All the House GOP and the President - what an unfair advantage!!!

[Murf76]

And you're really that sure that self-identified "independents" are gonna see the same Pres. Obama that you say you did.

What is it that Socialist Democrats have to offer to Independents? He's failed already in delivering what he promised. He's misunderstood his supposed "mandate". He promised to "change the way Washington does business", to clean up the corruption. He promised a post-partisan, post-racial era of governance. And instead, he's doubled-down on EVERYTHING we already hated about Washington.

He and his Merry Band of Looters have demonized and demagogued. They've spent our money like kids in a candy store. And they have NO RESULTS to show from it.

So, what's the attraction for Independents? ...higher taxes and bigger deficits? ...a proposed growth in government to 24% of GDP? ...European-styled levels of permanent unemployment? ...higher energy bills? ...higher prices on goods and services? ...or is it just Obama's delightful, charming smile?

Is THAT what you're running on? Really?
I'd wish you luck, but we both know I wouldn't mean it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

OK then explain to us how you cut the deficit with tax cuts.

JFK (the real one, not that moron John Fn Kerry) said it pretty well: "A rising tide lifts all boats."

Cut the fuckin' taxes and you stimulate the economy. Stimulate the economy and corporations and people make money. Taxed at a fairer rate (i.e., lower rate) the increase in earnings generates more tax revenues than a higher tax rate with lower earnings.

Hope that helps. If not, take it up with President Kennedy.

OK...President Kennedy's name did come up. Mikey Pence said President Kennedy was for tax cuts. President Obama was very, very kind to little Mikey...he could have embarrassed the kid...

When President Kennedy proposed tax cuts, the tax rates in place in 1962 still were tax rates implemented to pay off the cost of WWII. They were very high...

Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)

After taxes went up during the Eisenhower administration, Democrats lowered them starting in 1964.

Today we face frighteningly large deficits in the next generation, whereas Kennedy and Johnson thought they faced frighteningly large surpluses.

Why JFK Cut Taxes

LOL

Just too ******* funny. I should teach economics just to laugh at people like you in front of the whole class. Your brand of stupid can't be fought with niceties, we need to disinfect it with a flamethrower

This is funnier than anything...so we go back to 90% top rate to grow the revenues, right? amiright?

 

[Liability]

OK then explain to us how you cut the deficit with tax cuts.

JFK (the real one, not that moron John Fn Kerry) said it pretty well: "A rising tide lifts all boats."

Cut the fuckin' taxes and you stimulate the economy. Stimulate the economy and corporations and people make money. Taxed at a fairer rate (i.e., lower rate) the increase in earnings generates more tax revenues than a higher tax rate with lower earnings.

Hope that helps. If not, take it up with President Kennedy.

OK...President Kennedy's name did come up. Mikey Pence said President Kennedy was for tax cuts. President Obama was very, very kind to little Mikey...he could have embarrassed the kid...

When President Kennedy proposed tax cuts, the tax rates in place in 1962 still were tax rates implemented to pay off the cost of WWII. They were very high...

Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)

After taxes went up during the Eisenhower administration, Democrats lowered them starting in 1964.

Today we face frighteningly large deficits in the next generation, whereas Kennedy and Johnson thought they faced frighteningly large surpluses.

Why JFK Cut Taxes

The tax rates are too ******* high now because the idiot government insists on mandates (funded and unfunded) and spends and spends and spends like drunken sailors.

A cut is still a cut whether from the unduly high levels of JFK's time or the present levels which are still too fuckin' high.

And a cut in taxes translates rapidly into greater disposable income whcih becomes fodder for investment and spending. The PRINCIPLE that a rising tide lifts all boats remains JUST as true regardless of which level we are discussing.

A government that sticks to proper governmental responsibilities (at lower societal costs) would be a benefit in its own right.

Yes, we have massive deficits. The answer will not be found in killing the ******* golden goose.

The answer is found in recognizing that we are obligated to spend LESS -- far less. Use tax revenues to pay down the debet incrementally, but SPEND less.

