Secrets of Obama the messiah.


ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#1
Did you know that Obama's budget includes new taxes and fees on the oil and natural gas industry? Because right now seems like a really great time to place more of a burden on our domestic markets. Meanwhile, Obama is going to increase funding for the Interior Department by $50 million in order to "assess alternative energy resources and bolster clean energy development."

Barack Obama .. he's a do whatever you have to do to win kinda guy. Don't you just love that about him? So ... how does Obama plan to ram through his healthcare and energy schemes? After all, he doesn't have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Surely there's something he can do. As a matter of fact, there is! He will use a procedural tactic that would only require 50 votes in order to pass the Senate. Here's the deal. You include your health "reforms" in a budget reconciliation bill. These bills require only 50 votes to pass and no filibuster is permitted. Peter Orszag is the director of the Office of Management and Budget. Now he says that he would prefer that this budget reconciliation process not be used, but, after all, health care is crucial ... and when you dealing with something so very important like this you may just have to use some awkward tactics. After all ... as Orszag says, healthcare is "the key to our fiscal future." More like the key to increased government dependency.
Health care isn't the only thing Obama will get through using this tactic. Obama has a grand new taxation plan out there called "carbon cap and trade." Look for this to become law by the same means.
Do you doubt that our wonderful, amazing, greatest president in the history of this country would try some devious tactics to enact his socialist agenda? Permit me to remind you how he won his very first election to public office. He didn't win at the ballot box ... he won by sending his cohorts to the courthouses to work on disqualifying all of his opponents. If you can't beat them, have them removed from the ballot. Whatever works is good enough for Obama ... including nationalizing our healthcare through budgetary trickery.
Maybe this rhetoric from Orszag has something to do with it. He says, "I just reject the theory that the only thing that drives economic performance is the marginal tax rate on wealthy Americans and the only way of being pro-market is to funnel billions and billions of dollars of subsidies to corporations."
Simply put ... what a jerk. Orszag seems to be every bit the anti-capitalist his boss is. Stand by for health care rationing my friends. For those of you who don't believe it could ever happen ... I would really like to be there when some half-assed government bureaucrat tells you that you just don't qualify for some medical procedure because there are others younger and more worthy than you who have longer to live and more to accomplish.
 
Zzarchov
#2
Yes, come to a Canadian forum to bitch about the Evil of socialized health care.

Look, your HMO system Nixon whipped up in the 60's had a nice run, but America can't afford it anymore. Its too damn expensive because. Socialized medicine is cheaper because it eliminates the free rider program.

Health care saves money to businesses, sick days cost productivity. The problem is that "Free Riders" get the benefits without paying, increasing the burden on those who do..who are then encouraged to be free riders, causing it to be too expensive..

And everyone loses money.

When times were good you could afford your little moral experiments, in tough economic times you can't afford the lost productivity of the sick. Poor people work too, often as the crucial gears in the corporate machines.
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#3
Socialized medicine maybe cheaper, but do I want cheap healthcare or quality healthcare, you cannot have both. That is why so many Canadians needing specialized care come to the U.S. for it. Remember, it is your life you are playing around with. Poor people can get health care, just have to show up at a hospital outpatient clinic, they are covered.

 
Zzarchov
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsides View Post

Socialized medicine maybe cheaper, but do I want cheap healthcare or quality healthcare, you cannot have both. That is why so many Canadians needing specialized care come to the U.S. for it. Remember, it is your life you are playing around with. Poor people can get health care, just have to show up at a hospital outpatient clinic, they are covered.


We'd travel to the US if we had pay medicine too. And we used to. Thats nothing to do with socialized medicine, that has to do with we are 1/10th your size.

That is why despite having many such specialists that others in the world fly to, for some conditions American's need to fly to the UK or Israel, even though both are socialized.

