RufRTs Obama Windup

Status
Not open for further replies.
Red Dreams said:
a not surprisingly simpleton view from a repug. The stock went up because more people will be insured. a war is won with many battles. And no battle is won without casualties.

This is a lot better than what we have now, which all those God loving lip service Kristians really want to maintain.

The freeloading inbreds, the core of your party will love this like they do social security and medicare, though due to a combination of their natural stupidity and lack of education or I should say inability to be educated, they now drink the FOX kool-aid.
Click to expand...

don't be so angry, its Kristmas
 
Raoul said:
Same to you Ruf. Health Care reform gets passed tomorrow. 100 years gridlock comes to an end thanks to Barrack Obama. Merry Christmas :)
Click to expand...


Health care reform ? :wenger::lol::lol::lol: If you truly believe this watered down Insurance Company bill is comprehensive health care reform, you're a bigger fanboy than I thought :wenger:

and its Barack....get your Messiah's name right
 
Red Dreams said:
Kristmas is what the the GOP retards celebrate.

I'm Roman Catholic. I celebrate Christmas ;)

But Merry Christmas just the same to you and yours. :)

Sheldon Whitehouse hit the nail on its head btw.
Click to expand...


go back to your original post, compare to mine and you might just yet understand the sarcasm of "Kristmas" :rolleyes:

Besides, you'll never get a Happy Holidays or Seasons Greetings from me....its Christmas.

Respect for religions should cross all lines (I'm not christian or a calflick either)
 
RufRT said:
Health care reform ? :wenger::lol::lol::lol: If you truly believe this watered down Insurance Company bill is comprehensive health care reform, you're a bigger fanboy than I thought :wenger:

and its Barack....get your Messiah's name right
Click to expand...

No but it is probably the most significant piece of legislation regarding healthcare since Lyndon Johnson was in the White House.
 
Nice to see the United States Senate has some sense, it is also nice to see that they are working right up to the wire before Christmas and not taking extra long breaks like they are in Westminster.
 
RufRT said:
go back to your original post, compare to mine and you might just yet understand the sarcasm of "Kristmas" :rolleyes:

Besides, you'll never get a Happy Holidays or Seasons Greetings from me....its Christmas.

Respect for religions should cross all lines (I'm not christian or a calflick either)
Click to expand...

the point I was making is we need to kick 'God' out politics, which your party waves in our faces but yet does the opposite of what Christ preached.

I do respect people of all faith..or no faith. If we respect humanity, we should give more than lip service like your party does. Which is why I will accept Happy Holidays from someone who does not practice the faith.

btw I may be Catholic, but I certainly do not condone priests and bishops sticking their nose into politics, with the abortion issue, especially when they can conveniently cover up child abuse.
 
Frosty said:
I'm growing to like RufRT, although I am still confused as to what his name means.
Click to expand...

I believe it's a reference to a sort of aftermarket Porsche upgrader company. Like AMG does Mercedes so too does Ruf do Porsches.
 
Raoul said:
Same to you Ruf. Health Care reform gets passed tomorrow. 100 years gridlock comes to an end thanks to Barrack Obama. Merry Christmas :)
Click to expand...

Hate to tell you but you can actually thank Bush. Had he not been so unpopular the dems would never have had 60 in the senate. Obama didn't really do much here. This was driven by congress.

Plus it has to get through the house now, again. It will get tweeked again and again and again. There are still dems pissed about no public option, there's still some budget concerns, abortion and there's now starting to be stories that some states had to be let out of certain aspects of the bill in order to pass it. We'll still be hearing about this at the end of January.
 
Dr. Dwayne said:
I believe it's a reference to a sort of aftermarket Porsche upgrader company. Like AMG does Mercedes so too does Ruf do Porsches.
Click to expand...


close, but not entirely correct. Ruf is a manufacturer in its own right. They produce vehicles with their own VIN #. Alois Ruf has a close relationship with porsche and receives porsche body shells to manufacture his own vehicles.
 
