16-2009/obama-s-socialist-christmas-ornament-program'>Obama's Socialist Christmas Ornament Program</a></td></tr><tr style='height:14px; background-color:#353535' valign='middle'><td colspan='2' style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; width:360px; overflow:hidden; text-align:right'><a target='_blank' style='color:#96deff; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/'>www.thedailyshow.com</a></td></tr><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><embed style='display:block' src='http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:258738' width='360' height='301' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='window' allowFullscreen='true' flashvars='autoPlay=false' allowscriptaccess='always' allownetworking='all' bgcolor='#000000'></embed></td></tr><tr style='height:18px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><table style='margin:0px; text-align:center' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='100%' height='100%'><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes'>Daily Show<br/> Full Episodes</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.indecisionforever.com'>Political Humor</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/videos/tag/health'>Health Care Crisis</a></td></tr></table></td></tr></tbody></table>

Ok, so I'm supposed to be against Obama asking children to make ornaments. And now I'm supposed to blame Obama for what the children ended up making?

[IMSlacker]

Ok, so I'm supposed to be against Obama asking children to make ornaments. And now I'm supposed to blame Obama for what the children ended up making?

Isn't it obvious that the Mao and transvestite ornaments were all part of Obama's marching orders for these defenseless children?

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Maybe it was these kids


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtGrp5MbzAI

[JohnGacysCrawlSpace]

And now trannies are getting appointed to high posts:

http://advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/01/01/Trans_Woman_Appointed_to_Dep__of_Commerce/

[epo]

And now trannies are getting appointed to high posts:

http://advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/01/01/Trans_Woman_Appointed_to_Dep__of_Commerce/

From the article:

Simpson was most recently the Deputy Director in Advanced Technology Development at Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, Arizona. A flight instructor and test pilot, Simpson also holds degrees in physics, engineering, and business administration.

At least he/she appears to be qualified. A Jackie Robinson if you will....

[A.J.]

From the article:



At least he/she appears to be qualified. A Jackie Robinson if you will....

In this case: "Jacqui".

[SonOfSmeagol]

She can be whatever she wants to be. It’s her business and no one else’s. I for one am pulling for her. Hope she gets a fair shake and isn’t manhandled unfairly by her potential critics.

[foodcourtdruide]

She can be whatever she wants to be. It’s her business and no one else’s. I for one am pulling for her. Hope she gets a fair shake and isn’t manhandled unfairly by her potential critics.

I agree. I actually think it's pretty remarkable considering how much adversity she probably had to face.

[Dude!]

wow...
and i fell for his lies

http://www.breitbart.tv/the-c-span-lie-did-obama-really-promise-televised-healthcare-negotiations/

[topless_mike]

im wondering why he made that amendment to one of the Reagan Executive Orders, granting INTERPOL all kinds of rights and priviliges(sp) and immunity.

[sr71blackbird]

You may look at this story (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Phantom-zip-codes-also-found-in-Virginia-80795072.html), but under no circumstances can you:
1. Complain about it.
2. Criticize the government about it.

Period, end of discussion.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Ho's that hope and change thing workin?


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100108/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/us_economy

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Ho's that hope and change thing workin?


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100108/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/us_economy

Not so good!!!!
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/jobless-claims-surge-in-the-latest-week-2010-01-21?siteid=bnbh

[Serpico1103]

Not so good!!!!
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/jobless-claims-surge-in-the-latest-week-2010-01-21?siteid=bnbh

I wish GWB would have pulled a Bloomberg.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

I wish GWB would have pulled a Bloomberg.

Bloomberg has dubya beat by about 19 billion

[Jujubees2]

Bloomberg has dubya beat by about 19 billion

Yeah, but GWB has a Dick (Chaney).