And note, when I say expensive, I don't mean to the average American (though it is there too)

I mean to the American economy, it simply cannot hanlde so many sick people. And no matter how cheap you make it in a private pay model, its always cheaper to be the free rider. Thats the exact same reason why firefighters went socialized. Why pay for firefighters? If your house burns down your neighbour will pay for firefighters to keep it from spreading.

Its pretty clear you don't understand how "Socialized medicine" works if you think it somehow impacts quality. It doesn't change the amount of services, or the quality offered. It only changes the payment option.

Its a group health plan, that its. Most Americans on health care are already on a group health plan, the net change is 0, except the group is bigger.
 
Said1
Free Thinker
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsides View Post

Socialized medicine maybe cheaper, but do I want cheap healthcare or quality healthcare, you cannot have both. That is why so many Canadians needing specialized care come to the U.S. for it. Remember, it is your life you are playing around with. Poor people can get health care, just have to show up at a hospital outpatient clinic, they are covered.



I have to go to the doctor later, today. I hope he doesn't cut my toe off by accident and if he does, I hope it isn't done on the cheap. If there were only more real doctors in Canada, instead of cheap knock offs, this wouldn't be an issue.

And what sucks even more, is that on average, we live longer and are healthier than Americans. If we had better access to specialized health care, this would NOT be the case. Damn, I hate Canada and our preventative medicine. Just who do we think we ARE??????????????
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#6
"Its a group health plan, that its. Most Americans on health care are already on a group health plan, the net change is 0, except the group is bigger."

My main concern is that not enough doctors would participate and the quality of those that do would be in question. Right now even though some doctors are good the quality of Veterans Administration and other public healthcare doctors has are in question. About 15-20 years ago, the goverment tried to incorporate public healthcare into the VA system. The Veterans jumped all over the public officials involved and the idea was dropped. Today it seems Obama has found another way to get it passed again. Same old idea, just a new President. I understand only to well what he is trying to do.
 
Zzarchov
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsides View Post

"Its a group health plan, that its. Most Americans on health care are already on a group health plan, the net change is 0, except the group is bigger."

My main concern is that not enough doctors would participate and the quality of those that do would be in question. Right now even though some doctors are good the quality of Veterans Administration and other public healthcare doctors has are in question. About 15-20 years ago, the goverment tried to incorporate public healthcare into the VA system. The Veterans jumped all over the public officials involved and the idea was dropped. Today it seems Obama has found another way to get it passed again. Same old idea, just a new President. I understand only to well what he is trying to do.

Doctors have to participate. And why wouldn't they? They either get paid or they don't. And its not like they can just leave to practice elsewhere.

Every first world nation (other than the USA) has "Socialized medicine". If the USA has public health too, what, you think they are going to get more money in Uganda?
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#8
Every doctor for that matter person in the U.S. has the right to work for someone or have a private practice and by doing so can accept or decline payment from any medical plan. Patients will just have to pay the doctor directly if they want to use that particular doctor. The goverment has yet to control the medical field that closely. It might just happen, but no mention of it yet.
 
Zzarchov
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsides View Post

Every doctor for that matter person in the U.S. has the right to work for someone or have a private practice and by doing so can accept or decline payment from any medical plan. Patients will just have to pay the doctor directly if they want to use that particular doctor. The goverment has yet to control the medical field that closely. It might just happen, but no mention of it yet.

The idea someone who gets government privelages shouldn't have equal government responsibilities to the horrible pain of accepting money from sick people is kind of absurd.

The USA already has socialized medicine, it limits who you can get medical treatment from. If it was Capitalist medicine I could get treated by my cab driver as long as I was willing to take the risk.

But you've got the government telling people who they can and cannot be treated by, artificially limiting the number of practioners (Even capable ones) and jacking up prices. If the people think they have a right to decide for other people who they can and can't be treated by, they can foot the bill.
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#10
For example: Everybody on Social Security has a choice of doctors. Whether that doctor accepts what SSI pays them is another matter. Some do and some do not. That is a ex. of what I was talking about. It is up to the doctor, some require the patient pay them directly and the patient collects from SSI. The Goverment does not limit who you can or cannot see, they will only pay so much and if your doctor does not accept it you pay the balance.
 
