blucavvy wrote:i didn't say it makes sense, you told me to back up my belief that he should be punished so i did. what would b an acceptable solution then?
blucavvy wrote:i didn't say it makes sense, you told me to back up my belief that he should be punished so i did. what would b an acceptable solution then?
blucavvy wrote:i have healthcare, but thanx for bashin again buddy. you're real informative aren't you? and yeah i pay for it. goddamn you just really don't get it do you? let me guess, you were one of those idiots in the town halls waving a shot gun around huh?
btw let me clarify i have had insurance since i was 19 and paid for every month of it on my own in a trade job, which as you may or may not know hasn't been doing great in this economy. so go ahead, spout some @!#$ again that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Weebel wrote:This is the biggest problem I have with the argument.....
If you speak out of turn against authority.... you will be punished and / or silenced.
Whats that sound like?
And even if they did think up some bs way they could punish him.... how in the hell could they enforce said punishment..... they guy didnt to anything wrong....... other than being rude..... wich in my opinion..... isnt necessarily a bad thing in some situations...
Personally.... I think Obama should have had the balls to stop his "speech" right then and there and have an actual debate with the man calling him out...... I mean.... if the guy is wrong.... Obama should have been able to explain why right?
But I guess since he didnt have a pre printed page of lies to read from on the subject at hand..... it wouldnt have been fair.....
Greedy Capitalist Pig wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:And lastly, like I have been saying since those BS "Tea-Parties" started this year, where were you when Bush was spending like if there was no tomorrow? "Why the difference now???"
Do you see your double standard here?
As I have said before, while it does not make Bush's spending good, by any stretch of the imagination, the big difference is speed and scope. Also, even though it was done under Bush, the TARP bill is a driving force behind the tea parties. It was simply that, on top of TARP, we got the ARRA and an Omnibus Bill, which together added up to over a trillion in spending increases in a very short period of time, from the man who many thought was going to reduce deficit spending.
Wade Jarvis wrote:Well they voted to sanction him. I have not really looked into what exactly that means yet...
It sickens me that this keeps being talked about. It is yet another example of a distraction.
(tabs) wrote:goodwrench: i have posted over the years about being unhappy with what bush was spending. the difference now, as you so coyly tried to put back on me, is that the spending has been TREMENDOUSLY more, in an amazingly short time frame. did bush spend TRILLIONS of dollars within his first few months in office? hell no...he was busy vacationing on his crawford ranch. yet he spent the money (not nearly as much, of course) over the course of his presidency, not within the first few months like obama.
but seriously....shall i go on about the differences in the spending of the two? we've gone over them in a few different posts already....do i really need to reiterate myself for the sake of your lack of short-term memory, or more appropriately, your voluntary forgetfulness of the stats?
mitdr774 wrote:"WHO knows maybe if you are lucky enough he can have the country back into Clinton surplus type times..... "
We never had a surplus. It was a projected surpluss based off of false assumptions and numbers games that could have never worked out. Obama is not stopping funding one thing and shifting the money elsewhere as you may think. All these new programs are added costs to the taxpayers. Every number I see shows more and more costs yet very little reductions in spending. The health care alone is projected to cost $900 billion over the next 10years. If its run the same way as everything else you can expect it to be at least doubled.
sndsgood wrote:dont know how one president can spend x amount of dollars and be called a spender and the next presidents spend way more then the first and be called a savior.
sndsgood wrote:weeble. the fact that the man is the president should prove that he has earned the respect of millions of people out there. just because he hasn't personally came to your house and talked with you and did something for you personally doesnt mean he shouldn't have respect. if joe wants to speak out thats great, but that wasnt the time nor the place for it. image if half a dozen people were doing that. nothing would get done, the speach wouldnt get read it would just be a big shouting match. less would get accomplished and we'd spend more money as a society getting even less done.
Short Hand wrote:Greedy Capitalist Pig wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:And lastly, like I have been saying since those BS "Tea-Parties" started this year, where were you when Bush was spending like if there was no tomorrow? "Why the difference now???"
Do you see your double standard here?
As I have said before, while it does not make Bush's spending good, by any stretch of the imagination, the big difference is speed and scope. Also, even though it was done under Bush, the TARP bill is a driving force behind the tea parties. It was simply that, on top of TARP, we got the ARRA and an Omnibus Bill, which together added up to over a trillion in spending increases in a very short period of time, from the man who many thought was going to reduce deficit spending.
If your going to argue that point, then one could also argue what the money is now going to be spent vs what it was used for during the bush administration. Here we have billions going to infrastructure, healthcare for you and the ones who can not afford it.... and what not, where as before a very large sum was spent on the military and the campaign in Iraq........
