Archive

How long can you blame the former administration?

  • stlouiedipalma
    HitsRus;1270338 wrote::laugh:... now that's funny coming from a democrat.

    As far as Mitt and/or Republicans liking some aspects of the AHCA...of course they like SOME aspects. If you recall, the 'Pubs/McCain had their own proposals for healthcare in 2008. Democrats act as if they alone care about healthcare affordablity, minorities, women's rights. Nothing is further from the truth...the difference often is in method and funding. Is it just hubris or downright duplicity that they(Dems) have fabricated these supposed 'wars' on women and minorities?

    as far as AHCA...why would anyone in their right mind support something that was negligently passed before anyone even read it?.... that required (in dogg's words) a 'gimmick' to pass it?

    I don't doubt that there are some Republicans who care about these things, but can you please tell me why Richard Nixon was the last Republican President to actually propose anything regarding health care reform?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/opinion/31krugman.html

    This article is a few years old, but it underscores the different political climate in D.C. these days.

    Romney talks about "repeal and replace", but I fear the only thing he's really concerned about is the "repeal" part. After that, well, I guess we're on our own again.
  • HitsRus
    but can you please tell me why Richard Nixon was the last Republican President to actually propose anything regarding health care reform?

    ????.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/25/AR2007012501953.html

    George Bush expanded medicare...and proposed his own plan which was not well received by 'obstructionist' democrats...probably because it didn't expand the federal governments role and control enough.
  • stlouiedipalma
    George Bush screwed millions of seniors with the "donut hole" and, in true Bush fashion, put it on the credit card just like his phoney war in Iraq. Wow, you Republicans sure looked the other way on those pieces of fiscal restraint, didn't you?
  • HitsRus
    I was not in favor of GWB acting like a Democrat, and neither were a lot of conservatives. I was responding to your false allegation that Richard Nixon was the last Republican president to propose something related to healthcare reform.
  • stlouiedipalma
    Nothing false there. He's the last one to offer significant reforms. Bush's Medicare Part B was nothing more than a free pass for the insurance companies. The problem is that Republicans like to talk about health care reform, but when they are in office they have a selective memory and ignore it. Trust me, if Romney is elected (long shot right now) and he is able to repeal Obamacare, it will take another Democrat to do something about it. Republicans simply do not care. What was that Representative from Florida, Grayson? He said that the Republican's take on health care was to die quickly.
  • QuakerOats
    stlouiedipalma;1271284 wrote:George Bush screwed millions of seniors with the "donut hole" and, in true Bush fashion, put it on the credit card just like his phoney war in Iraq. Wow, you Republicans sure looked the other way on those pieces of fiscal restraint, didn't you?
    The donut hole ..... hilarious, God forbid somebody might have to pay a few bucks for a prescription, when everything else is free. The Left wouldn't be satisfied if the entire holdings of the producers were confiscated and given to the takers.
  • HitsRus
    Nothing false there. He's the last one to offer significant reforms. Bush's Medicare Part B was nothing more than a free pass for the insurance companies. The problem is that Republicans like to talk about health care reform, but when they are in office they have a selective memory and ignore it
    No, everything is false in that allegation, you didn't read my link, or you are in denial.
  • stlouiedipalma
    But Medicare Part B was sold to the public as a great solution to higher prescription costs. Unfortunately, the only people who benefitted were the insurance company executives. Another example of the shell game the Republicans have been playing for decades.
  • stlouiedipalma
    HitsRus;1271307 wrote:No, everything is false in that allegation, you didn't read my link, or you are in denial.
    It's only false if you buy into the false notion that Bush was offering real reform.
  • HitsRus
    ^^^Ohhhh puleeze. Bush was offering a method for the 40 million without healthcare to be able to afford it, without creating the mess we have today.

  • stlouiedipalma
    Ohhhh please, spare me the lies. If Part B was such a godsend why were so many without health care before Obamacare? Maybe Bush had someone else in mind to reap the benefits?
  • HitsRus
    Did you read the link?...no, because all you talked about is medicare. Bush proposed a plan in Jan 2007 in his State of the Union. Was it acceptable to Democrats? NO. Why offer incentives, and reform on what's driving up costs when you can issue mandates and control all the money?....you just don't want to accept that Republicans care about health care, just like you think you(Dems) have a monopoly on women's issues and minority representation.

    What part of Thomas Sowell don't you understand?
  • QuakerOats
    As always, government involvement and intrusion is the heart of the problem.

