Healthcare Reform Bill Implodes

[Savetheplanet]

Irrelevant. The original question was whether the Republicans were out of step with the public in opposing the bill. The simple fact is that a majority DO NOT support it. And 49 percent that do support it do not constitute a majority.

 

 

So what are you saying? That no legislation should be passed unless the entire country is polled and %51 approve? Are you also saying that because there were local elections in NJ, Virginia and Massachusetts with local issues,and Republicans won,then HCR can not be passed?

 

Are you high?

Edited March 25, 2010 by Savetheplanet

[Savetheplanet]

 

 

 

How do you explain the logic in even comparing the two? Keeping a strong military equipped with the best equipment available in the world does not come cheap. Certainly there are areas that could and should be trimmed, but it's still gonna cost ya.

 

 

The 2009 US Military budget is $680 Billion, which will be spent on bombs, wars, killing people, supporting endless defense contractors, and hopefully maintaining a few jobs and actually a little defense for the citizens.

 

This bill theoretically will cost $940 Trillion over ten years, which works out to $94 B/per year. Which is about 1/7th of the current military budget.

 

In that kind of light, I really don't have much of a problem spending that kind of $ on preserving the lives and well-being of the citizens. Hell, it would be easy to argue that doing so will provide far more protection and 'defense' than the US military.

[grbeck]

So what are you saying? That no legislation should be passed unless the entire country is polled and %51 approve? Are you also saying that because there were local elections in NJ, Virginia and Massachusetts with local issues,and Republicans won,then HCR can not be passed?

 

Are you high?

 

The editorial posted on this site suggested that Republicans "lost" because they were out of touch with the "majority." The fact is that a majority of people did NOT support the bill, unless 49 percent now constitutes a majority. I certainly wasn't high...so I ask you - Have you actually READ the posts on this thread?

 

As for the Virginia and New Jersey elections - perhaps you missed the stories were the President went to the states and campaigned in favor of the Democratic candidates, and insinuated that each election was a referendum on his policies?

Edited March 25, 2010 by grbeck

[grbeck]

The 2009 US Military budget is $680 Billion, which will be spent on bombs, wars, killing people, supporting endless defense contractors, and hopefully maintaining a few jobs and actually a little defense for the citizens.

 

This bill theoretically will cost $940 Trillion over ten years, which works out to $94 B/per year. Which is about 1/7th of the current military budget.

 

In that kind of light, I really don't have much of a problem spending that kind of $ on preserving the lives and well-being of the citizens. Hell, it would be easy to argue that doing so will provide far more protection and 'defense' than the US military.

 

We already spend more on entitlement and social service programs than on defense spending...and please note that this health care bill is going to spend more than $940 trillion over 10 years. Congress didn't include the hike in Medicare reimbursements for health care providers in the bill, delaying the vote until later to make the numbers look better. But a vote on that bill was promised to health care providers. Plus, the Congressional Budget Office has a history of underestmating the long-term expenditures of federal medical entitlement programs by as much as 500 percent. Considering that one way this bill's numbers were made "acceptable" was by cutting out the increased reimbursements for health care providers (which will eat up any savings), were already off to a great start.

 

I'd say that anyone who believes the official estimates could charitably be described as "naive."

[NickF1011]

The 2009 US Military budget is $680 Billion, which will be spent on bombs, wars, killing people, supporting endless defense contractors, and hopefully maintaining a few jobs and actually a little defense for the citizens.

 

This bill theoretically will cost $940 Trillion over ten years, which works out to $94 B/per year. Which is about 1/7th of the current military budget.

 

In that kind of light, I really don't have much of a problem spending that kind of $ on preserving the lives and well-being of the citizens. Hell, it would be easy to argue that doing so will provide far more protection and 'defense' than the US military.

 

Again, even mentioning defense spending is a red herring. I suppose you don't want to mention the defense spending on things like relief efforts to Haiti or Chile by chance? Of course not. The military is bad, bad, bad!!

[Savetheplanet]

Again, even mentioning defense spending is a red herring. I suppose you don't want to mention the defense spending on things like relief efforts to Haiti or Chile by chance? Of course not. The military is bad, bad, bad!!

 

 

Sure I would love to talk about US aid. The US ranks 21st in the amount of aid given in relation to our GDP Obama wants to double that and bring the US into a respectable bracket. I am sure the Republicans are on board for that one, being the kind gentle people they are.

 

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/annual-letter/2010/Pages/rich-countries-foreign-aid.aspx

[NickF1011]

Sure I would love to talk about US aid. The US ranks 21st in the amount of aid given in relation to our GDP Obama wants to double that and bring the US into a respectable bracket. I am sure the Republicans are on board for that one, being the kind gentle people they are.

 

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/annual-letter/2010/Pages/rich-countries-foreign-aid.aspx

 

Respectable. Ha. I suppose it doesn't matter that our GDP is basically equal to the combined output of all the nations ahead of us? Your partisan viewpoints are laughable. Your world of black and white must be quite depressing to look at every day.

