Obama's Joint Session on Healthcare - Page 5

Originally Posted by Stinkbug

Guess the name of the president mentioned in this quote!

Originally Posted by involuntary_serf

What does that say about the people who voted for the bill?

You know much has been made about what a dope W was, and yet nothing about anyone that went along with his plans and proposals (including a fair number of Democrats...including, in some cases...this one included, the current president).

Sept. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Americans overwhelmingly approve of President Barack Obamas goals for remaking the U.S. health- care system even as they express skepticism he can achieve them, according to a Bloomberg News poll.

More than 8 out of 10 people support covering the uninsured, curbing costs, creating an insurance-purchasing exchange, and preventing insurers from dropping coverage or refusing to accept people with preexisting medical conditions. Majorities say employers should have to offer insurance and individuals should be required to have coverage.

Americans are less sure of the plan as a whole. At least half say they dont think Obama can fulfill promises such as passing legislation that doesnt add to the federal budget deficit, preserving the Medicare trust fund and producing savings to help pay for drugs for Medicare patients.

Originally Posted by Tauron

This is excellent news. It means the populous is finally realizing healthcare reform is not optional

Originally Posted by Tauron

Now we can have a meaningful discussion about HOW do to it.

Originally Posted by trumptman

So the process was broken when Bush "stole" the election. Now it is broken when the Democratics win elections including the presidency and and both houses of Congress.

Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps when things keep going in a manner contrary to what you want that perhaps it isn't a fring minority but the majority?

Obama told a bunch of lies and got elected on them. People expect him to keep his word and when he doesn't, they push back because they want the promises not what has arrived. In fact if you look back at posts from that time, I said Obama would essentually be no different from Bush and that is why I spent an entire thread looking at this from a generational angle. It isn't a Democrat or Republican thing. It is a boomer thing.

Originally Posted by iPoster

Just stopped by to drop this quote off. I'm part of that 80%, but also part of the half that aren't sure if we'll get the right plan in place. Unfortunately I don't have all the answers, unlike some people on the board who think they do.

Originally Posted by Northgate

Well, first, I can't tell a Republican position on any given subject from one day to the next. Those positions change as quickly as the polls do. If there's a crazy nut theory out there, you'll bet there's a Republican congressman or Senator who's willing to parrot it if he thinks the "cool kids" will like him.

But that's besides the point. These loud mouthed nut jobs on the right are just as insane and stupid as the loud mouthed nut jobs on the left. However, one cannot help but notice that the GOP embraces their nut jobs and Democrats are forced to reject theirs. But whatever, I guess that's just all politics.

And, and as predicted, you do have to admit that there's an amazing level of whiplash flip-flopping with Republicans.

You guys were against Nazi propaganda before you were for it.
You guys were against demonstration rallies before you were for them.
You guys were against fiscal responsibility before you were for it.
You guys were against presidential criticism before you were for it.
You guys were for presidential Czars under Bush before you were against them.
You guys were for the Afghanistan war before you were against it.
You guys were for increased presidential powers before you were against it.
You guys were for letting elected officials do their jobs before you were against them.

Is there ANY fundamental conservative tenant that you guys won't betray just to make a political pot shot or two?

Originally Posted by trumptman

Perhaps if the brush were not so broad, one could realize that there are factions within each party that support and oppose a multitude of views. Sort of like how Democrats were for the war before they were against and now are for it again.

Oh wait... maybe it isn't that simple.

Originally Posted by Northgate

Yeah, I know. People like to parrot polls that support their position. Kinda like you do all the time. Shocker! But I digress.

Let me narrow my brush a little.... that list of flip-flops actually pertains to YOU! And you are, in my mind, the quintessential Republican political sportsman. And like most Republicans these days, that sportsmanship is what defines your movement and party.

My observation is that you are more concerned about "opposing" than agreeing. This isn't new, of course. This newer "obfuscate at all costs" conservative ideology has been brewing for about 15 years and has come to a full peak. It shouldn't come as a surprise that liberals and Democrats have had to respond with like-minded rhetoric and assaults. [Let's be real here - this hyper partisanship started with the impeachment of Clinton for political purposes -- and not for some phony baloney "he lied" bullshit - because if that were the true reason then we'd have to impeach all them.]

And to be really honest, the "but but but liberals did it..." excuse is really fucking lame and kind of a pussy way out. And liberals who do it should be called out as dick-less betrayers too. Because it seems to me I'm one of the only liberals on this board that's actually calling you and your like-minded brethren out on your betrayal of your own positions.

To put a finer point on all of this -- if you were to tell me the sun were shining outside I'd go to a window to double-check before taking your word for it. Because at this point when can we really tell that our outrage is real and sincere?