Tyr
Free Thinker
#11
Did you know that Obama's budget includes new taxes and fees on the oil and natural gas industry? Because right now seems like a really great time to place more of a burden on our domestic markets. Meanwhile, Obama is going to increase funding for the Interior Department by $50 million in order to "assess alternative energy resources and bolster clean energy development."

...and somehow you think that is a "bad thing?"

The USA has been shiiitin themselves over their dependence on foriegn energy sources and he's trying to alleviate that dependance

Please do explain, why that's "bad?"
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#12
Better question is why with the economy is in such bad shape why now, just bad timing. We do not need added expenses at this time. Raising the taxes on oil keeping in mind that your included will raise the cost of everything we consume especially food products.

Recover first then worry about oil. Your right about the dependence on foreign oil, but were not as low as their projecting. http://www.usgs.gov:80/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911

 
Said1
Free Thinker
#13
Given the economic predictions, without more spending on health care, how are people going to access care if they can't afford insurance? How are the already over burdened gov funded facilities going to cope with increased demands?
 
Zzarchov
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsides View Post

For example: Everybody on Social Security has a choice of doctors. Whether that doctor accepts what SSI pays them is another matter. Some do and some do not. That is a ex. of what I was talking about. It is up to the doctor, some require the patient pay them directly and the patient collects from SSI. The Goverment does not limit who you can or cannot see, they will only pay so much and if your doctor does not accept it you pay the balance.


The government most certainly does already limit who you can or cannot see.

Practicing medicine without a license is a crime. If they aren't footing the bill, where do they get off telling me I can't see who I want to see?
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
#15
'' Simply put ... what a jerk''


If you don't like Obama, vote him out of office. Alternately, you are free to leave the country as it is quite evident that he and his ideas are going to be around for a long time.