You seem a bit conversant with the actual numbers involved in the Federal budget -- referring to both the stuff that does appear on the books and the stuff that magically doesn't get into the tally for some reason. Putting your partisan views aside for a little while, are you HONESTLY claiming that we can continue as we have with such enormous spending (deficit spending and otherwise)?

 

[Bfgrn]

JFK (the real one, not that moron John Fn Kerry) said it pretty well: "A rising tide lifts all boats."

Cut the fuckin' taxes and you stimulate the economy. Stimulate the economy and corporations and people make money. Taxed at a fairer rate (i.e., lower rate) the increase in earnings generates more tax revenues than a higher tax rate with lower earnings.

Hope that helps. If not, take it up with President Kennedy.

OK...President Kennedy's name did come up. Mikey Pence said President Kennedy was for tax cuts. President Obama was very, very kind to little Mikey...he could have embarrassed the kid...

When President Kennedy proposed tax cuts, the tax rates in place in 1962 still were tax rates implemented to pay off the cost of WWII. They were very high...

Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)

After taxes went up during the Eisenhower administration, Democrats lowered them starting in 1964.

Today we face frighteningly large deficits in the next generation, whereas Kennedy and Johnson thought they faced frighteningly large surpluses.

Why JFK Cut Taxes

LOL

Just too ******* funny. I should teach economics just to laugh at people like you in front of the whole class. Your brand of stupid can't be fought with niceties, we need to disinfect it with a flamethrower

This is funnier than anything...so we go back to 90% top rate to grow the revenues, right? amiright?

Frank, try to keep up...there WERE justifications for tax cuts in the past, as I explained and you continue to be totally obtuse to...

George W. Bush's tax cuts were NOT economically driven...they were politically driven to win elections...they were irresponsible and led to the WORST job growth performance in recorded history...his first Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill chastised Bush and Cheney for the second round of cuts ...it led to his dismissal...

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

Why don't you stop being a right wing pea brain and educate yourself on adult issues...start with a supply sider...

Economics - The New American Economy: The Failure of Reaganomics and a New Way Forward - Book TV

 

[Liability]

The fed budget deficit (as they reported that nonsense ) in 2004 was just roughly 7.71 TRILLION dollars. That was a LOT of red ink.

Time for the Federal Budget Process to Include Unfunded Entitlement Obligations

However, the ACTUAL number was -- drumroll please --

45.892 TRILLION dollars.

That was 6 years ago.

The difference in the numbers? Medicare, social security and "railroad" retirement numbers which were so-called "additional responsibilities." Again, see: Time for the Federal Budget Process to Include Unfunded Entitlement Obligations

 

[Murf76]

OK...President Kennedy's name did come up. Mikey Pence said President Kennedy was for tax cuts. President Obama was very, very kind to little Mikey...he could have embarrassed the kid...

When President Kennedy proposed tax cuts, the tax rates in place in 1962 still were tax rates implemented to pay off the cost of WWII. They were very high...

Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)

After taxes went up during the Eisenhower administration, Democrats lowered them starting in 1964.

Today we face frighteningly large deficits in the next generation, whereas Kennedy and Johnson thought they faced frighteningly large surpluses.

Why JFK Cut Taxes

So, what's your suggestion?... that we go back to taxing 70-90% of the top brackets?

They'll do what they always do, and just like they did under Carter. They'll do the SMART thing and shelter their money. They'll continue to move production off-shore.

The government cannot CREATE new dollars. New money is basically the difference between the cost of a product and the retail value of it. You can take a dollar out of Uncle Barry's pocket and put it in mine... but it's the same dollar. All you did was move it. You didn't produce a new one.

Do you really think that producers are going to invest in America when their future is uncertain, when they have no ability to put together a business plan or to forecast what their costs will be three years from now, while they've got Obama's disastrous social policies hanging over their heads? Do you honestly believe Cap-and-Tax, Obamacare, and Card Check are incentives for small employers to grow their businesses? Do you think higher taxes looming on the horizon will cause them to invest in growth, hire more people?

Personally, I don't think lowering taxes is enough. I think Mike Pence is wrong about that. I don't believe that a SANE person would invest in this economy right now. Not when it's become impossible to project costs and would be cheaper to legally ADOPT a prospective employee than hire him. Hell, it's impossible for a producer to even know who exactly will be running his business in the future. It might be him, but then again, it might be some frigging labor union.

