Republicans Eat Obama Alive

[Alta4ever]

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

With a countries who's financial and economic situation is teetering on the brink is it prudent to keep piling more load onto a structure that is near breaking point?

[Shady]

Looks like the Dems cheated as well. There was suppose to be an equal split of the talking time. However, the Dem side spoke for 233 minutes, while the Republicans spoke for 110 minutes.

I also have a couple of new favourite moments from the summit. The first one being when Obama asked why the Republicans didn't get tort reform done while they had control of congress and the White House. Lamar Alexander quickly reminded Obama that the Dems made the Republicans require 60 votes. Obama quickly shut up. Payback's a bitch isn't it Mr. President?

The second one being Joe Biden's remark about how "being Vice President is easy, because you don't have to do anything!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEWdl5XgDtc

[Shakeyhands]

ODS AND BDS Shady??????

Edited February 26, 2010 by Shakeyhands

[punked]

Looks like the Dems cheated as well. There was suppose to be an equal split of the talking time. However, the Dem side spoke for 233 minutes, while the Republicans spoke for 110 minutes.

I also have a couple of new favourite moments from the summit. The first one being when Obama asked why the Republicans didn't get tort reform done while they had control of congress and the White House. Lamar Alexander quickly reminded Obama that the Dems made the Republicans require 60 votes. Obama quickly shut up. Payback's a bitch isn't it Mr. President?

The second one being Joe Biden's remark about how "being Vice President is easy, because you don't have to do anything!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEWdl5XgDtc

Only if you count the President who gets time as being a different branch of government, as w

as set out in the rules, same amount of time for Reps, Dems, and the President. Ohhhhh on Shady called on your bs once again.

[Argus]

More pure pwnage from Rep. Paul Ryan. He takes on both Obama and Biden,

Well, he should. He's being paid enough to fight against public health care. His biggest campaign contributors are the Insurance industry, the hospital and nursing home lobbyists, and the pharmaceutical lobbyists.

Ryan has simultaneously attempted to both abolish medicare, and to lower taxes on the wealthy.

Which, btw, includes him. He's a millionaire.

Niiiice guy.

[Bugs]

I AM ADDRESSING YOUR POINT...

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!

You will excuse me if I intervene in this bunfight, now that it's over ... but as I tag along here, I get inceasingly bored by Punked's necessity of replaying the constant narrative ... Democrats good, Republicans bad ... like something sung at school, part of opening exercises.

Let's pretend that one of the benefits of being Canadian is that we don't have to beat each other over the heads over that bullshit.

The interesting thing about this is how the majority of the American public is resisting. Government medicine is being imposed on the public. The people don't trust it. They don't believe that the whatever million they claim are uninsured can be given insurance, and the cost go down, or even stabilize. Everything about it is illegit. There are tie-ins to drug companies, and other suppliers of medical supplies, there are fines for having a gold-plated plan, it provides state funding for abortions, people who don't buy in will face fines. It's really coercive.

Not only that, the thing was presented as an emergency measure, a thousand pages and more of dense legalese, a cubic foot of pulp, requiring immediate passage in a few days. Nobody seems to have read the whole thing, but the Senate Bill stripped the House version. Most Americans, it seems, compare it with what they're getting, and they don't like the deal.

I think that's the part that creeps Punked out. How can any one not want government medicine? Just the thought seems crazy to him. It's like not wanting government education ...

[Shady]

Only if you count the President who gets time as being a different branch of government, as w

as set out in the rules, same amount of time for Reps, Dems, and the President. Ohhhhh on Shady called on your bs once again.

Since when is the President no longer a Democrat? He and his party are espousing the same healthcare legislation. Members of his party wrote the legislation he wants passed. It's completely dishonest to pretend that they're not on the same side of the issue. But it's my fault for expecting anything other than dishonesty and lies from you.

[punked]

Since when is the President no longer a Democrat? He and his party are espousing the same healthcare legislation. Members of his party wrote the legislation he wants passed. It's completely dishonest to pretend that they're not on the same side of the issue. But it's my fault for expecting anything other than dishonesty and lies from you.

Since when should the Senate be given twice as much time at a forum called by the president, and moderated by the President. Like it or not he is a different arm of the government and told the Republicans that before the summit, he gets as much time as they do to express his ideas and what he wants.

[BubberMiley]

The Republicans knew the rules going in and they aren't whining about it now. The only people whining are those who didn't understand the rules and still don't. It's amazing how some people can be wrong almost all the time and never realize it.

[Oleg Bach]

Well, he should. He's being paid enough to fight against public health care. His biggest campaign contributors are the Insurance industry, the hospital and nursing home lobbyists, and the pharmaceutical lobbyists.

Ryan has simultaneously attempted to both abolish medicare, and to lower taxes on the wealthy.

Which, btw, includes him. He's a millionaire.

Niiiice guy.

Wealth should not exempt a person from paying his share of taxes...if you have it..pay--if you have a little pay a little--if you have none- pay none. This buisness that allowing the wealthy to have the privledge of not paying their fair share creates a wonderful and benefical trickle down effect..well..seems of late that there is a trickle up effect--actually a gravity defying notion that the rich should be even richer as the poor send tax dollars to bail them out of a jail they created for themselves.