Red Dreams said:
btw did you not say HCR will not pass ? :smirk:

go on...move the goalpost :lol: :lol:
Click to expand...

The way it was flogged during the election, it most certainly did not. Considering what was being proposed, I'll take this outcome and while I'm not happy with the ridiculous cost and skewed burden on those who employ people, it could have been much much worse.

If you wish to feel otherwise, go ahead...its Christmas and you deserve a present...
 
RufRT said:
The way it was flogged during the election, it most certainly did not. Considering what was being proposed, I'll take this outcome and while I'm not happy with the ridiculous cost and skewed burden on those who employ people, it could have been much much worse.

If you wish to feel otherwise, go ahead...its Christmas and you deserve a present...
Click to expand...

a legislation always has compromises.

no one gets everything they want.

and CBO has scored this as actually reducing the defecit in time. so please get off the GOp nonsense.

We all deserve a present...especially those without insurance or in danger of dying or going bankrupt because of the raping Health Insurance companies.
 
One small benefit of the senate legislation just passed....the 10% tax on tanning sessions should discourage Raoul and prevent a cauliflower from erupting on his forehead....I'm relieved and thankful for that :cool:
 
Red Dreams said:
a legislation always has compromises.

no one gets everything they want.

and CBO has scored this as actually reducing the defecit in time. so please get off the GOp nonsense.

We all deserve a present...especially those without insurance or in danger of dying or going bankrupt because of the raping Health Insurance companies.
Click to expand...


30 million more people having insurance subsidized and paid for...do you honestly think Insurance companies are pissed ? :lol:

Did you take note of the double counting in the latest CBO revelations ? No of course not, you only hear the propaganda parroted from the left.
 
RufRT said:
30 million more people having insurance subsidized and paid for...do you honestly think Insurance companies are pissed ? :lol:

Did you take note of the double counting in the latest CBO revelations ? No of course not, you only hear the propaganda parroted from the left.
Click to expand...

Wait wait....was this about getting the uninsured insurance, or pissing off the insurance companies?

Just because you and the right have vendettas' and make decisions out of spite and hate doesn't mean the rest of the world works that way. If the uninsured get insurance then that's great and a step in the right direction. End of.
 
Twisted_Woody said:
Wait wait....was this about getting the uninsured insurance, or pissing off the insurance companies?

Just because you and the right have vendettas' and make decisions out of spite and hate doesn't mean the rest of the world works that way. If the uninsured get insurance then that's great and a step in the right direction. End of.
Click to expand...


please, the solution was the public option and that failed in the face of a center right backlash..

As long as the government is out of direct healthcare delivery, I can live with the solution despite my deep reservations and conviction that the cost will be unsustainable in the long run.

back to you, spin away
 
RufRT said:
please, the solution was the public option and that failed in the face of a center right backlash..

As long as the government is out of direct healthcare delivery, I can live with the solution despite my deep reservations and conviction that the cost will be unsustainable in the long run.

back to you, spin away
Click to expand...

If there was a public option to compete with private insurers then although the government would be competing, in theory, they'd lose to private insurers (since, as you constantly remind us, they are great and perfect), which leaves you with nothing to worry about even IF a public option was included in the bill.
 
RufRT said:
oh no ! a dissenting voice from the usual left wing tripe ! say it ain't so !

sheep
Click to expand...

baaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh

It had nothing to do with the dissenting voice blah blah blah - if you followed the convo with frosty you'd see it was just about having a laugh. Simmer down now.

You call anyone who disagrees with you a sheep. If they agreed with you then are they not still sheep (simply agreeing with another opinion)? I guess it's ok if the 'sheep' agree with you. How about you get off your pedestal.
 
Twisted_Woody said:
baaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh

It had nothing to do with the dissenting voice blah blah blah - if you followed the convo with frosty you'd see it was just about having a laugh. Simmer down now.

You call anyone who disagrees with you a sheep. If they agreed with you then are they not still sheep (simply agreeing with another opinion)? I guess it's ok if the 'sheep' agree with you. How about you get off your pedestal.
Click to expand...