Deficit spending, stimulus... can only work when the money actually makes it into the hands of consumers. And the other half of the equation is PRODUCTION. New dollars must be produced. The 'priming of the pump' can do that, but only if the environment is conducive to growth. Deficit spending is unsustainable. It's only supposed to be used to nudge the mechanism, then the economy is supposed to spin on its own.

Only something like 10% of Nancy Pelosi's Porkulus package has been spent. And I think it's clear that it's NOT making it into the hands of consumers. It can't prime the pump, and the mechanism won't respond anyway until the business climate becomes predictable.

While it's true that taxes are already lower than what they were before the Kennedy or the Reagan tax cuts... LOOK what happens when they're high:
The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future

Read the entire article from Arthur Laffer. He discusses his Laffer Curve, the Harding-Coolidge cuts, the Kennedy cuts, the Reagan cuts, and goes into the economic health of lower tax states as opposed to higher tax states, as well as the effect of the flat tax on the former eastern-bloc countries. There are charts galore, including the one you just posted. Very informative.

Taxes are NOT the answer. The business climate must be stabilized.

 

[NYcarbineer]

JFK (the real one, not that moron Joun Fn Kerry) said it pretty well: "A rising tide lifts all boats."

Cut the fuckin' taxes and you stimulate the economy. Stimulate the economy and corporations and people make money. Taxed at a fairer rate (i.e., lower rate) the increase in earnings generates more tax revenues than a higher tax rate with lower earnings.

Hope that helps. If not, take it up with President Kennedy.

Exactly. The Laffer Curve. And it has a history of working well to bring up revenues through general economic prosperity.

That said, I don't think it can work on its own this time. The business climate is for shit right now, with producers uncertain of the future due to all this crazy socialist policy being proffered by Obama and his Merry Band of Looters. They're going to have to back off their disastrous policies and make employers believe they mean it.

The Laffer curve never worked. The Reagan recession ended in the wake of a drastic loosening of Fed policy, a dramatic fall in oil prices, and a massive fiscal stimulus in the form of Reagan wildly unbalancing the budget.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The President should offer to do these Q and A's once a month with the Republicans, TELEVISED, and see how eager they are for that.

 

[Murf76]

The Laffer curve never worked. The Reagan recession ended in the wake of a drastic loosening of Fed policy, a dramatic fall in oil prices, and a massive fiscal stimulus in the form of Reagan wildly unbalancing the budget.

Well, let's assume for a moment that you're correct. It's a leap, but what the heck... let's make it.

What exactly is Obama doing to accomplish a similar environment conducive to economic growth?... aside from his comparatively GINORMOUS "unbalancing" of the budget???

 

[Liability]

The President should offer to do these Q and A's once a month with the Republicans, TELEVISED, and see how eager they are for that.

LOL!


Oh sure. Like the GOP wouldn't come even better prepared to expose President Obama's endless and tiresome litany of lies and posturing?

After that sublimely absurd "advice," you are possibly, now, JUST ridiculous enough to merit a job as a political advisor to the President.

 

[JimH52]

But But...I thought he was "reaching out?" He should be preaching to and scolding the partisan hacks in his own party. They're the ones locking people out of meeting rooms. Why should the Republicans be Bi-Partisan now? This President and this Democrat controlled Congress have been by far the most bitter partisan hacks in History. Maybe the Republicans should just stay locked out and watch this Democrat Titanic sink to the bottom? Their whole "Bi-Partisanship" routine just seems so disingenuous at this point. Give the Republicans a good reason to go back to the meetings and then maybe we can talk. Preachy lectures just aren't gonna cut it.

THIS was the GOP's golden opportunity to unleash all of their "ideas" to Obama and the American public. What happened?

They did unleach their idea. Bash Obama!
That was shocking and innovative revelation...