[Argus]

You will excuse me if I intervene in this bunfight, now that it's over ... but as I tag along here, I get inceasingly bored by Punked's necessity of replaying the constant narrative ... Democrats good, Republicans bad ... like something sung at school, part of opening exercises

Personally, I would not describe the Democrats as "good". On the other hand, there is definitely nothing "good" about the Republican Party as we see it today. Having observed it over a number of elections going back to Reagan I think I can suggest that it is a party I, as a conservative, could never bring myself to support. It seems entirely concerned with peripheral hot-button issues which affect very few Americans (abortion, gay marriage, guns) and its only attention to economics - ie, the lifeblood of government, is a near constant howl to cut taxes - especially for the wealthy. Whatever suggestion there was of reasonably competent fiscal management about the party evaporated over the past eight years of fiscal mismanagement, incompetence and ignorance on the part of the Bush administration.

The interesting thing about this is how the majority of the American public is resisting. Government medicine is being imposed on the public.

Bullshit. The majority of the American public wants public health care and always has. The howls of protest are arising from the unwashed herd persuaded by tens and hundreds of millions of dollars worth of advertising and fearmongering campaigns run by the health care industry, and provoked by bought-and--paid-for politicans who are the lapdogs of the health care industry - and who go on to fat rewards for their "services" after they leave politics.

The problem with this obscenity of a health care bill is that it's wildly over-complex, brought about by manipulative politicians in congress, most of them Democrats, yes indeed, and it seeks to both cover the uninsured while preserving the fat profits of the health care industry (yes, there are bought-and-paid-for democrats in the health lobby's corner). People don't understand it - hardly anyone does - and so it's wide open for manipulative people to lie and exagerate and twist its likely effects.

What they ought to do, to start, is establish a non-profit government health insurance corporation similar to the ones in Canadian provinces. It would be partly paid by premiums, with a 1% tax subsidy which would grow by 1% per year. It would offer better rates, and more honest and reliable coverage than exists elsewhere, and so inevitably drive most if not all of the health insurance corporations out of business. From then on it could begin to negotiate lower rates with health care providers and the pharmaceautical industry. Very simple to understand, very simple to impliment.

[Shady]

The majority of the American public wants public health care and always has.

That just simply isn't true. You're intitled to an opinion, but not your own facts.

Washington Post-ABC News poll of 1,001 adults in June that found that 83 percent were either "somewhat" or "very" satisfied with the care they receive and 81 percent felt the same way about their insurance.

The Washington Post

The new polling also shows that 80% of those with insurance rate their own coverage as good or excellent.

Rasmussen

Gallup has a new poll on American attitudes toward healthcare coverage and quality. The key number here is 80: About 80 percent of Americans call their plan "Excellent or Good."

Gallup

Well, he should. He's being paid enough to fight against public health care. His biggest campaign contributors are the Insurance industry, the hospital and nursing home lobbyists, and the pharmaceutical lobbyists.

Ryan has simultaneously attempted to both abolish medicare, and to lower taxes on the wealthy.

Which, btw, includes him. He's a millionaire.

I have no idea if he's a millionaire or not. But what does it matter? So is Barack Obama. So is Joe Biden. So are hundreds of other members of Congress. Instead of trying to smear somebody on the basis of their success and particular ideology, how about you instead address the specific issues on the table?

Paul Ryan is for eliminating the anti-trust exemption that health insurance companies currently enjoy. Are you for or against that?

Paul Ryan is for giving individuals the same tax breaks businesses recieve for purchasing healthcare insurance. Are you for or against that?

Paul Ryan is for creating pools for high risk individuals and individuals with pre-existing conditions, as well as government subsidies so these groups can be insured. Are you for or against that?

Paul Ryan is for the canceling of the White House's special deal with the pharmaceutical companies that would prevent the importing of cheaper prescription drugs from other countries, like Canada. Are you for or against that?

Your pathetic smear job doesn't fit with reality, and with the specific healthcare reform proposals that are being discussed within the current healthcare debate.

[Smallc]

So is Joe Biden.

Biden isn't rich at all. He has a net worth around of about 0.

Edited March 2, 2010 by Smallc

[Shady]

Biden isn't rich at all. He has a net worth around of about 0.

How does someone who earns $250,000 - $350,000 dollars a year for the last 10 years, have a net worth of 0? He must have a ridiculous gambling problem! Cause we know from his tax returns he gives virtually nothing to charity.

[Smallc]

What we do know, is that he doesn't have much money, and that you're making things up as you go along....and you just proved it. You don't know anything about Biden, his costs, or what he does with his time outside of the Vice President's office. You are though, happy to assume and bash.

[punked]

How does someone who earns $250,000 - $350,000 dollars a year for the last 10 years, have a net worth of 0? He must have a ridiculous gambling problem! Cause we know from his tax returns he gives virtually nothing to charity.

