- #211
WhoWee
- 219
- 0
Char. Limit said:How much can you name that the GOP has stopped Obama, as in Obama personally, from enacting?
I'm not certain - I'll need to re-read all of the posts making that claim.
Char. Limit said:How much can you name that the GOP has stopped Obama, as in Obama personally, from enacting?
turbo said:Remember that Obama can do a few things in his administrative capacity, but he cannot legislate. The GOP in Congress is doing their level best to stop every initiative that he supports, and he's getting precious little support from some in his own party. When Mitch McConnell says that his #1 priority is getting rid of Obama (not creating jobs or helping to fix the economic mess we're in), take him at his word.
Reminder: your point was not single payer is arguably cheaper, but "no one should doubt we would spend less money going to a single payer."ParticleGrl said:I contend your chart makes my point for me.
Look, the UK's NHS spending more than doubled from 2000 until now. Over that same time period the UK's population grew by 3 million while the US population grew by 29 million. I won't try to produce a private (i.e. federal tax deductible employer insurance) spending curve over the same time period, but whatever it is (and its bad) do you really think the UK doubling-of-spending record makes your case beyond any doubt?Put the US on the same chart If you are using the UK to make a comparison between single payer and our system, you should at least make the comparison instead of putting up the UK numbers in isolation. If you put the US on your charts, you'll find we pay more and have faster growing costs.
which I dispute. The usual flawed figures leave out a great deal of cost not included in Medicare's 'administration' books, Medicare cost shifts onto the private system, and then given the size of Medicare its going to be very difficult to separate cause and effect between Medicare and everything else.Also, to compare like-with-like medicare spends less for patient care then the private sector, despite insuring a riskier population. Its growth has also been slower than private care.
turbo said:
Do you demand more proof?
If you are a politics-junky, you already knew this, so why demand confirmation?
WhoWee said:Actually turbo - as per Evo (today) - information from the Heritage Foundation is slanted anti-Obama and not permitted in this forum. Accordingly - do you have anything else?
Office_Shredder said:That's not citing the Heritage Foundation claiming Mitch McConnell believes this (which would be disallowed), that's a video of Mitch McConnell stating his number one priority is defeating Obama. There's a clear difference, and the fact that he happens to be talking at a Heritage Foundation event is irrelevant to the greater conversation (unless you want to argue that he lied to them for political reasons)
I said that the Foundry blog you linked to was yellow journalism and not acceptable.WhoWee said:Actually turbo - as per Evo (today) - information from the Heritage Foundation is slanted anti-Obama and not permitted in this forum. Accordingly - do you have anything else?
mheslep said:Yes his new budget will have a $1.3 trillion deficit for FY 2012. Lots of new spending, no serious cuts to old spending or Medicare reform, but includes a big tax increase. This should raise the debt to over $16 trillion by the end of the year. Next FY the debt will have nice shot at 110% GDP.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/overview
Doesn't matter wrt to the deficit. $0.8B is in the noise, a little more than 2 hours of current federal spending. He has to reform Medicare. Right now the fix can be w/ no change at all to, say, people over 55 as per a Ryan plan or something like it. Soon, the situation will require changes to benefits already in the system.WhoWee said:I just heard on the radio President Obama wants an additional $800,000,000 for countries of the "Arab Spring" - label IMO until I find a source please.
mheslep said:Doesn't matter wrt to the deficit. $0.8B is in the noise, a little more than 2 hours of current federal spending. He has to reform Medicare. Right now the fix can be w/ no change at all to, say, people over 55 as per a Ryan plan or something like it. Soon, the situation will require changes to benefits already in the system.
To be specific, 'they' is Harry Reid in the Senate. The House or course passed a budget.WhoWee said:I have a problem with ANY requests for additional spending when they haven't passed a budget in the past 1,000+ days.
Pythagorean said:I think his best bet would to be ignore Newt directly, maybe implicate or insinuate a response elsewhere.
aquitaine said:Newt's already faded, soon enough this will become a total non-issue.
aquitaine said:Newt's already faded, soon enough this will become a total non-issue.
Good response. Newt is a non-issue. He would like to stay in the public eye, but he is not a player. He has a ton of baggage and no plurality of women would vote to put Callista in the WH as first lady.lisab said:Newt who?
Obama said:Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
I don't think they are all that useful - even a little disingenuous - since the "principle" at issue is clearly accessible to people of all/no faith.Pythagorean said:I like these words
Pythagorean said:I like these words
You're exactly right Jimmy and this is what irritates me so much about Obama (and his fans, for falling for it). If Gingrich says something pompous or Santorum says something from the religious fringe, people think - 'well, that figures', he's ________ - but Obama is able to hold on to his squeaky clean image by being a propaganda master. In this case, he got people to believe a falsehood without even having to say it!Jimmy Snyder said:I don't know if I'm allowed to post this. It is the prohibition against killing people that is being cited. This is a universal principle and should satisfy Obama's criterion. The argument is over who is and isn't a person. This argument has occurred in the past and didn't end well
Jimmy Snyder said:The argument is over who is and isn't a person.
On this one point we agree. My side espouses reason, while the other side espouses dogma.AlephZero said:So far as I can tell, the dogma is about when a collectiion of molecules becomes a person, which is a different argument.
Exactly, and the abortion/birth control funding issue turned to religious nut issue is just one example of the general method. Argue against against the the size of the deficit and the racist card or the 'rube' card is played, etc.russ_watters said:... If Gingrich says something pompous or Santorum says something from the religious fringe, people think - 'well, that figures', he's ________ - but Obama is able to hold on to his squeaky clean image by being a propaganda master. In this case, he got people to believe a falsehood without even having to say it!
It is certainly true that separation of Church and State requires that laws not have strictly religious motivation. And therefore, it is also true that it is incumbent upon the Pro Life side to frame their agument according to principles even the non-religious can agree on. But the implication of explaining this to us is that the Pro Life side is not properly framing their argument. Obama doesn't say this, though, he just tricks his followers into generating it themselves. Trouble is, it's nowhere close to true. The truth of the matter is that the principle that the pro life side is discussing is simply "Thou shalt not murder" (irony intended) - a principle that essentially everyone agrees on.
At best, this is a strawman/red herring piece of propaganda by Obama. At worst, it's an implied lie. ...
russ_watters said:But the implication of explaining this to us is that the Pro Life side is not properly framing their argument
Pengwuino said:Heh, my parents are pure middle class and had nothing but higher taxes and higher medical bills because of him. I'm sometimes curious as to which middle class people are talking about when they say Obama is a man of the middle class. You can appeal all you want to people, but when they see your actions concerning them, appealing to voters isn't going to be worth much.
Drotzer said:That is totally false. Higher medical Bills would be due to insurance companies. Taxes? If your parents are middle class, their taxes were lowered.
WhoWee said:when social security is facing insolvency
SixNein said:Last time I checked, social security was projected to be solvent through 2037. And quite frankly, projections aren't that great so far out.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/cbo-projec...ration-solvent/story?id=12776481#.T0co13mY7x4