Edited March 25, 2010 by NickF1011

[Savetheplanet]

The editorial posted on this site suggested that Republicans "lost" because they were out of touch with the "majority." The fact is that a majority of people did NOT support the bill, unless 49 percent now constitutes a majority. I certainly wasn't high...so I ask you - Have you actually READ the posts on this thread?

 

As for the Virginia and New Jersey elections - perhaps you missed the stories were the President went to the states and campaigned in favor of the Democratic candidates, and insinuated that each election was a referendum on his policies?

You can spin it how ever you want but the fact is that they were local elections, not referendum's on Obama or HCR. The facts are that the people elected Democrat's by a wide majority and expect change.

[NickF1011]

You can spin it how ever you want but the fact is that they were local elections, not referendum's on Obama or HCR. The facts are that the people elected Democrat's by a wide majority and expect change.

 

So what will be your excuse when Democrats are thrown out on their collective asses in the 2010 midterms? I don't say if, because, frankly, it seems inevitable at this point. (And once again for the record, I am not a Republican.)

Edited March 25, 2010 by NickF1011

[Savetheplanet]

Respectable. Ha. I suppose it doesn't matter that our GDP is basically equal to the combined output of all the nations ahead of us? Your partisan viewpoints are laughable. Your world of black and white must be quite depressing to look at every day.

 

It still does not change the fact that we are a very wealth nation and give only .19%

 

And no, these day's I am pretty happy. Obama is the leader I have been waiting 46 years for. HCR, Stimulus, leaving Iraq, the Environment, Cabinet apointments, supreme court appointments, Judicial appointments, Financial reform, a new energy policy is on the way. And oh yeah a huge majority in both house and Senate.

On top of all that I live in one of the most beautiful places in the world, .6 miles away is the biggest most dense grove of Sequoia's in the world. Every day is a good day for me. I get paid to teach snowboarding in the winter and rock climbing in the summer, I climbed a 300 ft. spire yesterday,. life is good.

Edited March 25, 2010 by Savetheplanet

[Savetheplanet]

So what will be your excuse when Democrats are thrown out on their collective asses in the 2010 midterms? I don't say if, because, frankly, it seems inevitable at this point. (And once again for the record, I am not a Republican.)

Yeah you might not be a Repub but it seems you lean to the right, and that's ok. You do seem to have an unbiased opinion a good portion of the time also. 8 months in political time is a long way away so it's hard to make predictions about the elections. As it stands right now I would guess that the Dem's will lose 3-4 in the senate and 12-16 in the house. Not sure if that is your definition of thrown out though. If memory serves me has not the party that won the pres. election always lost seats in the mid term election have they not?

Edited March 25, 2010 by Savetheplanet

[Mark B. Morrow]

Yeah you might not be a Repub but it seems you lean to the right, and that's ok. You do seem to have an unbiased opinion a good portion of the time also. 8 months in political time is a long way away so it's hard to make predictions about the elections. As it stands right now I would guess that the Dem's will lose 3-4 in the senate and 12-16 in the house. Not sure if that is your definition of thrown out though. If memory serves me has not the party that won the pres. election always lost seats in the mid term election have they not?

 

 

The party in the Whitehouse has lost seats in one or both houses of Congress in every mid-term election since WWII, except Clinton in 1998. The number of seats lost varies but they always lose some. '94 and '06 were memorable due to the change in party control of both houses of Congress.

 

The trend goes way back to Grant in 1870:

Only FDR in '34 and Clinton in '98 lost no seats in a mid-term

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1738236/posts

Edited March 25, 2010 by Mark B. Morrow

[BlackHorse]

The party in the Whitehouse has lost seats in one or both houses of Congress in every mid-term election since WWII, except Clinton in 1998. The number of seats lost varies but they always lose some. '94 and '06 were memorable due to the change in party control of both houses of Congress.

 

The trend goes way back to Grant in 1870:

Only FDR in '34 and Clinton in '98 lost no seats in a mid-term

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1738236/posts

 

 

Yeah I figured that's the way they would spin and deflect this.

[fmccap]

Only 40% opposed so that is not a majority either.

55% Favor Repeal of Health Care Bill

Just before the House of Representatives passed sweeping health care legislation last Sunday, 41% of voters nationwide favored the legislation while 54% were opposed. Now that President Obama has signed the legislation into law, most voters want to see it repealed.

 

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, conducted on the first two nights after the president signed the bill, shows that 55% favor repealing the legislation. Forty-two percent (42%) oppose repeal. Those figures include 46% who Strongly Favor repeal and 35% who Strongly Oppose it.

[Savetheplanet]

55% Favor Repeal of Health Care Bill

Great, a poll from the GOP pollster Scott Rasmussen, it's probably almost as trustworthy as FOX polls

[BlackHorse]

Great, a poll from the GOP pollster Scott Rasmussen, it's probably almost as trustworthy as FOX polls

 

 

LMAO, Rasmussen is a GOP pollster now? :hysterical: What a stupid comment.