 
Walter
#16

Tuesday, March 3, 2009
BLANKLEY: Obama lied; the economy died


Tony Blankley


OP-ED:
I am trying to capture the spirit of bipartisanship as practiced by the Democratic Party over the last eight years.
Thus, I have chosen as my lead, the proposition: Obama lied; the economy died. Obviously, I am borrowing this from the Democratic Party theme of 2003-08: "Bush lied, people died." There are, of course, two differences between the two slogans.
Most importantly, I chose to separate the two clauses with a semicolon rather than a comma because the rule of grammar is that a semicolon rather than a comma) should be used between closely related independent clauses not conjoined with a coordinating conjunction. In the age of Barack Obama, there is little more important than maintaining the integrity of our language - against the onslaught of Orwellian language abuse that is already a babbling brook, and will soon be a cataract of verbal deception.
The other difference is that George W. Bush didn't lie about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He was merely mistaken. Whereas President Obama told a whopper last week when he claimed he was not for bigger government. As he said Tuesday night: "As soon as I took office, I asked this Congress to send me a recovery plan by President's Day that would put people back to work and put money in their pockets. Not because I believe in bigger government - I don't."
This he asserted though the budget he proposed the next day asks for federal spending as 28 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), higher by at least 6 percent than any time since World War II. Moreover, after 10 years, Mr. Obama's proposed spending as a percentage of GDP would still be 22.6 percent, nearly 2 percentage points higher than any year during the Bush administration, despite the full costs of the terrorist attacks of Sept, 11, 2001, the Iraq and Afghan wars and the rebuilding of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.
Consider also his assertion in his not-quite-State of the Union address that:
"My administration has also begun to go line by line through the federal budget in order to eliminate wasteful and ineffective programs. As you can imagine, this is a process that will take some time. But we're starting with the biggest lines. We have already identified $2 trillion in savings over the next decade."
But, lamentably, a few days later, The Washington Post reported: "A senior administration official acknowledged yesterday that the budget does not contain $2 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade. Instead, the figure represents Obama's total efforts at deficit reduction, including tax hikes [of more than $1 trillion] on families making over $250,000 a year. It also includes hundreds of billions of dollars 'saved' by not continuing to spend $170 billion a year in Iraq."
Only a big government man would think of calling a trillion-dollar tax increase a spending cut or "saving." Technically, of course, it is true. A trillion-dollar tax increase will reduce spending by a trillion dollars for those private citizens who were taxed. And, from the perspective of the federal government, a trillion dollars taxed is a trillion dollars saved from the greed of the taxpayers who produced the wealth - and might well want to spend or invest it in non governmental activities.
But the foregoing are merely pettifogging numbers compared to Mr. Obama's bigger ideas about energy and health care.
Our president shares a fascinating idea about energy with most of what used to be known as the "small is beautiful" crowd. It is a curious phenomenon that one needs a very big government to enforce the beauty of small.
As Mr. Obama's energy secretary, Steven Chu, said last year: The price of electricity in America is "anomalously low." You see how much smarter that Nobel prize winner is than you. You probably thought you were already spending enough on electricity and fuel.
And sure enough, Mr. Obama explained last week that in order to make alternative energy sources wind, solar - perhaps eventually human muscle power? - economically competitive, he intends to raise the price of carbon-based energy until it is so expensive that even solar power will be such-a-deal.
This level of destructive irrationality cannot be accomplished in the private sector. It will take a very big government indeed to bring such inanities into being. (disclosure: being rational, I give professional advice to carbon-based energy producers.)
If President Obama were to try to misrepresent his positions for the next four years, there would be nothing he could say that would approach the inaccuracy of his claim last week that he is not for big government. It is the essence of the man and his presidency. He doesn't like America the way it has been since its founding - and it will take an abusively big government to realize his dreams of converting America into something quite different. If you don't know that, you don't yet know Barack Obama.
Tony Blankley is the author of "American Grit: What It Will Take To Survive and Win in the 21st Century" and vice president of the Edelman public-relations firm in Washington
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#17
You have to love those democrat's: major unemployment happening and what do they do, try and raise the price of energy so we can live in a cleaner nicer world. Probably will be after thousands die from starvation, exposure to the elements etc. Obama does lie, the Democrat's have always been for big goverment. People are dumb, let big brother take care of them. Oh well, in 2-4 years things will swing around again unless they turn us into an old time dictaorship.
Last edited by ironsides; Mar 4th, 2009 at 05:24 PM..
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
#18
'' democrat's: major unemployment happening ''

LOL!! As of it was the Dems who started the recession.
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher View Post

'' democrat's: major unemployment happening ''

LOL!! As of it was the Dems who started the recession.



This recession was over 20 years in the making and greed from all sides fueled it. Obama is just kindling the fire with his rhetoric. Nothing he has said or done yet has given people the confidence to believe him..
 
GreatGuns2009
Republican
#20
The dude is a joke.
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
#21
'' This recession was over 20 years in the making''


HAHAHA!!!!!!!

Clinton created 24 million jobs and the biggest expansion of the middle class in history. On top of that he wiped out the Republican created deficit.

What - do you work for Rush Limbaugh or some other crazy far right lunatic???

 
Zzarchov
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsides View Post

This recession was over 20 years in the making and greed from all sides fueled it. Obama is just kindling the fire with his rhetoric. Nothing he has said or done yet has given people the confidence to believe him..

No, not 20 years in the making, there was a recession already in that time, the dot com bust.

This is a very modern problem. The facts are in, group shared costs are more efficient than each individual repeating the costs.

Sorry, reality has proven the flaws in the American system, thats why every other developed nation has moved past it.

As great as America was, it could have been greater if it stopped shooting itself in the foot and wasting money to avoid payign a quarter of the cost in tax.
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher View Post

'' This recession was over 20 years in the making''


HAHAHA!!!!!!!

Clinton created 24 million jobs and the biggest expansion of the middle class in history. On top of that he wiped out the Republican created deficit.