Facts are facts Shady and you are a liar.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/24/AR2007032400305_pf.html

"When the last listing came out, they listed my net worth as between 70 and 150,000 dollars and Rush Limbaugh said ‘How can this guy manage our economy, he doesn’t have any money?’" Biden also said at that Missouri campaign stop. "Well, I thought the deal was, when you went to work for the government you weren’t supposed to make money!

Thought I would shut you up before you started with that one Shady.

Edited March 2, 2010 by punked

[Shady]

Facts are facts Shady and you are a liar.

I'm a liar? Well, let's take a look at Joe Biden's tax returns from the last 10 years shall we.

1999 - Total income: $210,797

2000 - Total income: $219,953

2001 - Total income: $220,712

2002 - Total income: $227,811

2003 - Total income: $231,375

2004 - Total income: $234,271

2005 - Total income: $321,379

2006 - Total income: $248,459

2007 - Total income: $319,853

Grand Total = $2,234,610 MILLION DOLLARS

How does one earn almost two and a half million dollars in 10 years, and have a net worth of ZERO??? And that doesn't even count the money he's earned over the past 30 years! Oh, and don't say he donates to charity, because as the tax return shows, he actually gives about one tenth of one percent over that same 10 year period. To put that in perspective, the average American household gives about two percent of its income to charity per year. So he's quite the penny pincher. Where the hell are all those pennies going if his net worth is ZERO?

You guys can apologize to me in private.

[Smallc]

Apologize to you for what? Pointing out another example of your intellectual dishonesty?

[Shady]

Apologize to you for what? Pointing out another example of your intellectual dishonesty?

The only person who's been intellectually dishonest is you. I'll ask you again. How does somebody who earns two and a half million dollars over ten years have a net worth of ZERO?

[Smallc]

I don't know, but it was widely reported when he was running for office.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-clemons/joe-biden-wont-forget-the_b_120539.html

I go by what I read. You make things up.

[Argus]

That just simply isn't true. You're intitled to an opinion, but not your own facts.

Uhm, they're not my own facts. Every poll and survey ever taken shows the majority of Americans want public health care. Your presenting a different poll, asking them if they're satisfied with their insurance company has no relevence. I might be satisfied with the performance of my car but that doesn't mean i wouldn't like to have a jet pack I could take to and from work.

Google search on us poll public health care

I have no idea if he's a millionaire or not. But what does it matter?

It matters in the way a sighted man might say aid for the blind is unnecessary, or a man with two good legs would snear at the idea of building access for the disabled. A rich man claiming public health care is unnecessary is speaking from the point of view of a rich man who doesn't need it and can't contemplate why anyone would - as opposed to someone who struggles to pay health care premiums or can't afford them at all.

Paul Ryan is for eliminating the anti-trust exemption that health insurance companies currently enjoy. Are you for or against that?

In fact, Ryan voted against eliminating the anti-trust exemption - no doubt at the orders of his paymasters. The bill passed, despite his opposition - and the opposition of ALL Republicans.

Ryan votes against removing anti-trust exemption

Paul Ryan is for giving individuals the same tax breaks businesses recieve for purchasing healthcare insurance. Are you for or against that?

This idea originated with the insurance industry, eager to get the government to let people have more money - so they can buy more insurance. Of course Ryan would be in favor of it. He's in the pocket of the insurance industry, after all.

Paul Ryan is for creating pools for high risk individuals and individuals with pre-existing conditions, as well as government subsidies so these groups can be insured. Are you for or against that?

This is again, an idea which was put forth by the insurance industry, and is designed to get the government to pay the much higher insurance premiums for high risk individuals - so insurance companies can make higher profits.

Paul Ryan is for the canceling of the White House's special deal with the pharmaceutical companies that would prevent the importing of cheaper prescription drugs from other countries, like Canada. Are you for or against that?

I would suggest that if Ryan is for it then I, and most of the public ought to be against it, as the only reason he would favour it would be if there was some sort of compensation package for his masters. I haven't seen the bill yet, and I know you haven't either.

Ryan Votes Against Health Care Reform

[Alta4ever]

I don't know, but it was widely reported when he was running for office.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-clemons/joe-biden-wont-forget-the_b_120539.html

I go by what I read. You make things up.

Have you seen Bidens home, how about the one he owns that his mother lives in. The fact that he owns shows that he holds assets. What is being reported is fancy accounting.

I can make my networth look negative very easy its called leverage loans on my hard assets. I borrow money against my assets to buy investments, declare my capital loses all in one year, and vola negative networth.

[Smallc]

That doesn't change the fact that he was amongst the least wealthy Senators. There's nothing fancy about GAAP. He may have a nice house, but if he owes on most of it, then it isn't doing his net worth any good. Biden isn't wealthy.

[Alta4ever]

That doesn't change the fact that he was amongst the least wealthy Senators. There's nothing fancy about GAAP. He may have a nice house, but if he owes on most of it, then it isn't doing his net worth any good. Biden isn't wealthy.

With an income like that he is wealthy.

[Smallc]

No, he isn't. Income doesn't make you wealthy. He makes alot of money, yes, good for him, but he isn't wealthy.