Republicans Eat Obama Alive

[Shady]

What the media is saying about the healthcare summit...

Media Says “Republicans Brought Their ‘A Team,’” “Have Been Very Effective,” “The Folks In The White House Just Must Be Kicking Themselves Right Now”

CNN’s WOLF BLITZER: “It looks like the Republicans certainly showed up ready to play.” (CNN’s “Live,” 2/25/10)

CNN’s GLORIA BORGER: “The Republicans have been very effective today. They really did come to play. They were very smart.” (CNN’s “Live,” 2/25/10)

• BORGER: “They took on the substance of a very complex issue. … But they really stuck to the substance of this issue and tried to get to the heart of it and I think did a very good job.” (CNN’s “Live,” 2/25/10)

• BORGER: “They came in with a plan. They mapped it out.” (CNN’s “Live,” 2/25/10)

CNN’s DAVID GERGEN: “The folks in the White House just must be kicking themselves right now. They thought that coming out of Baltimore when the President went in and was mesmerizing and commanding in front of the House Republicans that he could do that again here today. That would revive health care and would change the public opinion about their health care bill and they can go on to victory. Just the opposite has happened.” (CNN’s “Live,” 2/25/10)

• GERGEN: “He doesn’t have a strong Democratic team behind him.” (CNN’s “Live,” 2/25/10)

THE HILL’S A.B. STODDARD: “I think we need to start out by acknowledging Republicans brought their ‘A Team.’ They had doctors knowledgeable about the system, they brought substance to the table, and they, I thought, expressed interest in the reform. I thought in the lecture from Senator John McCain and on the issue of transparency, I thought today the Democrats were pretty much on their knees.” (Fox News’ “Live,” 2/25/10)

THE WEEKLY STANDARD’S STEVE HAYES: “I think to me the most important thing to come out of the morning so far is that Republicans have spent a great deal of time talking with great passion, and I think eagerness about their plans, detailing the plans that until this morning them democrats had been saying didn't exist. Well, you now see, I think, in great detail that Republicans do have plans, that they care about the same issues and that they feel passionately about it.” (Fox News’ “Live,” 2/25/10)

Link

Here's a little sample of the goings-on...

Rising Republican star Rep. Paul Ryan.

[punked]

What a bunch of BS Shady. Yep Republicans came with their talking points and wont even try to get something out there. They also came with a bunch of lies to tell too the American people. Here is the AP fact checking the Republican point and presidents. The president wins because he is honest and not full of crap.

When President Barack Obama and a Republican lawmaker sparred Thursday over what might happen to health insurance premiums in an overhauled system, both cited a nonpartisan analysis that looked at that very question. The president gave a fairer summary of what the analysis found

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9E3BOJ81.htm

A whole another story fact checking showing he Republicans making up truth out of thin air.

The Fact:

Talk about the use of the reconciliation process, which Republicans view as an assault on their rights as the Senate minority, has been in the air for months, and Reid himself has been part of that conversation. In a Nevada political talk show, "Face to Face with John Ralston," Reid said on Feb. 19 that he planned to use the reconciliation process to pass a pared-down health-care bill. And answering reporters' questions about the process this week, Reid said Republicans "should stop crying about reconciliation. It's done almost every Congress, and they're the ones that used it more than anyone else." On the latter point, Reid was right.

The Facts

I would say the media response is PANTS ON FIRE republicans Shady.

HAHAHAH Obama has been laying the Smack down the whole day. Awesome Republcians have to actually lay down ideas and their ideas stink.

Obama: "Would you feel the same way if you were making $40,000. Or if that was your income. Because that's the reality for a lot of folks."

He makes an awesome reference in this video, and he is right. The real people out there aren't the Premiers of Newfoundland they are farmers or construction workers who can't afford what America has right now no matter how good it is.