What - do you work for Rush Limbaugh or some other crazy far right lunatic???

Not so fast with the HAHAHA!!!!!!!
It was the creation of jobs that got this economic problem going. People had money banks started making it easy for anybody to buy a house. Whether you could afford it or not didn't matter. They used to have 100% financing. Anyone could buy a 2nd or 3rd home with little or no financing in hope of making 20%+ profit in 6 months to a year. That is what destroyed the housing market. I own a little home, paid 167K in 1999. Over the next 5 years the price went up to $650K. People actually paid that and now that the home values are back down where they should be, they own lees than what they are financing. Interest ARM rates began coming due, and people cannot affort their homes anymore. Clinton made it so easy to buy a home, as did every President up untill last year. I mean anyone could do it, have a job, don't have a job it didn't matter.
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by Zzarchov View Post

We'd travel to the US if we had pay medicine too. And we used to. Thats nothing to do with socialized medicine, that has to do with we are 1/10th your size.

That is why despite having many such specialists that others in the world fly to, for some conditions American's need to fly to the UK or Israel, even though both are socialized.

And note, when I say expensive, I don't mean to the average American (though it is there too)

I mean to the American economy, it simply cannot hanlde so many sick people. And no matter how cheap you make it in a private pay model, its always cheaper to be the free rider. Thats the exact same reason why firefighters went socialized. Why pay for firefighters? If your house burns down your neighbour will pay for firefighters to keep it from spreading.

Its pretty clear you don't understand how "Socialized medicine" works if you think it somehow impacts quality. It doesn't change the amount of services, or the quality offered. It only changes the payment option.

Its a group health plan, that its. Most Americans on health care are already on a group health plan, the net change is 0, except the group is bigger.

Preventive medicine which we do not get without insurance would save many lives as well as money. That is where socialized medicine stands out and would be better.
 
Zzarchov
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsides View Post

Preventive medicine which we do not get without insurance would save many lives as well as money. That is where socialized medicine stands out and would be better.

It saves alot of money, it generates even more. People hire employees because they need work done to earn wealth for themselves. If you are sick, you aren't earning money and you are costing the employers money.

When a factory opens, one of the things they look at in their potential workforce is how healthy the population is and how liable they are to lose work hours to illness.

The US loses on this count and countless factories have probably reloacted to places where they have a reliable workforce. They also aren't interested in paying for health insurance, only to have a competing factory open up next door once the area is healthier, not pay health insurance and act as a "free rider".

the USA really can't afford to throw away jobs anymore.
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#26
What some U.S. factories did was move to countries like Mexico that do not require health benefits, as I'm sure Canadian companies did, just to cut costs. Obama did say during the campaign that he would make it beneficial for those companies to bring their manufacturing jobs back who knows. We do have a reliable workforce sitting around with no work to do. All those auto workers will have to be retrained as will many others. We not in for easy times for a while.
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher View Post

'' Simply put ... what a jerk''


If you don't like Obama, vote him out of office. Alternately, you are free to leave the country as it is quite evident that he and his ideas are going to be around for a long time.


"Better in the Bahamas."
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
#28
'' Clinton made it so easy to buy a home''


Bush lost millions of jobs so that people went broke and could not meet their payment obligations-- thanks for validating my statement
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#29
Oh gopher dust.
 