 

[Liability]

But But...I thought he was "reaching out?" He should be preaching to and scolding the partisan hacks in his own party. They're the ones locking people out of meeting rooms. Why should the Republicans be Bi-Partisan now? This President and this Democrat controlled Congress have been by far the most bitter partisan hacks in History. Maybe the Republicans should just stay locked out and watch this Democrat Titanic sink to the bottom? Their whole "Bi-Partisanship" routine just seems so disingenuous at this point. Give the Republicans a good reason to go back to the meetings and then maybe we can talk. Preachy lectures just aren't gonna cut it.

THIS was the GOP's golden opportunity to unleash all of their "ideas" to Obama and the American public. What happened?

They did unleach their idea. Bash Obama!
That was shocking and innovative revelation...

EXCEPT, of course, you are lying. The GOP treated the President to a full measure of appropriate respect and with all due courtesy.

They politely asked him questions -- some not even about HIM, so much, as about the fact that their input had gotten squelched by the Shrieker of the House of Ill Repute. (And let' be honest -- a novel notion for you -- it's not as though the President didn't have the capacity to have reined in the dictatorial style of Pelousy and Reid if he had been of the mind to actually entertain contrary views and ideas, which he wasn't.)

The President did a better job than I first thought, to be candid. But the fact is, the GOP Congressfolk who addressed the questions to the President ALSO did a fair job of it.

The real problem is that the President was lying and, like it or not, eventually "the truth will out."

 

[Bfgrn]

OK...President Kennedy's name did come up. Mikey Pence said President Kennedy was for tax cuts. President Obama was very, very kind to little Mikey...he could have embarrassed the kid...

When President Kennedy proposed tax cuts, the tax rates in place in 1962 still were tax rates implemented to pay off the cost of WWII. They were very high...

Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)

After taxes went up during the Eisenhower administration, Democrats lowered them starting in 1964.

Today we face frighteningly large deficits in the next generation, whereas Kennedy and Johnson thought they faced frighteningly large surpluses.

Why JFK Cut Taxes

So, what's your suggestion?... that we go back to taxing 70-90% of the top brackets?

They'll do what they always do, and just like they did under Carter. They'll do the SMART thing and shelter their money. They'll continue to move production off-shore.

The government cannot CREATE new dollars. New money is basically the difference between the cost of a product and the retail value of it. You can take a dollar out of Uncle Barry's pocket and put it in mine... but it's the same dollar. All you did was move it. You didn't produce a new one.

Do you really think that producers are going to invest in America when their future is uncertain, when they have no ability to put together a business plan or to forecast what their costs will be three years from now, while they've got Obama's disastrous social policies hanging over their heads? Do you honestly believe Cap-and-Tax, Obamacare, and Card Check are incentives for small employers to grow their businesses? Do you think higher taxes looming on the horizon will cause them to invest in growth, hire more people?

Personally, I don't think lowering taxes is enough. I think Mike Pence is wrong about that. I don't believe that a SANE person would invest in this economy right now. Not when it's become impossible to project costs and would be cheaper to legally ADOPT a prospective employee than hire him. Hell, it's impossible for a producer to even know who exactly will be running his business in the future. It might be him, but then again, it might be some frigging labor union.

Deficit spending, stimulus... can only work when the money actually makes it into the hands of consumers. And the other half of the equation is PRODUCTION. New dollars must be produced. The 'priming of the pump' can do that, but only if the environment is conducive to growth. Deficit spending is unsustainable. It's only supposed to be used to nudge the mechanism, then the economy is supposed to spin on its own.

Only something like 10% of Nancy Pelosi's Porkulus package has been spent. And I think it's clear that it's NOT making it into the hands of consumers. It can't prime the pump, and the mechanism won't respond anyway until the business climate becomes predictable.

While it's true that taxes are already lower than what they were before the Kennedy or the Reagan tax cuts... LOOK what happens when they're high:
The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future

Read the entire article from Arthur Laffer. He discusses his Laffer Curve, the Harding-Coolidge cuts, the Kennedy cuts, the Reagan cuts, and goes into the economic health of lower tax states as opposed to higher tax states, as well as the effect of the flat tax on the former eastern-bloc countries. There are charts galore, including the one you just posted. Very informative.

Taxes are NOT the answer. The business climate must be stabilized.

Obama said yesterday raising taxes is not the answer in a fragile economy, but across the board tax cuts are not the answer either... when business is not spending and citizens are not spending and the Fed is out bullets it leaves only one entity capable of injecting money into the economy to stimulate it...