    So let's do more government.
  • believer
    QuakerOats;1271383 wrote:As always, government involvement and intrusion is the heart of the problem.

    So let's do more government.
    Yeah let's...after all, the benevolent Feds know how to do things right. :thumbup:
  • stlouiedipalma
    HitsRus;1271382 wrote:Did you read the link?...no, because all you talked about is medicare. Bush proposed a plan in Jan 2007 in his State of the Union. Was it acceptable to Democrats? NO. Why offer incentives, and reform on what's driving up costs when you can issue mandates and control all the money?....you just don't want to accept that Republicans care about health care, just like you think you(Dems) have a monopoly on women's issues and minority representation.

    What part of Thomas Sowell don't you understand?
    You've hit the jackpot. The problem is this: THE REPUBLICANS DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT HEALTH CARE! If they truly did, they would have done something substantial about it. Their idea of health care reform is creating more profits for the insurance and pharmaceutical companies. After all, even Mitch McConnell says "We have the best health care system in the world. Why should we want to change it?".
  • gut
    Dems just use gumbit sugar to buy votes. How else do you explain why ANYONE wants to vote for Obama?
  • Abe Vigoda
    Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch is reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.


    The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office. Accordingly, the first budget that can be blamed on our current president began in 2010 with the budgets running through and including including fiscal year 2013 standing as charges on the Obama account, even if a President Willard M. Romney takes over the office on January 20[SUP], [/SUP]2013.
    No doubt, many will wish to give the credit to the efforts of the GOP controlled House of Representatives. That’s fine if that’s what works for you.

    However, you don’t get to have it both ways. Credit whom you will, but if you are truly interested in a fair analysis of the Obama years to date—at least when it comes to spending—you’re going to have to acknowledge that under the Obama watch, even President Reagan would have to give our current president a thumbs up when it comes to his record for stretching a dollar.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/
  • gut
    Obama "slowest spending growth" LMFAO. Are people really this ignorant? Completely manipulated/engineered calculation.

    A simple and clear number is this: 60% increase - 6 trillion - in the national debt in only 4 years.
  • Footwedge
    gut;1272602 wrote:Obama "slowest spending growth" LMFAO. Are people really this ignorant? Completely manipulated/engineered calculation.

    A simple and clear number is this: 60% increase - 6 trillion - in the national debt in only 4 years.
    Obama had nothing to do with the 2009 budget. I wrote about this a year ago here...and you still don't get it. SMH.
  • gut
    Footwedge;1272612 wrote:Obama had nothing to do with the 2009 budget. I wrote about this a year ago here...and you still don't get it. SMH.
    Once again you're idiotically fixated on an irrelevant point. I said absolutely nothing about who was responsible for the 2009 budget. And I've explained about one-timers skewing that but the spending still going up or staying the same, but you just never learn.

    Try reading what I wrote a few more times until you understand the point being made. This will help you not to look so foolish in post after post.

    SIX TRILLION. Nothing more really needs to be said about it. You can't spin SIX TRILLION.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    fish82;1267068 wrote:I don't recall the last administration that had their agenda so repudiated by the voters that it led to a 64 seat swing in the House, if that's what you're asking.
    2006.
  • fish82

    Rex Nutting is a tool, and this article was thoroughly debunked within 48 hours of its publication back in May.
  • stlouiedipalma
    gut;1272602 wrote:Obama "slowest spending growth" LMFAO. Are people really this ignorant? Completely manipulated/engineered calculation.

    A simple and clear number is this: 60% increase - 6 trillion - in the national debt in only 4 years.
    fish82;1273265 wrote:Rex Nutting is a tool, and this article was thoroughly debunked within 48 hours of its publication back in May.
    And this is just an example of why no one takes you folks seriously. It doesn't matter whether it is this, global warming or evolution. You believe what you want to believe, facts be damned. The age-old Republican adage of telling a big lie long enough that people accept it as true.
  • Abe Vigoda
    stlouiedipalma;1273444 wrote:And this is just an example of why no one takes you folks seriously. It doesn't matter whether it is this, global warming or evolution. You believe what you want to believe, facts be damned. The age-old Republican adage of telling a big lie long enough that people accept it as true.
    Herr Fish likes to march to the party line so no surprise here.
  • stlouiedipalma
    Nah, Fish is a good guy. He has the best sense of sarcasm and irony of anyone on this site. I will try hard to burst his bubble, but I always enjoy going a couple rounds with him.