I have my opinion, I don't give a toss who agrees with it...disagreement is even less concerning (it speaks volumes of the person).

My primary motive is education of the "swooned"
 
RufRT said:
I have my opinion, I don't give a toss who agrees with it...disagreement is even less concerning (it speaks volumes of the person).

My primary motive is education of the "swooned"
Click to expand...

1. For someone who doesn't care who agrees or disagrees you seem awfully passionate about debating your view regardless of counter points presented to you.

2. So, you disagreeing with people on here speaks volumes about yourself then. Unless of course you are placing yourself above all others in that your opinion is more valued than those that disagree simply because it's you.

One of your arguments is that the left bashes all dissenting voices etc. By saying that those that disagree don't concern you, you are going the same route.

3. Education of the swooned. How about you say it like it is? You are trying to convince others of your opinion. That's fine, but goes against your first point which you state you don't care who agrees with you and who doesn't. The fact that you'll only listen to points that you agree with highlights the fact that you are more sheep like than the people you label sheep. You show no interest in finding middle ground on anything. You follow what the GOP tells you to follow.

Those that you don't agree with you label as left. Which in your world is evil. I'm no where near what I would consider 'left', I'm also no where near what I would consider 'right' either.

Anyway, whatever.
 
RufRT said:
I have my opinion, I don't give a toss who agrees with it...disagreement is even less concerning (it speaks volumes of the person).

My primary motive is education of the "swooned"
Click to expand...

Woody, this is a prime example of the type of laughable rhetoric I alluded to before.

But the real tragedy/absurdity might lie in the way it is actually NOT these people's fault that they've been indoctrinated to talk/think like this.
 
Red Dreams said:
just saw Judy Woodruf on PBS and another lady explaining whats in the bill. Looks like a lot of help is on the way for millions.

Nice job by the President, Senate and the Congress.
Click to expand...


I stopped reading at "PBS"
 
hungrywing said:
Woody, this is a prime example of the type of laughable rhetoric I alluded to before.

But the real tragedy/absurdity might lie in the way it is actually NOT these people's fault that they've been indoctrinated to talk/think like this.
Click to expand...


Lord Haw Haw has spoken...save your attempts at lofty statements for your easily impressed tesco colleagues.
 