Another miscalculation hours into the summit, where the president has offered an olive branch to try and work with Republicans. Republican leaders office issues statement they wont work with Democrats. I am sure Shady is loving the Republicans who are on message but the wrong message "we will never work for what the people want" which would health care reform. You could have waited a few hours and at least pretended to try and work with the President Boehner.

http://gopleader.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=173528

Edited February 25, 2010 by punked

[Shady]

More pure pwnage from Rep. Paul Ryan. He takes on both Obama and Biden, and at the end of the clip, they both sit there stone-faced, unable to respond to the facts. Romney/Ryan 2012!!!! This guy is amazing!

[Smallc]

As usual Shady, you post the clip out of context without the response. The thread on you is right, you are very intellectually dishonest.

[punked]

More pure pwnage from Rep. Paul Ryan. He takes on both Obama and Biden, and at the end of the clip, they both sit there stone-faced, unable to respond to the facts. Romney/Ryan 2012!!!! This guy is amazing!

You mean the same Ryan who wrote a budget with huge tax cuts and told people it was balances as long as you assume the tax cuts cost nothing with out explaining how that might be? Yah this guys doesn't hid spending at all. He is big flipping Liar, also he disowned his own budget after called on that. HAHAHA Shadys new savior after all the ones have fallow, Jindel, Palin etc.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/was_the_cbo_too_kind_to_paul_r.html

Edited February 25, 2010 by punked

[Shady]

You mean the same Ryan who wrote a budget with huge tax cuts and told people it was balances as long as you assume the tax cuts cost nothing with out explaining how that might be? Yah this guys doesn't hid spending at all. He is big flipping Liar, also he disowned his own budget after called on that. HAHAHA Shadys new savior after all the ones have fallow, Jindel, Palin etc.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/was_the_cbo_too_kind_to_paul_r.html

Nice try. The CBO scored it the same way it scores the disasterous Obama budget. Obama leads the country off of an economic cliff with his budget. Even if Ryan's budget doesn't do 100% of what it expects, it's still 1000 times better than Obama's fiscal nightmare of a plan. Math doesn't lie! But you certainly do!

[punked]

Nice try. The CBO scored it the same way it scores the disasterous Obama budget. Obama leads the country off of an economic cliff with his budget. Even if Ryan's budget doesn't do 100% of what it expects, it's still 1000 times better than Obama's fiscal nightmare of a plan. Math doesn't lie! But you certainly do!

It did not read the article. It scored it assuming large scale tax cuts would cost nothing, but no one explained how that would be. READ SHADY READ! Unless Ryan can explain how that works the budget which kills both Medicare and social security is still not balanced. Even if it is true you can cut large scale taxes with out revenues dropping off Ryans budget is not balanced for another 25 years. OHHHH NOES SHADY NEW DREAM MAN after Jindel failed, Brown voted with the dems, and Palin lost is all wrong too. Sad

Here's how they put it, in budget-ese: "As specified by your staff, for this analysis total federal tax revenues are assumed to equal those under [current fiscal policy]," the analysis reads.

This is what the CBO says when assessing the Ryan budget. AGAIN CALL ME A LIAR FOR TELLING THE TRUTH SHADY.

Edited February 26, 2010 by punked

[Shady]

This is what the CBO says when assessing the Ryan budget. AGAIN CALL ME A LIAR FOR TELLING THE TRUTH SHADY.

Again, you didn't address my point. You can complain about the Ryan budget, but Obama's budget increases the deficit, and increases the debt significantly. So even if Ryan's budget doesn't eliminate the debt by 2080, it still takes out a good chunk of it. Obama's budget does the opposite. Why won't you acknowledge that? OBAMA'S BUDGET DOES THE EXACT OPPOSITE!!!

And to the larger point, tax cuts don't cost revenue, they increase revenue. Whether you want to look at the across the board tax cuts of John Kennedy, of Ronald Reagan, or of George Bush. The revenue going to the federal government HAS ALWAYS GONE UP, not down.