I'd take you seriously if you were serious ...but you call for a business plan and then you dismiss our NEED to address energy and health care as an intergal part of a business plan. It gives you away as a Utopian...a right wing hack

The next 'Silicon Valleys' will reside in the progressive and forward thinking nations that seizes the opportunity...China already sees that opportunity, so it may already be to late.

Health care costs TO American business put them at a distinct disadvantage against foreign competition ...

Health Care
Health care: an issue that cries out for leadership.

Health care in this country is in shambles. At a cost of almost $12,000 a year for the average family, the system is bankrupting families and it's bankrupting companies - specifically my old industry. Take General Motors. They're currently paying out $1,525 per vehicle for health care. Compare that to the $201 Toyota is paying and it sounds even more absurd. And what about those families and individuals who can't afford insurance at all? Junior breaks his arm and all of a sudden, a fall off a bike is an $8,000 trip to the ER.

Despite all of this, none of our politicians will touch the issue. Oh sure, they'll talk about it during campaign season, but once the votes are cast, it's the forgotten issue again. The last time anyone proposed real reform was in 1993, and that plan went nowhere. Fourteen years later, Hillary Clinton's failed plan is still used as an excuse to continue ignoring the problem. That's disgraceful.

I suggest you listen carefully to the '08 candidates' "plans" for health care. Let's see if any of them have the political courage to really tackle it this time around. I don't want band-aid ideas either. I want concrete solutions - and I want to hold these guys to their promises.

Lee Iacocca

Lee Iacocca - Health Care

 

[Mike458877]

This meeting really meant very little, as it was a display for the public, not real negotiations of issues. It was yet another TV appearance for Obama which the American public is clearly growing tired of, as polls reflect. People want action and solutions. Until that happens in some form, nothing has been accomplished for either side.

Much of what Obama responded with is not supported by the past years actions and frankly the GOP was too civil for PR purposes.

As I agreed with a fair number of things Obama said, I felt the same during his run for the office as well, but, I still have seen no productive actions or end results. Just a liberal base with all of the power which could not even get their own partisan ideals passed through.

Finally Obama truly exposed himself in his defense of Pelosi and the liberal hill leadership which has been completely off the hook for the past year.

Both parties are cramped by too many partisan older timers who need to be removed from Washington. Obama would find his road more productive without the likes of Pelosi and Reid and those like them.

Nevertheless, this does thicken the plot and makes things even more interesting and entertaining to watch.

We, the people are still waiting for substance and results!

Mike

 

[Murf76]

Obama said yesterday raising taxes is not the answer in a fragile economy, but across the board tax cuts are not the answer either... when business is not spending and citizens are not spending and the Fed is out bullets it leaves only one entity capable of injecting money into the economy to stimulate it...

I'd take you seriously if you were serious ...but you call for a business plan and then you dismiss our NEED to address energy and health care as an intergal part of a business plan. It gives you away as a Utopian...a right wing hack

Okay fuckhead. You want to call names? THAT's where you want to take the discussion.. let's just do that then, you commie pig-******* piece of shit. You stupid moonbat "hack".

There does that do it for you? 'Cause we can keep going. Just table the discussion and call each other names until we're bored. Isn't that how you leftwing assholes try to intimidate people who disagree with you?

The next 'Silicon Valleys' will reside in the progressive and forward thinking nations that seizes the opportunity...China already sees that opportunity, so it may already be to late.

China is utilizing MORE capitalism, not less. Progressivism is just the fascist face of socialism. California's damn near bankrupt because of it. Silicon Valley ain't what it used to be, with venture capital investments falling to the lowest since 2003:
Venture funding plunged in 2009 to lowest level in six years - SiliconValley.com

Health care costs TO American business put them at a distinct disadvantage against foreign competition ...

Health Care
Health care: an issue that cries out for leadership.

Health care in this country is in shambles. At a cost of almost $12,000 a year for the average family, the system is bankrupting families and it's bankrupting companies - specifically my old industry. Take General Motors. They're currently paying out $1,525 per vehicle for health care. Compare that to the $201 Toyota is paying and it sounds even more absurd. And what about those families and individuals who can't afford insurance at all? Junior breaks his arm and all of a sudden, a fall off a bike is an $8,000 trip to the ER.