By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer
"Republican senators attacking the cost of a Democratic health care bill showed far different concerns six years ago, when they approved a major Medicare expansion that has added tens of billions of dollars to federal deficits.
The inconsistency — or hypocrisy, as some call it — has irked Democrats, who claim that their plan will pay for itself with higher taxes and spending cuts and cite the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office for support.
By contrast, when Republicans controlled the House, Senate and White House in 2003, they overcame Democratic opposition to add a deficit-financed prescription drug benefit to Medicare. The program will cost a half-trillion dollars over 10 years, or more by some estimates.
With no new taxes or spending offsets accompanying the Medicare drug program, the cost has been added to the federal debt.
All current GOP senators, including the 24 who voted for the 2003 Medicare expansion, oppose the health care bill that's backed by President Barack Obama and most congressional Democrats. Some Republicans say they don't believe the CBO's projections that the health care overhaul will pay for itself. As for their newfound worries about big government health expansions, they essentially say: That was then, this is now.
Six years ago, "it was standard practice not to pay for things," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "We were concerned about it, because it certainly added to the deficit, no question." His 2003 vote has been vindicated, Hatch said, because the prescription drug benefit "has done a lot of good."
Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, said those who see hypocrisy "can legitimately raise that issue." But he defended his positions in 2003 and now, saying the economy is in worse shape and Americans are more anxious.
Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, said simply: "Dredging up history is not the way to move forward." She noted that she fought unsuccessfully to offset some of President George W. Bush's deep tax cuts at the time.
But for now, she said, "it's a question of what's in this package," which the Senate passed Thursday in a party-line vote. The Senate bill still must be reconciled with a House version.
The political situation is different now, Snowe said, because "we're in a tough climate and people are angry and frustrated."
Some conservatives have no patience for such explanations.
"As far as I am concerned, any Republican who voted for the Medicare drug benefit has no right to criticize anything the Democrats have done in terms of adding to the national debt," said Bruce Bartlett, an official in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. He made his comments in a Forbes article titled "Republican Deficit Hypocrisy."
Bartlett said the 2003 Medicare expansion was "a pure giveaway" that cost more than this year's Senate or House health bills will cost. More important, he said, "the drug benefit had no dedicated financing, no offsets and no revenue-raisers. One hundred percent of the cost simply added to the federal budget deficit."
The pending health care bills in Congress, he noted, are projected to add nothing to the deficit over 10 years.
Other lawmakers who voted for the 2003 Medicare expansion include the Senate's top three Republican leaders, all sharp critics of the Obama-backed health care plans: Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Jon Kyl of Arizona and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee. Eleven Democratic senators voted with them back then.
The 2003 vote in the House was even more divisive. It resulted in a nearly three-hour roll call in which GOP leaders put extraordinary pressure on colleagues to back the prescription drug addition to Medicare. In the end, 204 Republicans and 16 Democrats voted for the bill.
Democrats certainly have indulged in deficit spending over the years. They say they have been more responsible over the last two decades, however. Bill Clinton's administration was largely constrained by a pay-as-you-go law, requiring most tax cuts or program expansions to be offset elsewhere with tax increases and/or spending cuts.
Clinton ended his presidency with a budget surplus. But it soon was wiped out by a sagging economy, the Iraq war, GOP tax cuts and the lapsing of the pay-as-you-go restrictions.
Obama and many Democrats in Congress have vowed to restore those restrictions. But they waived them this year for programs, including heavy stimulus spending meant to pull the economy from the severe recession of 2008-09.
The 2010 deficit is expected to reach $1.5 trillion, and the accumulated federal debt now exceeds $12 trillion. When the Republican-led Congress passed the Medicare expansion in 2003, the deficit was $374 billion, and was projected to hit $525 billion the following year, in part because of the new prescription drug benefit for seniors.
Some GOP lawmakers cite these numbers in arguing that their current worries about heavy government spending are legitimate, even if they voted for the deficit-financed Medicare bill in 2003.
But Judy Feder, an analyst with the Democratic-leaning Center for American Progress, said these Republicans had their chance and blew it. In the second Bush administration, she said, "there was a total elimination of any kind of pay-for responsibility."
Those responsible should now show some humility, she said."
Click to expand...

Democrats see GOP hypocrisy in health care debate - Yahoo! News
 
Red Dreams said:
bet you don't stop reading at FOX News....
Click to expand...

PBS is actually the best source for unfiltered news because their format doesn't force them to senseationlize the news - it actually allows them sufficient time to properly expound on the topics they're covering. They're basically the extreme opposite of Fox and MSNBC, who are basically openly propagandist towards their audiences.
 
Raoul said:
PBS is actually the best source for unfiltered news because their format doesn't force them to senseationlize the news - it actually allows them sufficient time to properly expound on the topics they're covering. They're basically the extreme opposite of Fox and MSNBC, who are basically openly propagandist towards their audiences.
Click to expand...

absolutely correct.

Every time I have watched PBS, there is complete honesty in the discussions and you don't get spin.
 
I'm not up to date on the specifics on this issue, but no matter what the general principle is pretty clear. The tax payer should get treatment if he needs it. An enourmous upgrade to the working class of the US no matter how the treatment is funded. If this is a lasting solution, Obama doesn't need to do much else to be remembered. It's a massive resolution :eek:

Considering what he has to deal with, I'm quietly expectant about what he can do, he sure can talk the talk. It's how he deals with the differing parties in Congress which will decide his aftermath. And being a Noggie, yeah the Nobel Peace Prize was way early. His reception speech was impressing though, I almost thought the prize was appropriate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.