Let's take Reagan for example. In 1982, tax revenue was 967 billion dollars. 3 years after the Reagan tax cuts, revenue was up 15%, at 1.2 trillion dollars. How can that be punked??? Tax cuts are suppose to cost money right? Revenue should be way down, not way up. That's impossible. But if you take a look at the statistics, the same thing happened under John Kennedy, as well as George Bush. Revenues went up, not down. Only idiots assume that the same rate of economic growth will occur under higher tax rates as they do under lower tax rates. Which doesn't happen. History proves that over, and over again. Jimmy "failure" Carter had the top rates at 70%!!! And didn't come close to the revenues Reagan hit with a top rate of 28%!!!! How can that be punked??? How can that be???

[Shady]

Anyways, back to the great Republican preformance!

[Sir Bandelot]

I don't care at all about partisan crap. Here's what I think about the US health care situation- the people should get what they need and want. They should be honestly informed of what the options are, and what each would cost. If they don't want to do anything, just keep the status quo, fine good. But whatever happens, they're in a democracy. They should get what they vote for. Let them eat cake

[punked]

Again, you didn't address my point. You can complain about the Ryan budget, but Obama's budget increases the deficit, and increases the debt significantly. So even if Ryan's budget doesn't eliminate the debt by 2080, it still takes out a good chunk of it. Obama's budget does the opposite. Why won't you acknowledge that? OBAMA'S BUDGET DOES THE EXACT OPPOSITE!!!

And to the larger point, tax cuts don't cost revenue, they increase revenue. Whether you want to look at the across the board tax cuts of John Kennedy, of Ronald Reagan, or of George Bush. The revenue going to the federal government HAS ALWAYS GONE UP, not down.

Let's take Reagan for example. In 1982, tax revenue was 967 billion dollars. 3 years after the Reagan tax cuts, revenue was up 15%, at 1.2 trillion dollars. How can that be punked??? Tax cuts are suppose to cost money right? Revenue should be way down, not way up. That's impossible. But if you take a look at the statistics, the same thing happened under John Kennedy, as well as George Bush. Revenues went up, not down. Only idiots assume that the same rate of economic growth will occur under higher tax rates as they do under lower tax rates. Which doesn't happen. History proves that over, and over again. Jimmy "failure" Carter had the top rates at 70%!!! And didn't come close to the revenues Reagan hit with a top rate of 28%!!!! How can that be punked??? How can that be???

I AM ADDRESSING YOUR POINT Ryans budget doesn't cut anything if we assume his huge tax cuts aren't revenue neutral which they aren't. The Bush tax cuts cost 2 Trillion dollars one must assume Ryans tax cuts just like Bushes will cost that much, they cost twice as much Obama's programs. See what I am saying Shady? We can't assuming cutting taxes more will be revenue neutral, we did that with Bushes and it got the US into a very messy situation.

As for your Reagan assessment the GDP went up 35% during those years yet tax revenue only grew by 19%. Although eh did spend like a Drunken sailor, the federal debt increased by 49.0% over those years. So Shady don't sit here and talk to me about tax cuts and blanced budget and talk about Regan, he increased the Debt to GDP by 20% the most of any president ever you know why Shady? Because he cut taxes with out cutting spending equally just like Ryan.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/hist.pdf

Check table 7.1 out.

OHHHHH NOES A CITATION SHADY!!!

There was few knock outs today the Republicans got none as most of their points were just lies. I think Nacy did great though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S15BQgELDAQ&feature=player_embedded

Hey Shady if tax cuts increase revenue lets just increase them to 0% that makes perfect sense. You need too have the right balance and it isn't right at this moment. Bush's cuts cost 2 Trillion dollars Shady that is a fact the CBO says so. Also revenue went down after the Bush cuts of 2001 and 2003 so STOP LYING!

Edited February 26, 2010 by punked

[Shady]

I AM ADDRESSING YOUR POINT Ryans budget doesn't cut anything if we assume his huge tax cuts aren't revenue neutral which they aren't.