Despite all of this, none of our politicians will touch the issue. Oh sure, they'll talk about it during campaign season, but once the votes are cast, it's the forgotten issue again. The last time anyone proposed real reform was in 1993, and that plan went nowhere. Fourteen years later, Hillary Clinton's failed plan is still used as an excuse to continue ignoring the problem. That's disgraceful.

I suggest you listen carefully to the '08 candidates' "plans" for health care. Let's see if any of them have the political courage to really tackle it this time around. I don't want band-aid ideas either. I want concrete solutions - and I want to hold these guys to their promises.

Lee Iacocca

Lee Iacocca - Health Care

Did you miss the employer mandates in Obamacare? How is making employers MORE responsible for expensive healthcare benefits going to mean less overhead for them? Nothing the Socialist Democrats in Congress have designed will actually bring down the costs of policies or the costs of treatment. In fact, their mandates on preventative care will RAISE the costs of policies.

The obvious solution is to interject competition, thereby bringing the costs of policies down, and to shift away from employer-based healthcare. Obamacare doesn't do that.

That'd be the REPUBLICAN plan.

 

[Rinata]

Obama Goes To GOP Lions' Den -- And Mauls The Lions

NOTE:
MSNBC's Luke Russert, who was on the scene in Baltimore, relayed that a Republican official and other GOP aides had confided to him that allowing the "cameras to roll like that," was a "mistake."

So effective was the president that Fox News cut away from the broadcast 20 minutes before it ended.

That figures.

 

[Bfgrn]

Obama said yesterday raising taxes is not the answer in a fragile economy, but across the board tax cuts are not the answer either... when business is not spending and citizens are not spending and the Fed is out bullets it leaves only one entity capable of injecting money into the economy to stimulate it...

I'd take you seriously if you were serious ...but you call for a business plan and then you dismiss our NEED to address energy and health care as an intergal part of a business plan. It gives you away as a Utopian...a right wing hack

Okay fuckhead. You want to call names? THAT's where you want to take the discussion.. let's just do that then, you commie pig-******* piece of shit. You stupid moonbat "hack".

There does that do it for you? 'Cause we can keep going. Just table the discussion and call each other names until we're bored. Isn't that how you leftwing assholes try to intimidate people who disagree with you?

The next 'Silicon Valleys' will reside in the progressive and forward thinking nations that seizes the opportunity...China already sees that opportunity, so it may already be to late.

China is utilizing MORE capitalism, not less. Progressivism is just the fascist face of socialism. California's damn near bankrupt because of it. Silicon Valley ain't what it used to be, with venture capital investments falling to the lowest since 2003:
Venture funding plunged in 2009 to lowest level in six years - SiliconValley.com

Health care costs TO American business put them at a distinct disadvantage against foreign competition ...

Health Care
Health care: an issue that cries out for leadership.

Health care in this country is in shambles. At a cost of almost $12,000 a year for the average family, the system is bankrupting families and it's bankrupting companies - specifically my old industry. Take General Motors. They're currently paying out $1,525 per vehicle for health care. Compare that to the $201 Toyota is paying and it sounds even more absurd. And what about those families and individuals who can't afford insurance at all? Junior breaks his arm and all of a sudden, a fall off a bike is an $8,000 trip to the ER.

Despite all of this, none of our politicians will touch the issue. Oh sure, they'll talk about it during campaign season, but once the votes are cast, it's the forgotten issue again. The last time anyone proposed real reform was in 1993, and that plan went nowhere. Fourteen years later, Hillary Clinton's failed plan is still used as an excuse to continue ignoring the problem. That's disgraceful.

I suggest you listen carefully to the '08 candidates' "plans" for health care. Let's see if any of them have the political courage to really tackle it this time around. I don't want band-aid ideas either. I want concrete solutions - and I want to hold these guys to their promises.