The Budget Act and the Byrd Rule
Further information: Reconciliation (U.S. Congress)

The Congressional Budget Act governs the role of Congress in the budget process. Among other provisions, it affects Senate rules of debate during the budget reconciliation, not least by preventing the use of the filibuster against the budget resolutions. The Byrd rule, named after its principal sponsor, Senator Robert C. Byrd, was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990 to modify the Budget Act and is contained in section 313.[2] The rule allows Senators to raise a point of order against any provision held to be extraneous, where extraneous is defined according to one of several criteria.[3] The definition of extraneous includes provisions that are outside the jurisdiction of the committee or that do not affect revenues nor outlays.

Importantly for sunset provisions, the Byrd Rule also defines as extraneous provisions that "would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure." Since the Budget Act states that the reconciliation measure covers the next ten years, this rule has the effect of allowing a point of order to be raised against any spending increase or tax cut that does not contain a sunset provision ending it after ten years. (Otherwise, the provision would increase the deficit in a fiscal year more than ten years hence.) Overcoming a point of order requires cloture, and thus a three-fifths majority of 60 in the Senate. In short, a net effect of the Byrd Rule is to require that any spending increase or tax cut be approved by a majority of 60 if it does not contain a sunset provision of ten years. With the sunset provision, only a simple majority is necessary in the budget reconciliation process.

Originally Posted by NoahJ

To claim that this is known not to impact the budget or that this is not a spending increase by the federal government, I believe is false.

The plan would be paid for with $507 billion in cuts to government health programs and $349 billion in new taxes and fees, including a tax on high-end insurance plans and fees charged to insurance companies and medical device manufacturers.

Originally Posted by Northgate

Republicans had full control of everything in the early oughts and they used reconciliation ALL THE TIME! Republicans ruled during that first term with an iron fist. To imply otherwise is dishonest.

I'm also glad to see that you've reserved the right to a double-standard all for yourself. The fact that you consider the job of running this country as a "knife fight" say a lot.

But that's not what's most disturbing about your attempt at an explanation. Your explanation flies in the face of the basic tenets of conservatism. You yourself have gone on tirelessly around here about how being "a decider" makes you strong. Sticking to your convictions and not backing down is the true American spirit. Remember "stay the course"? Remember when you guys laughed, mocked and ridiculed the notion of "nuance" as being weak and French like? Remember when you guys proudly put Bush on your shoulder for being unwilling to change a position? Remember your chants at Kerry for being a "flip flopper"?Was any of that shit real? Or were you guys all full of shit back then?

Is Nazi propaganda abhorrent to you or not?
Are political demonstrations repugnant to you or not?
Are you for increased presidential power or are you not?
Are you for the Afghanistan war or are you not?

Originally Posted by Stinkbug

I forgot Joe Wilson a true soldier serves his country with honor! Yeah go Joe!!

Originally Posted by Stinkbug

Bummer Wilson is out too, he even lied about being and "Immigration Attorney"

Originally Posted by trumptman

No duh they used reconciliation. It is a standard operating procedure of the Senate. As NoahJ pointed out there are rules that govern the use of it though and they are about to get tossed.



Save your false outrage for someone who cares. I've never claimed an exclusive right to anything and as is always the case for liberals, your false offense is laughable. The words "knife fight" would be the most tame thing you would have posted in the last two months and you act all offended. Please save it.



What I find most disturbing about liberals and their thinking is the increasing lack of ability to set boundaries or categorize thinking. Everyone is becoming some big cartoon target to them. See I have no idea what the hell your rant above is about. It consists of one part what I believe, about ten parts caricatures of conservatives, and then a few outlier that you want to lump in with that broadbrush of yours.

They all become the same target for you to hate and that is genuinely disturbing and sad.

The correct answer to the strange attempts at reasoning above is that being popular doesn't make something right and if you decide to stick within even as public sentiment turns on you, then reality will determine if it is right or wrong, not being popular.

I've been very consistent on this with Obama as well noting that he is doing things wrong even when they are at times, popular. I'll never endorse being popular making something right because it is a logical fallacy. If 80% supported or 80% opposed an Obama action, I'll still state and keep my view on it the same based off reason, not who's team is winning or popular. The whole second half of that paragraph I have no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps the meds are making you blend everything together.



All propaganda is abhorrent to me. It doesn't have to be done by Nazi's.

Now as for yourself, liberal propaganda is just fine, and conservative propaganda in return would be proof they are evil, greedy racists.

In terms of political speech though, I've stated no spending limits, full disclosure. George Will articulates that well and I've linked to him several times abotu that.

No political demonstration is repugnant to me. When someone links to a sign at one and paints with their broad brush, I'll link to a similar picture from their own view and laugh at the lame reason spent trying to justify it. The reasoning isn't mine though and I am merely hoisting them on their own petard.