Again, even if you assume that they're not revenue neutral, Ryan's budget still does more to cut the deficit and cut the debt than Obama's. That's a fact. If you won't admit that, then you're a lying liar.

we did that with Bushes and it got the US into a very messy situation.

Really? Bush's tax cuts forced banks to give loans to unqualified people? How did tax cuts manage to do that?

As for your Reagan assessment the GDP went up 35% during those years yet tax revenue only grew by 19%.

Well, I'm glad you admit that revenue grew by 20%. How did that happen? How did revenue grow when Reagan took tax rates from 70% to 28%? By your theory that shouldn't have happened.

Because he cut taxes with out cutting spending equally just like Ryan.

Once again you're a lying liar. Ryan's budget does cut spending.

Also revenue went down after the Bush cuts of 2001 and 2003 so STOP LYING!

Sadly again, you're a lying liar. The last time I checked, 2.2 trillion is larger than 1.8 trillion. Math doesn't lie punked. But you do.

Proof

[punked]

Again, even if you assume that they're not revenue neutral, Ryan's budget still does more to cut the deficit and cut the debt than Obama's. That's a fact. If you won't admit that, then you're a lying liar.

Accept it Adds 6-8 Trillion dollars in debt Shady, so in fact it is just as bad you are just getting tax cuts for the rich instead of health care for the poor. From the Article I cited.

" Fred Thompson apparently released a similar plan during the campaign and the Tax Policy Center estimated that it reduced revenues by $6 to $8 trillion over 10 years, which suggests that the impact over the many decades the Ryan plan covers could be huge."

You know where that debt came from the tax cuts. You can't cut taxes to 0 Shady and expect too have money come in.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=1703&DocTypeID=5

Really? Bush's tax cuts forced banks to give loans to unqualified people? How did tax cuts manage to do that?

That is a kettle of fish we have gotten into. The credit defaults that caused the crash were qualified people who got in too deep. Again stop with the talking points and read something.

Well, I'm glad you admit that revenue grew by 20%. How did that happen? How did revenue grow when Reagan took tax rates from 70% to 28%? By your theory that shouldn't have happened.

I don't know Shady how did it grown MORE under FDR when taxes went from being 20% to 90? IN your theory that shouldn't happen. I am not saying taxes need too be high Shady I am saying they shouldn't be super low. I would also point the largest American GDP growth occurred when taxes were in the 80-90% range.

Once again you're a lying liar. Ryan's budget does cut spending.

IT DOES NOT CUT ENOUGH TO MAKE UP FOR THE TAX CUTS SHADY. I agree too it does, good luck killing Medicare and Social Security, it is a pipe dream and doesn't off set the huge cut in tax revenue.

Sadly again, you're a lying liar. The last time I checked, 2.2 trillion is larger than 1.8 trillion. Math doesn't lie punked. But you do.

Proof

Bush tax cuts of 2001, Fed revenue in 2000 2.025 trillion, in 2001 it was 1.999, by 2003 it was 1.782 trillion didn't work so he added another cut and by 2009 when he left we was back too 2.104 trillion. Yes GDP does grow Shady and with tax revenue does too but you have too look behind those numbers you really have too look at what the government is putting into the system. That 2.104 Trillion might have been 2.7-2.8 and that is the problem with those tax cuts. Here is the problem though Shady Bush's Revenues only grew from coming in too leaving by 4% while even Carter went from a revenue of 290 billion too 463 a difference of 43%. Bushes revenue was a wash. SEE WHAT I AM SAYING.

BTW How about we use real numbers kept by the Whitehouse Shady. that 2.2 trillion number is pulled out of thin air. Table 7.1 it isn't hard.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/hist.pdf

[BubberMiley]

I enjoyed the clip on Jon Stewart last night where Obama likened the Republican argument to how we could have cheaper food if we just cut out government meat inspectors. They just sat there pwned with no response, much like Shady usually does here.

[Mr.Canada]

Pass the Franks.