[IMSlacker]

<table style='font:11px arial; color:#333; background-color:#f5f5f5' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='360' height='353'><tbody><tr style='background-color:#e5e5e5' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com'>The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td><td style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align:right; font-weight:bold;'>Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr><tr style='height:14px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;' colspan='2'<a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-january-21-2010/political-shift-in-d-c-'>Political Shift in D.C.<a></td></tr><tr style='height:14px; background-color:#353535' valign='middle'><td colspan='2' style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; width:360px; overflow:hidden; text-align:right'><a target='_blank' style='color:#96deff; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/'>www.thedailyshow.com</a></td></tr><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><embed style='display:block' src='http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:262556' width='360' height='301' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='window' allowFullscreen='true' flashvars='autoPlay=false' allowscriptaccess='always' allownetworking='all' bgcolor='#000000'></embed></td></tr><tr style='height:18px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><table style='margin:0px; text-align:center' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='100%' height='100%'><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes'>Daily Show<br/> Full Episodes</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.indecisionforever.com'>Political Humor</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/videos/tag/health'>Health Care Crisis</a></td></tr></table></td></tr></tbody></table>

[WRESTLINGFAN]

he's starting to look bitter, angry and pathetic. Most of the country has woken up and looking at him as someone who got way in over his head. The people don't want nationalized healthcare or cap and trade. The economy is not getting better, the stimulus has not worked. This keeps up he is 1 and gone

[FUNKMAN]

he says a few words and the market goes down now 400-500 points. headlines say "Obama makes market go down". Cramer has an item on CNBC "Will Obama Make Market Drop 1000" or something close...

I guaranfuckingtee you Obama did not sell one share of stock... and the masses in Mutiual Funds didn't pull their money out of the market. It's the big players like Goldman Sachs that have total fucking control over the market and everyone is along for the ride...

true, i believe it's too big an issue for even the Prresident to subdue. everyone says there is a problem, the politicians, the cnbc analysts, but everyone fucking cowers and does nothing about it...

nobody wants to lose their fucking job, even the President

[FUNKMAN]

he says a few words and the market goes down now 400-500 points. headlines say "Obama makes market go down". Cramer has an item on CNBC "Will Obama Make Market Drop 1000" or something close...

I guaranfuckingtee you Obama did not sell one share of stock... and the masses in Mutiual Funds didn't pull their money out of the market. It's the big players like Goldman Sachs that have total fucking control over the market and everyone is along for the ride...

true, i believe it's too big an issue for even the Prresident to subdue. everyone says there is a problem, the politicians, the cnbc analysts, but everyone fucking cowers and does nothing about it...

nobody wants to lose their fucking job, even the President

watching CNBC on wed or thu and the usual blabbermouth Kudlow is asking a guy on the floor of the Stock Exchange "why is the market going down" and he then states "there's a lot of good news today, earnings came in better with certain companies", and the guy on the floor states "oh investors are nervous about blah blah blah" And fucking Kudlow wimpers away like a fucking churchmouse

It's the same old game of the big players building up a stock, rumor of good news comes out, small players jump in, and the big players pull the money away.

NERVOUS INVESTORS

you saw the word "BULLSHIT" tattooed on Kudlows face and he said absolutely nothing

just got to play the game or stay the fuck out and take it up the ass by the bank at .5% earnings on your money...

[foodcourtdruide]

he's starting to look bitter, angry and pathetic. Most of the country has woken up and looking at him as someone who got way in over his head. The people don't want nationalized healthcare or cap and trade. The economy is not getting better, the stimulus has not worked. This keeps up he is 1 and gone

When the stock market climbed up from 6500, the stimulus was not working. Now that the stock market is taking a hit, the stimulus is not working.

I know absolutely nothing about finances, however, I'm failry certain that if Obama came out tomorrow and said the Earth was round, you'd have a post saying the Earth was flat.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

When the stock market climbed up from 6500, the stimulus was not working. Now that the stock market is taking a hit, the stimulus is not working.

I know absolutely nothing about finances, however, I'm failry certain that if Obama came out tomorrow and said the Earth was round, you'd have a post saying the Earth was flat.