Tyr
Free Thinker
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post


Tuesday, March 3, 2009
BLANKLEY: Obama lied; the economy died


Tony Blankley


OP-ED:
I am trying to capture the spirit of bipartisanship as practiced by the Democratic Party over the last eight years.
Thus, I have chosen as my lead, the proposition: Obama lied; the economy died. Obviously, I am borrowing this from the Democratic Party theme of 2003-08: "Bush lied, people died." There are, of course, two differences between the two slogans.
Most importantly, I chose to separate the two clauses with a semicolon rather than a comma because the rule of grammar is that a semicolon rather than a comma) should be used between closely related independent clauses not conjoined with a coordinating conjunction. In the age of Barack Obama, there is little more important than maintaining the integrity of our language - against the onslaught of Orwellian language abuse that is already a babbling brook, and will soon be a cataract of verbal deception.
The other difference is that George W. Bush didn't lie about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He was merely mistaken. Whereas President Obama told a whopper last week when he claimed he was not for bigger government. As he said Tuesday night: "As soon as I took office, I asked this Congress to send me a recovery plan by President's Day that would put people back to work and put money in their pockets. Not because I believe in bigger government - I don't."
This he asserted though the budget he proposed the next day asks for federal spending as 28 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), higher by at least 6 percent than any time since World War II. Moreover, after 10 years, Mr. Obama's proposed spending as a percentage of GDP would still be 22.6 percent, nearly 2 percentage points higher than any year during the Bush administration, despite the full costs of the terrorist attacks of Sept, 11, 2001, the Iraq and Afghan wars and the rebuilding of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.
Consider also his assertion in his not-quite-State of the Union address that:
"My administration has also begun to go line by line through the federal budget in order to eliminate wasteful and ineffective programs. As you can imagine, this is a process that will take some time. But we're starting with the biggest lines. We have already identified $2 trillion in savings over the next decade."
But, lamentably, a few days later, The Washington Post reported: "A senior administration official acknowledged yesterday that the budget does not contain $2 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade. Instead, the figure represents Obama's total efforts at deficit reduction, including tax hikes [of more than $1 trillion] on families making over $250,000 a year. It also includes hundreds of billions of dollars 'saved' by not continuing to spend $170 billion a year in Iraq."
Only a big government man would think of calling a trillion-dollar tax increase a spending cut or "saving." Technically, of course, it is true. A trillion-dollar tax increase will reduce spending by a trillion dollars for those private citizens who were taxed. And, from the perspective of the federal government, a trillion dollars taxed is a trillion dollars saved from the greed of the taxpayers who produced the wealth - and might well want to spend or invest it in non governmental activities.
But the foregoing are merely pettifogging numbers compared to Mr. Obama's bigger ideas about energy and health care.
Our president shares a fascinating idea about energy with most of what used to be known as the "small is beautiful" crowd. It is a curious phenomenon that one needs a very big government to enforce the beauty of small.
As Mr. Obama's energy secretary, Steven Chu, said last year: The price of electricity in America is "anomalously low." You see how much smarter that Nobel prize winner is than you. You probably thought you were already spending enough on electricity and fuel.
And sure enough, Mr. Obama explained last week that in order to make alternative energy sources wind, solar - perhaps eventually human muscle power? - economically competitive, he intends to raise the price of carbon-based energy until it is so expensive that even solar power will be such-a-deal.
This level of destructive irrationality cannot be accomplished in the private sector. It will take a very big government indeed to bring such inanities into being. (disclosure: being rational, I give professional advice to carbon-based energy producers.)
If President Obama were to try to misrepresent his positions for the next four years, there would be nothing he could say that would approach the inaccuracy of his claim last week that he is not for big government. It is the essence of the man and his presidency. He doesn't like America the way it has been since its founding - and it will take an abusively big government to realize his dreams of converting America into something quite different. If you don't know that, you don't yet know Barack Obama.
Tony Blankley is the author of "American Grit: What It Will Take To Survive and Win in the 21st Century" and vice president of the Edelman public-relations firm in Washington

Obama lied; the economy died

Interesting. So you think the economy was OK before Obama took office? Or was it 8 yrs of Republican economic mismangement and corruption that tanked the economy... I'd go with the latter
 

Similar Threads

75
Messiah
by herald | Nov 5th, 2008
16
The second coming of the Food Messiah
by Zzarchov | Sep 29th, 2008
22
Motorhead Messiah
by DurkaDurka | Oct 31st, 2007
0
The Secrets Men Keep
by u205 | Dec 18th, 2006