[Smallc]

I enjoyed the clip on Jon Stewart last night where Obama likened the Republican argument to how we could have cheaper food if we just cut out government meat inspectors. They just sat there pwned with no response, much like Shady usually does here.

I know, that was absolutely hilarious. Like I said, Shady's posts were completely out of context. i watched some of the coverage on CNN, and Obama had answers for everything that made sense. There was one time when I switched to FOX News and they were fact checkin something (that insurance premiums would go down, like Obama said). They said Obama was wrong. I turned back to CNN where the fact checked the same thing. It turned out that overall, Obama was right, 93% of people, those insured by their employer, would see no change or a decrease in premiums. Those people insured on their own, or through a small business (17% of the market) would see an increase, but 57% of then would effectively have a decrease because of a government subsidy......but, you didn't hear that on FOX.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Smallc

[Oleg Bach]

Obama should not refere to his peers by their first names. This clever lack of formality is intentionally designed to create an alpha father type and those persons who go for this crap are shoved lower down on the political food chain.

First Obama is trained in the art of mental manipulation during his campaign and now he continues to condition even the the wisest of polticals...it's all about psychology...child psychology.

[GostHacked]

EDIT

Sorry I thought it was Ron Paul's kid ... i cant read today.

Edited February 26, 2010 by GostHacked

[Oleg Bach]

AMERICAN culture is rotten- the media and the so-called arts are filled with guns rape and general violence where deception and dishonour are applauded- the AMERICANS think and eat badly--they are ignorant and happily so-- some call it evil and and I call it just plain dummied down stupid..with this sort of culture you are going to have horrible health- mentally physically and spiritually...all the money in the world can be spent on health care for this culture and it will all be for not- they are a sick nation..and untill they admit they are sick fu4ks - they will continue to rot.

[Alta4ever]

I know, that was absolutely hilarious. Like I said, Shady's posts were completely out of context. i watched some of the coverage on CNN, and Obama had answers for everything that made sense. There was one time when I switched to FOX News and they were fact checkin something (that insurance premiums would go down, like Obama said). They said Obama was wrong. I turned back to CNN where the fact checked the same thing. It turned out that overall, Obama was right, 93% of people, those insured by their employer, would see no change or a decrease in premiums. Those people insured on their own, or through a small business (17% of the market) would see an increase, but 57% of then would effectively have a decrease because of a government subsidy......but, you didn't hear that on FOX.

Just curious did they cost out the increased taxes to pay for the Government Subsidy.

[Smallc]

Just curious did they cost out the increased taxes to pay for the Government Subsidy.

The point was, most people would see their premiums decrease, not increase, even leaving out those that are subsidized.

[Oleg Bach]

The point was, most people would see their premiums decrease, not increase, even leaving out those that are subsidized.

Cost should not be an issue- why should some poor person loose his teeth and suffer in pain- disfigured and marginalized because he does not have the money for real dental and medical care? \This rots a society from the bottom up- It is disgusting also in Canada how they will subsidize the extraction of teeth but not their repair..the effect this has is the disfigurement of the the low classes making they hopelessly lower.

[punked]

Just curious did they cost out the increased taxes to pay for the Government Subsidy.

I wonder if they costed out losing your job and thus your insurance, or the huge increases going on across they country. They are looking at a 40% rate hike in California right now. Get off the talking points.

[punked]

PS even Fox says the talking point of starting over is stupid and that Republicans need to start working with the president.

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201002250054

I think we can now tell who won this one. Not the Dems, or the Reps, but the President.

[Alta4ever]

I wonder if they costed out losing your job and thus your insurance, or the huge increases going on across they country. They are looking at a 40% rate hike in California right now. Get off the talking points.

You guys brought up cost and I asked a sincere question about the costing that was done because I did not know the answer.

As for cost, if you bankrupt the system then no one gets coverage.

I am no expert on the American healthcare situation, but what is apparent is that neither side has the answer to the current problem, to many vested and idealogical interests have been introduced into the process. It seems like no matter what happens a great many Americans will get screwed.