The stock market and stimulus are not related at all. Also the stock market is not the driver of the entire economy. The rise to 10k of the dow had to do with a weak dollar. Interest rates artifically low gives birth to cheap money. The economy is still flat on its back and theres talk of more stimulus. The 787 billion dollars is borrowed money and was never in a rainy day reserve fund so thats on the liabilities side of the balance sheet

Unemployment at 17% long term unemployment the highest since the depression, gold skyrocketing, record foreclosures, its a continuing tailspin.

[underdog]

Unemployment at 17% long term unemployment the highest since the depression, gold skyrocketing, record foreclosures, its a continuing tailspin.

All caused by Obama and immigrants.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

All caused by Obama and immigrants.

Obama and his people are basically multiplying stupidity adding more debt. As far as illegal aliens they are doing their part wrecking the economy and sucking the taxpayer dry

[Crispy123]

I know absolutely nothing about finances, however, I'm failry certain that if Obama came out tomorrow and said the Earth was round, you'd have a post saying the Earth was flat.

I think its safe to say no one in this country knows anything about finances.

I also think its hilarious someone with the handle "wrestlingfan" is explaining the economy and poltical pulse of an entire country.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

I think its safe to say no one in this country knows anything about finances.

I also think its hilarious someone with the handle "wrestlingfan" is explaining the economy and poltical pulse of an entire country.

Sure just keep printing money and everything is fine. Is that the best you got judging people by usernames? Shows your ignorance.

[Crispy123]

Sure just keep printing money and everything is fine. Is that the best you got judging people by usernames? Shows your ignorance.

well thanks for that.

FYI your ignorance is shown with each of your informative posts on politics and finance.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

well thanks for that.

FYI your ignorance is shown with each of your informative posts on politics and finance.

who died and made you Tim Russert? or some host on CNBC or Bloomberg TV?

[Crispy123]

OK Tim Russert youre an expert

thanks Vince. Can you tell us please whos going to be the next president and whens the market going to hit bottom?

[WRESTLINGFAN]

thanks Vince. Can you tell us please whos going to be the next president and whens the market going to hit bottom?

We will find out in 2013. As far as timing the market ask Cramer HAAAAAA!!!!!!

[Crispy123]

We will find out in 2013. As far as timing the market ask Cramer HAAAAAA!!!!!!

shit son, I guess we'll have to teach you the timing of the election cycle before we move on to the market.

[SonOfSmeagol]

I’m not so sure about this new "angry, fighting Obama". What’s he angry at? What’s he fighting? Why now? Where's he been?

[epo]

I’m not so sure about this new "angry, fighting Obama". What’s he angry at? What’s he fighting? Why now? Where's he been?

Look at the calendar silly. Something special happens in 10.5 months.

[Dude!]

Look at the calendar silly. Something special happens in 10.5 months.

i wish i could find your
November 2008 post-election post
in which you said something like
the republicans had lost the electorate
for generations or forever or
some such nonsense

you were horribly wrong
and misread what the election meant

eat your words, sucker

[FUNKMAN]

regardless of where you stand if you are expecting this man to turn around in 1 year what happens to be 8 years of fuck up, then you're not being realistic

it's the ignorant stance that Guliani takes that no terroristic attack took place during the Bush administration

[Serpico1103]

We are to blame for the state we are in. Anyone who thought this recession was going to turn around anytime soon is sadly mistaken.
We are still spiraling downward, not plateauing or moving upward.
Even with all the economic stimulus the economy is hurting. How long can we continue to borrow money to pretend that everything is ok?

Unfortunately, people want a quick fix.

[Dude!]

regardless of where you stand if you are expecting this man to turn around in 1 year what happens to be 8 years of fuck up, then you're not being realistic

i didn't expect that in Nov 2008
but HE is the one who set the targets

- all this money will keep unemployment to 8%
- negotiations will be on c-span
- there will be no 'business as usual'

so many of his words and promises
have turned out to be UNTRUE
and that is where my main frustration is

his integrity has started to look
nixon-like, or lbj-like