Lee Iacocca

Lee Iacocca - Health Care

Did you miss the employer mandates in Obamacare? How is making employers MORE responsible for expensive healthcare benefits going to mean less overhead for them? Nothing the Socialist Democrats in Congress have designed will actually bring down the costs of policies or the costs of treatment. In fact, their mandates on preventative care will RAISE the costs of policies.

The obvious solution is to interject competition, thereby bringing the costs of policies down, and to shift away from employer-based healthcare. Obamacare doesn't do that.

That'd be the REPUBLICAN plan.

Well in this debate I must admit you have a clear advantage...I call it the utopian right wing solution...there is never any cost in human capital in right wing solutions...everyone would agree with you scum bags if men women and children and the aged would evaporate.

You right wing pea brains need to send the kids off to the factories for pennies a day, work 7 days a week for peanuts, see you neighbor come home from work in a box, watch Grandma and Grandpa struggle from being forced to work until they die and forfeit all YOU'VE gained off the sweat and blood those hated 'progressives'

THEN, you would have to grow the spine to fight for those things yourself...

the REPUBLICAN plan...THAT would be the cartel run health care system we HAVE... otherwise Republicans would have addressed it in all those years they were in power after they sabotaged Clinton's plan. Oh I forgot...they DID pass the biggest unpaid entitlement plan that was a windfall for the cartels...Medicare D, you know, the one that screws Grandma and Grandpa.

The current "we have ideas' reactionary Republican 'plan' is a joke and a huge rip off... it costs 1/2 as much, but would only cover less than 1/10 as many people. Only a pea brain would not be able to do THAT math...

 

[JimH52]

THIS was the GOP's golden opportunity to unleash all of their "ideas" to Obama and the American public. What happened?

They did unleach their idea. Bash Obama!
That was shocking and innovative revelation...

EXCEPT, of course, you are lying. The GOP treated the President to a full measure of appropriate respect and with all due courtesy.

They politely asked him questions -- some not even about HIM, so much, as about the fact that their input had gotten squelched by the Shrieker of the House of Ill Repute. (And let' be honest -- a novel notion for you -- it's not as though the President didn't have the capacity to have reined in the dictatorial style of Pelousy and Reid if he had been of the mind to actually entertain contrary views and ideas, which he wasn't.)

The President did a better job than I first thought, to be candid. But the fact is, the GOP Congressfolk who addressed the questions to the President ALSO did a fair job of it.

The real problem is that the President was lying and, like it or not, eventually "the truth will out."

Of course everyone is lying except the "death squad" tea baggers, Rush Limbaugh, and all of the GOP elect. Rather than offer anything of substance in the debate, the chose to tear down whatever proposal that the WH had offered.

I do think though, that Reid and Pelosi need to be reigned in. I hope the President got the message. Americans want cooperation from our representative, not stonewalling or refusal to listen to other opinions.

 

[Rinata]

I feel like I must've saw a different event than what our resident libs witnessed. What I saw was a guy who was utterly condescending in his manner, arrogant, and evasive. By the last question, he was so visibly angry, the tip of his nose was turning red.

This guy thinks he's King. He treated our ELECTED representatives with the disrespect of one who believes he has authority when in actuality he has none. The legislative branch is not his to chastise, just as night before last, the judicial branch was not his to chastise.

Barack Obama has no history of real bipartisanship. Even during his short stint as a U.S. Senator the only bipartisan effort he made was on nuclear proliferation, not exactly a monumentally divisive subject.

His lip service to bipartisanship is just that... unless and until it's supported by REAL ACTION. And while I hate to be a wet blanket for people who are celebrating the fact that Obama didn't trip over his own tongue off-prompter as he usually does... he's no winner. The "Party of No Ideas" meme died today. The denial that Republicans have presented ideas won't fly anymore. It's been exposed for the lie it was.

Further, HE is not the one who gets to decide if those ideas have merit or not. That's for the legislative branch to DEBATE. His arrogance and impertinence at making pronouncements from upon high regarding what will work and is therefore worthy of debate and what will not is exposed.

Really??? I think that your mind was made up before you even saw it. And then when the prez was so well prepared and brilliant, it really pissed you off. Hence all of these comments attacking his character. Why can't you just admit that he held his own at this gathering?? That he was gracious and totally prepared??