Also another good point to notice in all of this is how the annual deficit by the end of Obama's presidency will be half of what it is yearly now ......... THAT to me is an incredible feat by itself. WHO knows maybe if you are lucky enough he can have the country back into Clinton surplus type times.....
Greedy Capitalist Pig wrote:With regards to Wilson lying, consider this one major difference in illegal immigrants being able to purchase health insurance under the exhange, with the government option, and them being able to purchase insurance currently from a private company:I wasn't going to argue this point, but I changed my mind.
The private company is not going to be subsidized by tax money, which the illegal immigrants do not pay.
So Wilson was not, in fact, lying. The bill that is being pushed right now would allow illegal immigrants to get lower cost health care that is subsidized by federal tax money paid by legal citizens. And Obama said the other night, as he has said in previous speeches, that it wouldn't.
bk3k wrote:I wasn't going to argue this point, but I changed my mind.
Your point about the public option as a whole being subsidized is purely speculative. Show me that in the bill. It does mention subsidies for some lower income people to buy it - at this point it specifically says that illegal immigrants are NOT eligible for this subsidy. For the rest of it people are paying for their plans - the people buying the plans fund it. Its non-profit based but that doesn't mean that the cost of the plan doesn't ever increase to meet rising cost of people using the plan. That is no different from free market plans now. The only point you might have would be the government subsidizing hospital being required to treat any emergency case in the door(being an illegal or not) - except that is already true today.
In short - if Joe Wilson was misinformed then he wasn't intentionally lying, but he was lying either way.
Quote:The simple fact of the matter is that by lack of clarity, there can be fraud. When the amendment was introduced to provide that clarity, it was shot down. Thus the claim that the bill would not provide coverage for illegal immigrants is disingenuous at best.
The legislation offers affordable premium credits, or more simply affordability credits, to persons with low incomes who meet the substantial presence criteria. Under HR 3200, individuals would use the newly created Health Insurance Exchange to get affordability credits or to enroll in the to-be-created government-provided health insurance program often referred to as the “public option.” The credits are based on a sliding scale, with lower-income people getting a larger credit. The income ceiling for the credits and public option is 400 percent of the poverty level. Section 246 of HR 3200 states, “Nothing in this subtitle shall allow federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.”2 But as CRS points out, “HR 3200 does not contain any restrictions on non-citizens — whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently — participating in the Exchange.”3 So it would seem that illegal immigrants, along with some temporary workers and visitors, would be required to have insurance and could use the Exchange, despite a bar on them receiving taxpayer-financed affordable premium credits.
Even so, the bill does not include any means of determining legal status for those attempting to receive the affordability credits or the public option. Most similar means-tested programs require use of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program to prevent illegal immigrants or other ineligible non-citizens from getting benefits.
bk3k wrote:I'm interested to know if you are for getting rid of (or at least reducing) Medicare - it used to be on the Republican agenda's hit list but Michael Steele is pretending that he wants to protect it. It is after all a big socialist handout to the elderly. They have received (and continue to receive) much more worth of Medicare funding than they ever paid into taxes in their lifetimes. But protecting it polls well with the all-important senior voting block. So now Republicans are to be the guard of socialized medicine just so long as it is popular with important voter demographics? That is a clear cut case of trading principal for votes. In your opinion, is Steele right or wrong?
bk3k wrote:^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Listen to/read this and tell me he isn't trying to flip and/or have it both ways.
Not that all Republicans are waffling on it, Steele obviously isn't every Republican. But he is in somewhat of a high position. He leads the RNC and as such can be seen as something of a representative of Republican sentiment. So if after that interview, you think he is waffling on the issues you care about - I'd suggest getting people to write him and tell him to correct his message.
Quote:
Well, people may like Medicare, and liking a program and having it run efficiently is sometimes two different things. And the reality of it is simply this: I'm not saying I like or dislike Medicare. It is what it is.
It is a program that has been around for over 40 years, and in those 40 years, it has not been run efficiently and well enough to sustain itself. You have Medicare. You have Amtrak. You have the Post Office - all these government-run agencies that try to inject themselves into private markets typically don't do too well. My only point is that, okay, Medicare is what it is. It's not going anywhere. So let's focus on fixing it so that we don't every three, five, 10 years have discussions about bankruptcy and running out of money....
...Just because, you know, I want to protect something that's already in place and make it run better and run efficiently for the senior citizens that are in that system does not mean that I want to automatically support, you know, nationalizing or creating a similar system for everybody else in the country who currently isn't on Medicare.