I'm not for increased presidential power unless it is used to roll back government power overall. Our government needs to get the hell out of hundreds of areas.

As for the Afghanistan war, I've stated that as a paleocon, I am not in favor of being the world's cop. I've stated I do not endorse Pax Americana and believe we should end it. That said if you are going to go through all that nonsense you can't do it halfway and you don't lay troops in harms way for political convenience. You don't vote against armor while debating if they should be there for example.

Reconciliation has real rules. It isn't spin. Health care is going to cost real huge amounts of money and most of it will be tax increases on younger folks who will be mandated to buy insure to cover their aging boomer parents who don't have a dime to their name. Instead of saving for their first house, they can pay for insurance when they don't need it some Grandma's Medicare goes broke a little more slowly.

Originally Posted by NoahJ

There is no evidence that it was a lie or not.

Summary: -Applies United States immigration laws and immigration-related labor laws to the Northern Mariana Islands (Sec. 702)

Originally Posted by NoahJ

There is no evidence that it was a lie or not. This is just speculation. Not Fact. However, if he did lie I am sure we will know with a high level of surety soon.

Originally Posted by Northgate

Wow. The box you like to keep liberals in is tiny compared to a mansion's worth of wiggle room you reserve for yourself.

Your post is so rich with hypocrisy and double-standards I don't even know where to begin.

Originally Posted by Taskiss

Well, he's a lawyer and he created immigration law (S 2739 Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008) as a Representative in 2008...not sure if that's his particular claim to fame, but it is what it is.In fact, here's his contribution for several immigration laws...

02/13/2009\t2009 Economic Package
01/28/2009\t2009 Economic Package
04/29/2008\tConsolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008
12/17/2007\tInclusion of Consolidated Appropriations
06/15/2007\tDepartment of Homeland Security Appropriations
09/29/2006\tDepartment of Homeland Security Appropriations Act 2007
09/21/2006\tImmigration Law Enforcement Act of 2006
09/14/2006\tSecure Fence Act of 2006
06/13/2006\tEmergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2006
06/06/2006\tDepartment of Homeland Security Appropriation Act, 2007
03/16/2006\tEmergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2006
H2/16/2005\tBorder Security bill
02/10/2005\tReal ID Act of 2005
05/18/2004\tUndocumented Immigrant Emergency Medical Assistance

Originally Posted by Taskiss

Well, he's a lawyer and he created immigration law (S 2739 Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008) as a Representative in 2008...not sure if that's his particular claim to fame, but it is what it is.

In fact, here's his contribution for several immigration laws...

02/13/2009\t2009 Economic Package
01/28/2009\t2009 Economic Package
04/29/2008\tConsolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008
12/17/2007\tInclusion of Consolidated Appropriations
06/15/2007\tDepartment of Homeland Security Appropriations
09/29/2006\tDepartment of Homeland Security Appropriations Act 2007
09/21/2006\tImmigration Law Enforcement Act of 2006
09/14/2006\tSecure Fence Act of 2006
06/13/2006\tEmergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2006
06/06/2006\tDepartment of Homeland Security Appropriation Act, 2007
03/16/2006\tEmergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2006
H2/16/2005\tBorder Security bill
02/10/2005\tReal ID Act of 2005
05/18/2004\tUndocumented Immigrant Emergency Medical Assistance

Originally Posted by Stinkbug

Speculation supported by the bar association of immigration attorneys who has no record of Joe Wilson ever practicing immigration law.

Since legal cases are public record there should be easily accessible evidence of Mr. Wilson immigration law case history. However any searches I have tried have not produced a single court document filed by Mr. Wilson.

(I found my own small claims case from 2001...)

Originally Posted by trumptman

Thanks for the opinions and attacks while ignoring the subject. Speaking of ignoring, go there for a while until you learn to do more than spew accusations.

Originally Posted by FormerLurker

[B]Really? So the standards are now that any member of congress with a law degree who voted on bills are now immigration attorneys?

Originally Posted by Northgate

I know, right? I guess by those standards Al Gore really did invent the internet!!!

Originally Posted by FormerLurker

More than that, even.... he has to be credited as a secret co-founder of Yahoo!

Originally Posted by Taskiss

"It is what it is" - That's what I found when I looked up Joe Wilson and Immigration. I have no idea how much of a contribution was made, but there is some sort of connection between the two, and I looked no further and didn't claim any more than "it is what it is".

Originally Posted by Taskiss

"It is what it is" - That's what I found when I looked up Joe Wilson and Immigration. I have no idea how much of a contribution was made, but there is some sort of connection between the two, and I looked no further and didn't claim any more than "it is what it is".

he created immigration law (S 2739 Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008) as a Representative in 2008.