[Mark B. Morrow]

Yeah I figured that's the way they would spin and deflect this.

 

 

I don't know if 140 years of history can be called spin.

[BlackHorse]

I don't know if 140 years of history can be called spin.

 

 

They're going to get voted out because people are mad about the socialist agenda this congress has forced on the country, not because of some mid-term election history.

[Mark B. Morrow]

55% Favor Repeal of Health Care Bill

 

 

That's why we have elections instead of choosing our government by polling 1,500 people on the telephone.

[Roadtrip]

Sure I would love to talk about US aid. The US ranks 21st in the amount of aid given in relation to our GDP Obama wants to double that and bring the US into a respectable bracket. I am sure the Republicans are on board for that one, being the kind gentle people they are.

 

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/annual-letter/2010/Pages/rich-countries-foreign-aid.aspx

 

Foreign aid in relation to GDP is a meaningless statistic. It doesn't take into account such factors as the amount of money the U.S. spends serving as the world's police force, keeping global waterways safe for global commerce; private investment in R&D to create vaccines and treatments that benefit disease-ravaged people in third-world countries (chiefly Africa); or public investment in military installations in foreign countries to help protect them from the threat of menacing neighboring countries (see South Korea as a good example).

 

There's a good argument to be made for the "nuclear deterrent," that it has staved off wars and has forced reconciliation. Actually, there is a huge example: Ask people from Eastern European countries what freedom means to them. This and the above examples are extremely expensive -- courtesy of the United States -- and without them, you wouldn't have a planet to live on, much less a planet worth saving.

 

The U.S. is by far the world leader in these types of expenditures -- which, in my book, constitutes a "respectable bracket."

 

Another "respectable bracket" the U.S. leads the world in, is in the category of total expenditures (public and private) in foreign aid. Even under the evil Republican George W. Bush, the U.S. led the league in total foreign aid at the height of his presidency:

 

[mustang84isu]

LMAO, Rasmussen is a GOP pollster now? :hysterical: What a stupid comment.

Many publications including Time have noted that Rasmussen has a right-leaning bias. Why else is it that Rasmussen is quoted almost exclusively by right wing media and they always seems to conflict with the other major polling organizations? Gallup is widely regarded as the most accurate and impartial polling group.

 

Speaking of which, today's Gallup shows Obama's approval at 51% and his disapproval down 2% to 42%. http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

[BlackHorse]

Many publications including Time have noted that Rasmussen has a right-leaning bias. Why else is it that Rasmussen is quoted almost exclusively by right wing media and they always seems to conflict with the other major polling organizations? Gallup is widely regarded as the most accurate and impartial polling group.

 

Speaking of which, today's Gallup shows Obama's approval at 51% and his disapproval down 2% to 42%. http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

 

Really, liberal Time magazine noted his right leaning bias? LMAO. Scott Rasmussen is a Republican but his polling is completely non-bias. His figures on the Obama election in 08 were right on the money. By the same token Gallup is leftist but as far as I know the polling there is non-biased as well.

[mustang84isu]

Really, liberal Time magazine noted his right leaning bias? LMAO. Scott Rasmussen is a Republican but his polling is completely non-bias. His figures on the Obama election in 08 were right on the money. By the same token Gallup is leftist but as far as I know the polling there is non-biased as well.

Time magazine...liberal?

 

Gallup...leftist? Again, First time I've heard that one.

 

Both Time and Gallup are about as middle of the road as you can get.

[mustang84isu]

Time, the same flaming liberal organization that voted Bush as Man of the Year in 2004 when his approval rating was about the same as Barack Obama's approval right now.

 

Edited March 26, 2010 by mustang84isu

[mettech]

Foreign aid in relation to GDP is a meaningless statistic. It doesn't take into account such factors as the amount of money the U.S. spends serving as the world's police force, keeping global waterways safe for global commerce; private investment in R&D to create vaccines and treatments that benefit disease-ravaged people in third-world countries (chiefly Africa); or public investment in military installations in foreign countries to help protect them from the threat of menacing neighboring countries (see South Korea as a good example).

 

There's a good argument to be made for the "nuclear deterrent," that it has staved off wars and has forced reconciliation. Actually, there is a huge example: Ask people from Eastern European countries what freedom means to them. This and the above examples are extremely expensive -- courtesy of the United States -- and without them, you wouldn't have a planet to live on, much less a planet worth saving.

 

The U.S. is by far the world leader in these types of expenditures -- which, in my book, constitutes a "respectable bracket."

 

Another "respectable bracket" the U.S. leads the world in, is in the category of total expenditures (public and private) in foreign aid. Even under the evil Republican George W. Bush, the U.S. led the league in total foreign aid at the height of his presidency:

 

 

+1... and that's the truth.