I was wondering how George Bush would have done in the same situation!! OMG!! The late night comics would have had new material for the next year!!!

 

[JimH52]

Obama said yesterday raising taxes is not the answer in a fragile economy, but across the board tax cuts are not the answer either... when business is not spending and citizens are not spending and the Fed is out bullets it leaves only one entity capable of injecting money into the economy to stimulate it...

I'd take you seriously if you were serious ...but you call for a business plan and then you dismiss our NEED to address energy and health care as an intergal part of a business plan. It gives you away as a Utopian...a right wing hack

Okay fuckhead. You want to call names? THAT's where you want to take the discussion.. let's just do that then, you commie pig-******* piece of shit. You stupid moonbat "hack".

There does that do it for you? 'Cause we can keep going. Just table the discussion and call each other names until we're bored. Isn't that how you leftwing assholes try to intimidate people who disagree with you?




China is utilizing MORE capitalism, not less. Progressivism is just the fascist face of socialism. California's damn near bankrupt because of it. Silicon Valley ain't what it used to be, with venture capital investments falling to the lowest since 2003:
Venture funding plunged in 2009 to lowest level in six years - SiliconValley.com

Health care costs TO American business put them at a distinct disadvantage against foreign competition ...

Health Care
Health care: an issue that cries out for leadership.

Health care in this country is in shambles. At a cost of almost $12,000 a year for the average family, the system is bankrupting families and it's bankrupting companies - specifically my old industry. Take General Motors. They're currently paying out $1,525 per vehicle for health care. Compare that to the $201 Toyota is paying and it sounds even more absurd. And what about those families and individuals who can't afford insurance at all? Junior breaks his arm and all of a sudden, a fall off a bike is an $8,000 trip to the ER.

Despite all of this, none of our politicians will touch the issue. Oh sure, they'll talk about it during campaign season, but once the votes are cast, it's the forgotten issue again. The last time anyone proposed real reform was in 1993, and that plan went nowhere. Fourteen years later, Hillary Clinton's failed plan is still used as an excuse to continue ignoring the problem. That's disgraceful.

I suggest you listen carefully to the '08 candidates' "plans" for health care. Let's see if any of them have the political courage to really tackle it this time around. I don't want band-aid ideas either. I want concrete solutions - and I want to hold these guys to their promises.

Lee Iacocca

Lee Iacocca - Health Care

Did you miss the employer mandates in Obamacare? How is making employers MORE responsible for expensive healthcare benefits going to mean less overhead for them? Nothing the Socialist Democrats in Congress have designed will actually bring down the costs of policies or the costs of treatment. In fact, their mandates on preventative care will RAISE the costs of policies.

The obvious solution is to interject competition, thereby bringing the costs of policies down, and to shift away from employer-based healthcare. Obamacare doesn't do that.

That'd be the REPUBLICAN plan.

Well in this debate I must admit you have a clear advantage...I call it the utopian right wing solution...there is never any cost in human capital in right wing solutions...everyone would agree with you scum bags if men women and children and the aged would evaporate.

You right wing pea brains need to send the kids off to the factories for pennies a day, work 7 days a week for peanuts, see you neighbor come home from work in a box, watch Grandma and Grandpa struggle from being forced to work until they die and forfeit all YOU'VE gained off the sweat and blood those hated 'progressives'

THEN, you would have to grow the spine to fight for those things yourself...

the REPUBLICAN plan...THAT would be the cartel run health care system we HAVE... otherwise Republicans would have addressed it in all those years they were in power after they sabotaged Clinton's plan. Oh I forgot...they DID pass the biggest unpaid entitlement plan that was a windfall for the cartels...Medicare D, you know, the one that screws Grandma and Grandpa.

The current "we have ideas' reactionary Republican 'plan' is a joke and a huge rip off... it costs 1/2 as much, but would only cover less than 1/10 as many people. Only a pea brain would not be able to do THAT math...

If the GOP had its way, there would be no Social Security, no Meidcare, no Medicaid, and no minimum wage. And oh yeah, judging from the famous Ronald Reagon quote, no desegregation. The party of "No" would be happy to wind the clock back to the Industrial Age...